skibum5 wrote:
hmm how could the focus preset ring be used for focusing
That doesn't seem to make sense and I can't imagine they'd have you using that skinny, knobby little ring as the focusing ring.
I believe it is not a servo type of focusing, but when you twist it, you activate a slow transition that continues until you release it (There is a spring load?)
alundeb wrote:
I believe it is not a servo type of focusing, but when you twist it, you activate a slow transition that continues until you release it (There is a spring load?)
It's called Power Focus.
You really can't see from any of the pics if the 200-400 has it or not.
Looks like there might be another switch behind the extender hump that's hard to see.
shooter00 wrote:
It's called Power Focus.
You really can't see from any of the pics if the 200-400 has it or not.
Looks like there might be another switch behind the extender hump that's hard to see.
Yes, the switch behind the extender hump is definitely the AF/MF switch, but the most that I can see in any of the photos posted so far is the MF setting. None of the photos shows the entire switch, just a tiny part of it.
M Vers wrote:
Agreed. The 70-300L may not seem all that popular now but as sensors become more dense the absolute need for longer glass will become less. Not only that but the 70-300L offers a lot in a relatively smaller more compact package.
That argument only has merit if you choose a 7D/60D/550D/600D. FF and 1.3x crop are light years from that pixel density. A 70-300 is too short most of the time on a 7D, on the lower density sensors forget for birding in general. Canon would be the only manufacturer without a 80/100-400 if this pans out badly. Also I'd rather make use of as many of the 7D's pixels as I can rather than heavily crop. Don't forget a 400mm will put 77% more pixels on the subject than a 300 if FL limited. That mean you go from 18MP to 10MP and that's assuming the 400mm shot doesn't need cropping.
Looking at Nikon 200-400 spec and assuming that the switches size and canon badge have the same size across the two lenses I should not be too far off.
dolina wrote:
The EF 400mm f/5.6L IS is a 1993 lens that has no IS, optics for film, no weather or dust sealing. no Subwavelength Structure Coating and the other tech found in the 2010 super teles and the 200-400mm IS.
So yes it does need an update.
Just my opinion.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
An a woeful mfd of 3.5m, that needs reducing to 2.5m. I hope it's updated and while they're at it they should do the 300 f/4.
Part of the reason why the EF 400/5.6L (there has never been IS in this lens) is such a good performer is because it is relatively simple in construction, and doesn't have a particularly high maximum magnification. It could see an update with IS and a shorter MFD to bring it in line with the existing EF 300/4L IS, but it probably will be significantly more expensive as a result--considering current trends, I would not be surprised if the price for such an updated version jumped to $2000. It's a bit sickening, I know.
Lenses with especially long focal lengths are not easy to make with a short MFD while keeping a high level of aberration correction throughout.
gt3rs wrote:
An unscientific size comparison between the 500 and the 200-400.
Looking at Nikon 200-400 spec and assuming that the switches size and canon badge have the same size across the two lenses I should not be too far off.
It looks plausible, but I would have instead made the observation that the diameter of the lens mounts are equal (which we know is true to a very high degree of precision).
gpchase wrote:
It's an interesting notion that Canon would release such a versatile product that could potentially kill a very large portion of their big glass market...namely 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600. Am I missing something here or did the price of the above pieces just become affordable for us non-owners in the used marketplace ?
Nikon did this and it did not kill off sales.
John P Mulgrew wrote:
So it's going to be at least $500.00 more because Canon added a 1.4x?
Its not something anyone will ever be able to say, simply because Canon has never released one without an extender in it, so nothing to compare against.
Common sense tells us that it will be, in terms of price and size , broadly in the same range as the Nikon, but likely to be lighter, although how much so is hard to say.
I would say that the price point being slightly below, slightly above, or way above the Nikon version will depend entirely on how the final product performs.
If its 'as good' as the Nikon, it may come in slightly less, if as people seem to think, it will be of the quality of the recent MKII range, it could realistically be significantly higher than the Nikon, as per Canons current pricing policy.
However, I tend to think this lens is more 'headline grabber' than 'sales grabber' for Canon, in that it is not in any way intended to sell in numbers, its a specialist lens for a specific market mainly, wildlife photographers like Andy Rouse switched to Nikon on the back of ther 200-400 D3 combination, this lens is simply to address that.
In that circumstance, clever marketers would place it at the exact pricepoint of the Nikon, and hard sell it having the extender in effectively for free.
As an aside, I also think this lens is a decent indicator of a full frame high speed camera in the future, whether that is a 1D or something else.
munzir.khan wrote:
hold on folks .... after awhile price will go down and you always have choice to keep your old gear for awhile
How much do you think a $7,000 to $8,000 lens is going to come down in price? Even if it drops 5%, most people still would not be able to afford it. The way lens prices are going, it will go up in price, not down.
schristie11 wrote:
<table border=0 align=right cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4><tr><td><a target="_blank" href="https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/200-400mmbig.png"><img width=300 src=https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/canon200-400mm.png></a>
</td></tr></table>
<b>
When used on a 1.6x body it is 320-640mm native and 450-900mm with built in 1.4x tele engaged. When used on a 1.4x body it is 280-560mm native and 400-800mm with built in 1.4x tele engaged.
What do you all how to say about this?
So...you guys still believe that "Magnification Factor" crap? It's a CROP FACTOR. It will have the FOV of 450 - 900, it won't be a 450 - 900.
