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.
Is that the old 500, or the Mk II? This does give some insight as to the size/weight of the new lens. I tried, without success, to compare the picture of the 2-4/1.4 to my 300/2.8 but I couldn't really match them up. The best I could guess was that the 200-400 was around 2 inches longer.
EDIT: Never mind - I see it's the new one based on Canon's web site.
wickerprints wrote:
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.
True - the present day 400/5.6 has only 7 elements. It's sharp, simple, and fast-focusing.
Canongarcon wrote:
Then we won't need fast short focal length primes with IS.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Fast glass is always desirable, no matter the focal length. More light-gathering ability by the lens is always going to increase photographic flexibility. Similarly, including IS improves shutter speed flexibility, and in fact, it becomes even more necessary as pixel density becomes greater, since the ability to observe camera shake increases in proportion to pixel density.
There is always room for improvement in all aspects of photographic equipment. We used to have 4 MP digital sensors that were very noisy at ISO 800, now we're working with 21 MP sensors that perform well at ISO 1600 and acceptably at 3200. That these more modern sensors can do such things does not mean they made fast primes obsolete--they only made older sensors obsolete.
Extreme focal lengths will also remain desirable--smaller sensors aren't going to make long glass obsolete, because our expectations and abilities grow with the technology. We are able to do better work with more modest equipment: Today's Rebel bodies and kit lenses can do very well compared to the flagship digital systems a decade ago, but that doesn't mean all the pros are now shooting with Rebels--instead, photographers embrace new capabilities that technology brings. If sensors of the distant future see an improvement of 10 stops in DR, a reduction by 10x in noise, an increase of 10x the pixel density, and 10 stops more sensitivity, people will still want 800mm lenses to create stunning images--they'll just be shooting birds in the moonlight at ISO 204800 and making 3 x 2 meter prints. And they'll *still* be complaining that it's not good enough and threatening to switch systems.
wickerprints wrote:
--they'll just be shooting birds in the moonlight at ISO 204800 and making 3 x 2 meter prints. And they'll *still* be complaining that it's not good enough and threatening to switch systems.
- And when we are at 90% QE sensors people will still hope for 1 - 2 stops better ISO performance in the next gen camera
Yep, it is the new one that is 383mm long (old one is 387mm).
So according to my unscentific test and mesure in PS the new 200-400 will be 366mm x 128mm. The Nikon one is 365.5 x 124mm, so I should not be too far off.
Opfully the weight will be < 3 kg. I would say 2.95 kg for marketing purpose.
it would be ideal of nobody bought this lens for the first year or two that it was out. I mean absolutely nobody. How funny would that be? I wonder how that would affect the price if that happened.
It's a biggun, that's for sure. I HOPE that it's under 3 Kg (6.6 lb). I would like to think that Canon applied the same weight-reducing techniques to this lens that they have to other big guns recently (the Mk II versions). I'm sure that it won't be quite as light as the old 300/2.8 IS (2.55 Kg) but if it's not too much heavier, it will be manageable.
Nowhere Man wrote:
it would be ideal of nobody bought this lens for the first year or two that it was out. I mean absolutely nobody. How funny would that be? I wonder how that would affect the price if that happened.
Don't mind me. I'm just a dreamer.
Get real, Enough people will buy this lens when it comes out. This lens probably costs Canon $4,000 just to produce.
Canon: Please charge as much as you can for this lens.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
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.
You're assuming this is a birding or wildlife lens. This lens isn't made for wildlife shooters necessarily and cannot compete with a 400mm or longer lens. But there are many other photographic disciplines. This zoom range (coupled with great optics and compact size) is fantastic for travel, scenic and landscapes, for example.
And 300mm on a 7D is ~ 500mm on full frame. That was considered quite "long" just a few years ago; there are many wildlife disciplines (other than birding) where a 500mm EFOV is quite useful.
rhyder wrote:
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.
With respect, I think most know this. However, we find it useful to translate to 35mm-effective focal lengths because it normalizes the discussion of fields of view independent of sensor size.
wickerprints wrote:
That these more modern sensors can do such things does not mean they made fast primes obsolete--they only made older sensors obsolete.
Current BHPhoto street price is $6,799 for the AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II Lens (3.4kg) and it does not have a built-in teleconverter.
MSRP would be above $7,000 and after the London 2012 Olympic Games around $6,000+. Another indicator for price is that lenses that have a related aperture diameter of 100-107mm tend to sell for $4,500 to $7,000.
Now about this lens.
For whom is this lens for? Sports & Wildlife shooters.
- If you do not have a focal length of 200mm or longer this is a very tempting lens to acquire.
- If you do have a focal length of 200mm or longer but is slower than f/4 this is a very tempting lens to acquire.
- If you only want one super telephoto that fits mostly outdoors application then this is a very tempting lens to acquire.
Extender 1.4x not engaged
- FF crop camera would be 200-400 @ f/4
- 1.3x crop camera would be 260-520 @ f/4
- 1.6x crop camera would be 320-640 @ f/4
Extender 1.4x engaged
- FF crop camera would be 280-560 @ f/5.6
- 1.3x crop camera would be 364-728 @ f/5.6
- 1.6x crop camera would be 448-896 @ f/5.6
dolina wrote:
This is my personal assessment of the lens.
Current BHPhoto street price is $6,799 for the AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II Lens (3.4kg) and it does not have a built-in teleconverter.
MSRP would be above $7,000 and after the London 2012 Olympic Games around $6,000+. Another indicator for price is that lenses that have a related aperture diameter of 100-107mm tend to sell for $4,500 to $7,000.
Now about this lens.
For whom is this lens for? Sports & Wildlife shooters.
- If you do not have a focal length of 200mm or longer this is a very tempting lens to acquire.
- If you do have a focal length of 200mm or longer but is slower than f/4 this is a very tempting lens to acquire.
- If you only want one super telephoto that fits mostly outdoors application then this is a very tempting lens to acquire.
Extender 1.4x not engaged
- FF crop camera would be 200-400 @ f/4
- 1.3x crop camera would be 260-520 @ f/4
- 1.6x crop camera would be 320-640 @ f/4
Extender 1.4x engaged
- FF crop camera would be 280-560 @ f/5.6
- 1.3x crop camera would be 364-728 @ f/5.6
- 1.6x crop camera would be 448-896 @ f/5.6...Show more →
I guess you didn't get the memo of the recent price increases for Canon lenses. The price of this lens probably will go up in the next two years. If it drops, it won't be by much.
