I would say 20,000 plus units will be made/sold in the next 10 years.
The lens is well aimed at the sports events photographer. Probably some nature/wildlife shooters as well.
However, I do not see 200-400L making much impact on the 400/500/600/800 sales.
200-400L is just not long/fast enough to compete with those primes, and to add salt to injury, it cost as much as those primes.......mostly because it's a zoom.
I would be happy to receive the lens in a Pelican 1510 case with padded dividers and a $500 discount, rather than the usual Canon super-tele case that will sit in the cardboard shipping box for ~10 years until I resell the lens.
As for 99% of super-tele owners changing the stock feet... that must be wildlife/bird photographers because from what I see on the sidelines, maybe a few percent swap out the stock feet for something aftermarket. I guess when monopod shooting, the stock foot works pretty well (or we just don't know any better).
100-400 mkII: IIRC, when the current version of this lens originally launched, it was selling in the $2500-2600 range, at least up here. I wouldn't be surprised to see Canon release the mkII version with a 30-40% increase from the original launch price. Referring to Nikon again, their new version is about $2700 and Canon will almost certainly top that price point. It seems Canon and Nikon are not only playing a technological leapfrog game, but also one for pricing...
PetKal wrote:
Probably some nature/wildlife shooters as well.
.
If by "some" you mean "very little" then I'm with you.... I see 95% of the market for this lens being sports where having zoom could be more important -- I don't shoot sports...
For wildlife, you can do much better for this amount of money.....
It will be interesting to revisit these predictions in a couple years. Perhaps the sentiment would be different if instead Canon released a 400-800/4-5.6 with built-in 1.4x? (Which might be just the ticket to breaking the $20K barrier).
Not to beat a dead horse but here is one more piece of information from TheDigitalPicture about the mythical lens case:
"Although there has been some confusion in the matter, I have confirmation from B&H Photo that the typical Canon super-telephoto hard lens case, the Lens Case 200-400 in this case, is included in the box. These lockable cases are very expensive to purchase separately – and while protective, I don't find them especially useful other than for storage. I often keep my big lenses in individual Think Tank Photo backpacks."
He hasn't received his lens yet but he has updated his review page with lots more information now that the official specs are out. It is already a good read and he hasn't even touched the real lens
PetKal wrote:
The lens is well aimed at the sports events photographer. Probably some nature/wildlife shooters as well.
I agree with you on that. I have a feeling that there will be more nature/wildlife shooters than many anticipate.
My thought is the 200-560 is a good range that gives a lot of flexibilty without changing lenses. If you are carrying your gears for any distance do you want to carry multiple lenses to cover the 200-560 range? If you plan all your shots say for 500mm then it makes sense to use a 500 F4 but if you are shooting 300 or 500 is a person going to carry both a 300 2.8 and a 500 F4 or a 200-400.
Agree the primes will remain the premier lenses for the wider apertures and higher IQ.
pKai wrote:
If by "some" you mean "very little" then I'm with you.... I see 95% of the market for this lens being sports where having zoom could be more important -- I don't shoot sports...
For wildlife, you can do much better for this amount of money.....
There are many wildlife photographers that prefer to shoot handheld and to only carry one lens around. I'm not aware of a more versatile and better quality zoom lens in this focal-length range.
Imagemaster wrote:
There are many wildlife photographers that prefer to shoot handheld and to only carry one lens around. I'm not aware of a more versatile and better quality zoom lens in this focal-length range.
Yeah, I know one that love the Nikon 200-400 and can't wait to try out the new Canon. He is evaluering going Canon again and the news of the upcoming 200-400 played a big part of this as did the lighter 600mm f/4. Those two lenses are bread and butter for his work.
Imagemaster wrote:
There are many wildlife photographers that prefer to shoot handheld and to only carry one lens around. I'm not aware of a more versatile and better quality zoom lens in this focal-length range.
OK, Markle, I'd like to be the first with an option to buy your 200-400L in September when you will probably be selling it.
Imagemaster wrote:
There are many wildlife photographers that prefer to shoot handheld and to only carry one lens around. I'm not aware of a more versatile and better quality zoom lens in this focal-length range.
At about a pound heavier than the 500/f4 II, IDK how hand-holdable this is. IMHO, this is a monopod lens at best..... I prefer a tripod with gimbal for 8+ pound lenses.
I'm in pretty good shape and yet have zero interest in hefting 11+ pounds to eye level for anywhere near a day of shooting.
If the situation calls for hand holding and/or fluid mobility, there's the 70-200 2.8L and/or 100-400 F4-5.6L. If you're sitting in your assigned spot at the event venue, then this lens may be for you.
As someone else said, it would be interesting to revisit this in a year and see who actually buys this lens. I can only say for certain that it won't be me and that lack of funds is not the #1 reason why.
No case??
What sort of drugs are they smoking at Canon Canada??
Lol can i have some please!
I think the 200-400 will hurt 500 and 600 sales big time.
For the same price why would you buy a prime when you can get 95-100% of the IQ and its a zoom?
The one stop means little with the great hi ISO performance of the 1Dx.
I think the 300/2.8 will lose some sales as well but not as many as what will hit the 500 and 600.
The IQ appears brilliant coupled with zoom from 200-560 if you dont need 700 plus its going to be a ripper..
I wonder how much larger / heavier a 300-500 F4 would be? I'd be willing to fork over $12k for a lens like that. To me the 200 F4 end is a waste. I owned a couple 100-400 lenses for years and never used them at or below 200mm and that was on a crop camera.
One of my challenges with the 200-400 is that it is too large for me to carry with another large kens like a 600. With the 200-400 alone I'd be too often lamenting not having a 500 along.
EB-1 wrote:
250-500/4 would be so nice, but weigh a tonne.
One of my challenges with the 200-400 is that it is too large for me to carry with another large kens like a 600. With the 200-400 alone I'd be too often lamenting not having a 500 along.
EBH
That's why we have 2 shoulders, one big lens for each one.
burningheart wrote:
That's why we have 2 shoulders, one big lens for each one.
Mostly, transportation and handling logistics are a major hassle for one person with a massive amount of equipment. If I had any use for long teles within driving distance of home it would be more feasible. (Maybe 20-25 years ago I would have considered travel with two such heavy lenses together, but never would I have considered spending the money on even one.)
