Will be interesting to see what happens with CPS Canada pricing...
Vistek lists the official 600II price at 12,599.99. Although every store has sold it at around 11,395 since its release. The CPS price on it is $10,700. So I would guess probably the exact same price for the 200-400.
p.5 #6 · Official: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X released!
skibum5 wrote:
It is a bit too long for sideline action in soccer and even more for sideline and endzone in football. For soccer they may be willing to go whatever since some shooters seem to shoot long prime and forget the close shots entirely (not sue I quite agree with that, but you can certainly do that reasonably fine enough). For football no way they wanna miss that endzone action right in front of them and no way, no way they go one body only with 200-400. NO WAY. Although I suppose they could try to body double up with 24-70 and 200-400 instead of 70-200 and 300 or 400 or 500 prime now so it could work well for football, but talk of it allowing for a one body solution for football is another matter....Show more →
I'm pretty sure there are a few more sports than soccer and football.
p.5 #8 · Official: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X released!
Agreed. I can't imagine anyone putting down $12k of their own funds for this lens that isn't independently wealthy. If this were f2.8, well, maybe. But it ain't.
p.5 #10 · Official: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X released!
chuckschilling wrote:
Agreed. I can't imagine anyone putting down $12k of their own funds for this lens that isn't independently wealthy. If this were f2.8, well, maybe. But it ain't.
If it was a 2.8, it wouldn't cost $12,000 and it would need to come with two Sherpas and a mule to carry it around.
p.5 #11 · Official: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X released!
Have to agree with the comparison to the 100-400L. I just cannot fathom how the extra stop of light of the 200-400 is worth 10 times the price of this lens. Sure, it's innovative and surely better optically, but the value proposition simply is not there.
p.5 #12 · Official: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X released!
deepbluejh wrote:
Have to agree with the comparison to the 100-400L. I just cannot fathom how the extra stop of light of the 200-400 is worth 10 times the price of this lens. Sure, it's innovative and surely better optically, but the value proposition simply is not there.
From a hobbyists point of view, that's likely very true. But remember, it's been positioned all along as a lens for professionals. For those individuals (and even hobbyists/gear heads with means), there are several differentiating factors between the two:
1. Newer 4-stop IS system
2. Faster, more responsive AF
3. Built-in TC
4. Top notch IQ
5. Better weather sealing and no push-pull
6. Much more complex engineering which obviously results in higher cost
If you're shooting for NatGeo, those things are likely well worth it. Don't forget that you can't compare the "old" design of the 100-400 with this one. Any potentially new iteration of the 100-400 is likely to reduce the price multiple from 10x to more like 4x.
That said, your point is still valid for most people today. It's just that the value proposition for pros isn't the same as hobbyists.
p.5 #13 · Official: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X released!
If you forget the price, the lens is a very interesting concept. I am a Nikon shooter, with the D4+200-400VR being among my favorite combos (next to the 80-400VR to travel light) and I find the 200-400IS+built in TC a wonderful combo, also taking the potentially amazing IQ into account (at least based on the graphs). I find disappointing that prices are getting a bit crazy nowadays. If I were a Canon shooter, I would definitely look at that lens, the flexibility of the zoom range is amazing for all kinds of applications.
p.5 #14 · Official: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X released!
chuckschilling wrote:
Agreed. I can't imagine anyone putting down $12k of their own funds for this lens that isn't independently wealthy. If this were f2.8, well, maybe. But it ain't.
Or write it off as a business expense.
I think a lot of you are just frustrated/bummed that the price is so high. But I don't know why you all are so shocked about it. You have a constant f/4 aperture lens that gives you that f stop value at 200, 201, 202, 203, 204...397, 398, 399, and 400mm. Plus the built in converter. Plus the ability to add your own extender. Plus it is weather sealed, has 3 different IS modes, and is apparently optically VERY good, right on par with the other super tele's.
The 500 II is $10,400, and that's "just" a prime lens. With the 200-400 you get a huge range of versatility as mentioned previously, prime-like IQ, with all the benefits that come with that big red ring on the barrel.
