Traditionally, Canon have reserved the "supertelephoto" category for the primes with FL of 400mm and up. That way the 400 f/5.6 qualifies, while the 300 f/2.8 and 200 f/1.8 don't.
A looser interpretation would be according to provision of fluorite elements. Obviously, that would exclude the 200 f/1.8 as well as the 400 f/5.6.
Lastly, one often finds a popular usage of "supertelephoto" is reserved for the 300 f/2.8 and any other lens priced higher than that.
Well after looking at some pics from yesterday I am now in the "I hate the 1DMKIII" corner. I didn't have a problem with soft images indoors before "the fix" but I sure do now I hope they do something about it. AI Servo
gene A. wrote:
I'm sure Canon saw what people were paying for 200mm F1.8 lenses and said to themselves, if there willing to pay $4,000-$5,000 for a used lens then they would certainly be willing to pay even more for a new version with available service, and image stabilization.
Given that you can get Nikons best autofocus in an $1800 body. The fact that the D3 has an ambient metering system thats more sophisticated than anything Canon produces and now a really good 14-24mm zoom which would replace several of the lenses I'm now using and I have to tell you the dark side is looking very appealing...Show more →
At least two of my photog buds have made the move, and several more are considering it. If Nikons's 400/2.8 and 300/2.8 were priced close to Canon's, I'd move myself. C'mon Canon, get off the couch and do something other than produce a 200/2 that only catches up with the Nikon equivalent at 1/3 more the cost. Geezz ...
PetKal wrote:
Traditionally, Canon have reserved the "supertelephoto" category for the primes with FL of 400mm and up. That way the 400 f/5.6 qualifies, while the 300 f/2.8 and 200 f/1.8 don't.
A looser interpretation would be according to provision of fluorite elements. Obviously, that would exclude the 200 f/1.8 as well as the 400 f/5.6.
Lastly, one often finds a popular usage of "supertelephoto" is reserved for the 300 f/2.8 and any other lens priced higher than that.
Then you'd include the 70-200 4L since it's also got a fluorite element...
When I talk of superteles, I generally include any lens with an aperture over 100mm or with a 400+mm focal length. I.e. 200 1.8 (111mm aperture), 300 2.8, 400 5.6, etc.
Granted, I also consider lenses under 70mm a wideangle....
matsuib wrote:
It strikes me as odd that Canon now has made its 1DIII + 200 f2 IS combo significantly more expensive that a D3 and 200 f2 VR.
Well it makes sense when you realize that the 1DMKIII needs fixing and you'll probably have to send the 200 f/2 back to have the glass installed in it So all that warranty work cost money
I got this from a very unreliable source. It has about as much merit as most posts. Canon will offer 1DIII owners an opportunity to trade their 1DIII for a newly refurbished 1DIIN. This upgrade will be priced at only $600.
psimison wrote: I got this from a very unreliable source. It has about as much merit as most posts. Canon will offer 1DIII owners an opportunity to trade their 1DIII for a newly refurbished 1DIIN. This upgrade will be priced at only $600.
Yea I could see it now we send in are MK III and they send us are MK III with a new MK IIIn tag and new serial number plate and the 600.00 paid for the repair.
If the 200/2 is priced around $4k then I'll purchase it. Otherwise I'm stuck with deciding between the 200/1.8 and 300/2.8.... and if it's priced around $4k then logically the price of the 200/1.8 will drop to $3k (or less for beat up ones) which then makes it attractive again
If Canon prices the 200/f2IS at $5000 or higher following the 1DmkIII fiasco it would be a colossal mistake of marketing-textbook proportions, IMHO. Even though I may be considered biased in favor of Canon in the realm of photo gear, the pricing being hinted at by Canon is ridiculous. Consider the working pro like me who needs the f2 speed at 200mm and is also replacing a pair of pro bodies. We look at the financial analysis and see that we can get a Nikon D3 system (without the AF issues) and a 200/f2VR for thousands less than the Canon offering. That is a no-brainer decision.
Even though I'm heavily vested in Canon gear, if my 200/f1.8 ever gives up the ghost and Canon is selling the 200/f2 at near $6000 prices and if the mkIII issues are not ironed out, then I'll be switching back to Nikon for purely economic reasons. I need the gear and I need it to work as it comes out of the box. To me, now that the D3 and D300 are out and, along with their 200/f2VR, priced aggressively, Canon does not have the huge quality edge they once had.
It would behoove the marketing gurus at Canon to consider the negative impact of the 1DmkIII on their image and try not to create a reason to defect to the other brand(s).
I hope they do something about it. AI Servo
So all that warranty work cost money 