Sneakyracer wrote:
The Canon 200-400L is too expensive. It's about $5000 more than the Nikon 200-400. The only thing it has that the Nikon does not is the 1.4x converter. Id rather get a $500 1.4x than pay $5000 for a built in one.
This.
For the price of the Canon 200-400 one could purchase a Nikon D4 and a gently used 200-400G II and still have money left over. For those of us who rely on our gear to make money that extra $5000, even spread over a 5 year lifespan, is significant. I say this as a 20 year EOS user but now the smart money is with Nikon.
PetKal wrote:
It's not all gravy, Mike, there has been a price to pay: in the past 2-3 years I can't remember having anything else for dinner except hotdogs and peanut butter sandwiches
I am sure you are lifting little creamer containers from the convience store to put on your cereal as well
Seriously though, your wife sounds cool like mine. Not only is she awesome all around, but she lets me buy all kinds of stuff I shouldn't. Someday we should have supertele money if all continues to go well. Still want an 89 911 first. My 70-200 II and TC 1.4III are fine for now
For the price of the Canon 200-400 one could purchase a Nikon D4 and a gently used 200-400G II and still have money left over. For those of us who rely on our gear to make money that extra $5000, even spread over a 5 year lifespan, is significant. I say this as a 20 year EOS user but now the smart money is with Nikon.
For the price of Nikkor 800, I could purchase a brand new 800L as well as brand new 1DX.
However, that sort of comparisons is largely sterile because there are very few people who switch systems because of it.
We all should know that brand new product releases cost big bucks, be they Nikon or Canon.
PetKal wrote:
It's not all gravy, Mike, there has been a price to pay: in the past 2-3 years I can't remember having anything else for dinner except hotdogs and peanut butter sandwiches
You're eating in luxury. Peanut butter and bread is far too expensive, I just settle for bulk Kraft Dinner or rice with water from the tap to wash it down.
For the price of the Canon 200-400 one could purchase a Nikon D4 and a gently used 200-400G II and still have money left over. For those of us who rely on our gear to make money that extra $5000, even spread over a 5 year lifespan, is significant. I say this as a 20 year EOS user but now the smart money is with Nikon.
The quality of the output of the Canon 200-400 looks like it will make the Nikon one which is a little soft at the long end appear not quite that good anymore.
The "significant" point is the Canon is a 200-560 while the other a 200-400..now that makes a real difference in lost income..
dehowie wrote:
The quality of the output of the Canon 200-400 looks like it will make the Nikon one which is a little soft at the long end appear not quite that good anymore.
The "significant" point is the Canon is a 200-560 while the other a 200-400..now that makes a real difference in lost income..
The friends I have who shot the London Olympics were enamored with this lens. Both were Nikon shooters who loved the TC and specifically mentioned the color rendition being more pleasing than the Nikon.
Is the Nikon soft at 400? I shoot with both systems and my 200-400G is every bit as sharp as my 400/2.8 IS.
I can see the significance of a 200-560 4-5.6. If I worked at a big media outlet that bought pool equipment for me then I'd definitely pick the Canon. But having to buy my own gear in a crowded market with already slim margins the built in TC is not worth $5k.
WayneTk wrote:
Is the Nikon soft at 400? I shoot with both systems and my 200-400G is every bit as sharp as my 400/2.8 IS.
Hi Wayne, could you maybe clear up the whole "soft at infinity" thing? I always hear that the nikon 200-400 is sharp, but soft at infinity (@400mm). Paired with a D4 it comes in at under £10k, which is still £2k less than just a 200-400L so its definitely a viable option for some. How do you find it performs with the 1.4 x tc? Cheers
PetKal wrote:
For the price of Nikkor 800, I could purchase a brand new 800L as well as brand new 1DX.
However, that sort of comparisons is largely sterile because there are very few people who switch systems because of it.
We all should know that brand new product releases cost big bucks, be they Nikon or Canon.
The Nikon 800 will not sell as well as it could because of the price. Like the Canon 200-400 it is priced wrong. The price greatly reduces its customer base. Which isnt that huge to begin with in super telephoto lenses. It is a shame. I am sure there is a price point that strikes the perfect balance between the amount of sales and the profit per sale. If I knew what it was I would be a rich man. But Its obvious the current price is not it
Sneakyracer wrote:
The Nikon 800 will not sell as well as it could because of the price. Like the Canon 200-400 it is priced wrong. The price greatly reduces its customer base. Which isnt that huge to begin with in super telephoto lenses. It is a shame. I am sure there is a price point that strikes the perfect balance between the amount of sales and the profit per sale. If I knew what it was I would be a rich man. But Its obvious the current price is not it
Sneaky,
On the face of it, what you're saying would make sense to most people. But, if we think that Canon or Nikon aren't aware of how to price for profit maximization, then we're being pretty naive. Almost assuredly, Canon have an idea of the demand function for this lens (how many units will be sold at any given price). In order to maximize profit, they'll set the price to a level at which the additional revenue from the next marginal unit equals the cost to produce that marginal unit. That's the optimum level of production and sales to maximize profit. All of this takes into account the target market (paid professionals, in this case) and how Canon expects them to perceive a given price. Granted, none of this is an exact science, but it definitely isn't done without a great deal of thought and analysis. None of us can say anything about the merits of the pricing for 200-400L (or any other lens, camera, etc.) because we don't have any idea of the costs associated. Don't forget there are also non-monetary considerations that companies may have such as prestige of a product, production constraints, etc. We can certainly speak from our own point of view and whether or not it is affordable for us, but we simply can't say Canon is being foolish with their pricing policies. Just my .02
canonrumors.com "have confirmation that quantities of the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x have landed in Canon warehouses in Canada and the United States. nice linky.
canonrumors.com "have confirmation that quantities of the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x have landed in Canon warehouses in Canada and the United States. nice linky.
I think his information is correct.
Those who have a special relationship with Canon should be able to get theirs tomorrow.
I am still trying to negotiate with our dealer to reallocate Burningheart's lens to me, in consideration of my advanced age.
PetKal wrote:
I am still trying to negotiate with our dealer to reallocate Burningheart's lens to me, in consideration of my advanced age.
I'm sure you are ahead of me by now.
I knew there was something I should have prayed about when I attended mass and morning prayers this morning.
I guess I should have gone to confession too as yesterday I sinned and was using my Nikon D800E and 200-400.
Then again I was shown by a couple of lovely angels(ladies) where the owls nest is located and although they have moved on they will be back next February so I guess the need is not as great as our BIF master as his trained piguns waiting with bated breath for his test shots and review.
I loved hot dogs before I went vegan. They are the only thing I am missing next to Currywurst from time to time. 