Plus, remember the original EF 500mm f/4 L IS ended up selling brand new for nowhere near what it was selling for at launch..
p.5 #15 · Official: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X released!
jasonsim wrote:
hmm....I was initially excited about this lens maybe 2 years ago. But since, I picked up a 300mm f/2.8L IS II, which gives me a light weight 300 / 420 / 600 mm lens. All at very sharp IQ wide open. All for under $7k.
Yeah and if you get the mk I that'll save you another $3.5K. 300 Mk II is another lens with la land pricing. It's 40% more than I paid for the 500 f/4L IS mk I.
p.5 #16 · Official: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X released!
Scott Stoness wrote:
I have the 500 v1 and 600 v2 and am likely to buy the 200-400 and sell the 500 v1.I am just waiting for someone/somewhere to test it objectively as opposed to qualitatively. Hopefully the digitalpicture.com.
Several times while shooting wolves in the last 6 months (which you have to be really lucky to have the opportunity for) the wolf has decided to come to close and pose which has caused a mad scramble from 600/1.4 on 7d to 70-200 on 5diii. The 100-400 is a great lens but f5.6 on just makes the exposure too long. And 2 years ago I blew it with some young wolves with 500mm - too tight or too close all in the same 5 minutes as they came in and out of the bush sometimes close sometimes far - with cars whizzing by and me juggling converters.
And juggling my 1.4x with a big lens is scary for bodies and lens.
This guy just ended up being too tight. And the 100-400 would not have been as nice for such a great shot....Show more →
Let's just hope that gorgeous Wolf doesn't have the misfortune to live in Montana or it's surrounding wack job states
p.5 #17 · Official: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X released!
If Canon ever produced a 400mm f/4L IS, it would weight close to 6.5 pounds 'with' a 1.4x extender.
So, the new 200-400 f/4L packing close to 8 pounds does not strike me as heavy for what it is, considering the 200-400 range and the built-in extender.
Will Canon upgrade the current super telephoto line with a similar built-in extender down the road?
Maybe they will perfect the "DO" technology and give us a 500 and 600mm f/4 DO IS with Internal 1.4x extenders!
p.5 #19 · Official: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X released!
Fred Miranda wrote:
If Canon ever produced a 400mm f/4L IS, it would weight close to 6.5 pounds 'with' a 1.4x extender.
So, the new 200-400 f/4L packing close to 8 pounds does not strike me as heavy for what it is, considering the 200-400 range and the built-in extender.
Will Canon upgrade the current super telephoto line with a similar built-in extender down the road?
Maybe they will perfect the "DO" technology and give us a 500 and 600mm f/4 DO IS with Internal 1.4x extenders!
Fred I think you are a bit pessimistic there on weight. Way back when Canon showed off the 400 DO, they claimed a 400 f/4L would weigh around 3kg. Firstly I do not believe that at all and was done to paint DO in best possible light. A 400 f/4 has smaller front element than 300 f/2.8 and IMO 400 f/4 should be very nearly same weight as 300 f/2.8 (longer body but smaller main element), secondly new manufacturing process would also save probably 300-400g over that hypothetical original version. I'd say even with built-in TC they could easily bring it in well under 3kg, probably similar to 300 f/2.8L IS mk I, but certainly no more than 6lb. Also they could release a DO II and even with TC it might tip the scales at just over 2kg and certainly still lighter than 300 f/2.8 mk II.
p.5 #20 · Official: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X released!
burningheart wrote:
If you find out let me know, I just sent a message to my contact
I might have some more info in a couple of days.
However, I'd advise restraint regarding this lens purchase.
* It's a brand new design, not following any older path of succession.
* It's a very complex design, optically as well as mechanically.
* It would appear that there has been a relatively recent (post Olympiad) redesign effort dedicated to trimming the lens weight. It may well be that the pre-production units weighed close to 4 kg.
* The lens introduction delays might have been caused by major design, parts supply or fabrication problems. Some of those problems (or their solutions) could still linger in the initial production run, latent or otherwise.
As a general rule, whenever their products experience unduely lengthy/expensive development, companies begin to exert increasing pressure on the technical staff to "get the products out". The initial development quest towards product excellence/perfection thus gradually mutates into the "Is it good enough ?" dilemma. That kinda process sometimes results in very premature product release/introduction and sales.
