DJL329 wrote:
Because the previous poster is looking for something lighter. The 200-400mm will most likely be heavier than the 400mm DO.
A bare 400 f/4 would be similar weight to a 300 f/2.8, but of course longer. A 200-400 with built-in 1.4x will be struggling to stay under 3kg, even with Canon's latest tech. So about double the weight at least of the 100-400L, and quadruple the price. The 400 DO will remain the lightest supertele.
If DO had a future, I wonder if they would have considered a 200-400 f/4 DO? I guess they could have got this down to about 2.5kg or 300 f/2.8 weight.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
However, many are implying it'll mean the end of the 100-400L, which is definitely a favourite wildlife lens. My argument is not against the 70-300L per se, but against it being a replacement for an obviously far more useful lens for wildlife and birding. I'd take a 640mm FOV over a 480mm FOV for birding any day and I'm sure plenty of others would too.
If we believe the arguments about shorter FL lenses and higher pixel density cameras, why do they even bother making an 800mm. Just put your 500mm on a 7D.
The old rule of thumb was, buy a longer slower lens than a shorter faster lens, but the 70-300L is a shorter slower lens.
Anyway, I don't see Canon dumping the 100-400L. ...Show more →
I agree with that! The 70-300L is not a replacement for the 100-400L.
Probabaly nobody here noticed, but the 100-400L *does* have a replacement on APS-C: the 55-250 IS! (Yes, I know its marketed for consumers rather than pros/prosumers, but it covers the same range at the same speed for the smaller format.)
Pixel Perfect wrote:
If DO had a future, I wonder if they would have considered a 200-400 f/4 DO? I guess they could have got this down to about 2.5kg or 300 f/2.8 weight.
Yes, but *that* lens would be $12,000!
Kidding aside, I think DO has been a bit of a failed experiment. The 400 prime is good enough, but has been very expensive, while the 70-300 DO suffers from mediocre performance. And these are the only lenses that Canon has managed to bring to market in 10 years.
Maybe the 4th gen superteles will have DO optics in 10 years and all be 30% shorter and 20% lighter... but I rather doubt it.
garyvot wrote:
Probabaly nobody here noticed, but the 100-400L *does* have a replacement on APS-C: the 55-250 IS! (Yes, I know its marketed for consumers rather than pros/prosumers, but it covers the same range at the same speed for the smaller format.)
If you are serious about image quality and light gathering, the 70-200 2.8 IS II is the real replacement. About the same weight and entrance pupil size.
alundeb wrote:
If you are serious about image quality and light gathering, the 70-200 2.8 IS II is the real replacement. About the same weight and entrance pupil size.
If you are serious about getting max reach neither is the replacement, you still likely need the 100-400L. Seriously how easy is it to fill the frame with widlife all the time and if you can't do that you can always use more lens. Sure the density may help if thelighting is good enough but you'd still do even yet better still with a lens with longer focal lenght itself.
(although perhaps the 70-200 takes the 2x tc well??)
skibum5 wrote:
If you are serious about getting max reach neither is the replacement, you still likely need the 100-400L. Seriously how easy is it to fill the frame with widlife all the time and if you can't do that you can always use more lens. Sure the density may help if thelighting is good enough but you'd still do even yet better still with a lens with longer focal lenght itself.
(although perhaps the 70-200 takes the 2x tc well??)
I agree, you can get replacements covering either aspect, light gathering / pixels per duck, but not fully covering both at the same time. The 70-200 II takes the 2X TC well, my copy is in the same ballpark as the 300/2.8 IS. But then the TC makes it larger and heavier again.
skibum5 wrote:
If you are serious about getting max reach neither is the replacement, you still likely need the 100-400L. Seriously how easy is it to fill the frame with widlife all the time and if you can't do that you can always use more lens. Sure the density may help if thelighting is good enough but you'd still do even yet better still with a lens with longer focal lenght itself.
(although perhaps the 70-200 takes the 2x tc well??)
I think also some people forget, it's sometimes better to keep as much distance from a subject as possible , so as not to disturb them. A 400mm gives you more scope to get a good shot at a safe distance. If you are lucky and the subject is relaxed, you may be able to eventually sneak closer, but for many species, they have a large circle of wariness and you'll never get that close. Of course in those cases you'll more than likely be reaching for 500mm+ + TC.
Using the weight difference between the Canon & Nikon lenses below I tried to come up with the weight range of the 200-400mm IS. This assumes that Canon continues the trend forward.
2007-Today Nikkor Super teles
200-400mm VR II 3360g $6,799
200mm VR II 2930g $5,999.95
300mm VR II 2900g $4,635
400mm VR 4620g $8,899.95
500mm VR 3880g $8,499.00
600mm VR 5080g $10,299.95
2008-Today Canon Super teles
200-400mm IS
200mm IS 2520g $5,700
300mm IS II 2350g $7,000 by March
400mm IS II 3850g $11,000 by March
500mm IS II 3190g $9,499 by May
600mm IS II 3920g $11,999 by June
Formula:
a) (Canon / Nikon) * 200-400mm VR II = 200-400mm IS w/o Extender EF 1.4X III
b) (Canon / Nikon) * 200-400mm VR II = 200-400mm IS w/ Extender EF 1.4X III
a) 2,593-2,890g without the 225g of the Extender EF 1.4X III
b) 2,818-3,115g with the 225g of the Extender EF 1.4X III
alundeb wrote:
If it gets lighter than the 300 2.8 IS, it will be worth it's weight in gold.
+1. Going off Nikon's current weight differences between the 300/2.8 VR and the 200-400/4 VR and the 200-400/4's size compared to the 500/4 I'd bet the 200-400L will weigh more than the 300II and probably pretty close to the 500II.
Actaully when I first saw the announcement a few days ago for this lens I actually thought it was a hoax, just another rumor. Now here it is officially annnounced and the speculation (rumors) continue to fly.
this has got to be one of the fastest growing threads ever. guess it just goes to show the amount of interest in a lens like this. can't wait 'til exact specs and prices are released, although I have a feeling I won't be too excited about the price.
I think I'll get one if it's not too painful on the wallet. 400/5.6 and 500/4 might go up for sale to fund it. Maybe the 200/2.8 and one of the 70-200s too.
I've been wanting Canon to make a lens like this for a while!
So I figured out the weight to be between 2.6-3.1kg at more than $7,000 (Nikkor 200-400mm VR II's 3.4kg @ $6,800).
Now I wonder what the minimum focusing distance would be. Would it be the same as the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM (1.5m), EF 200mm f/2L IS USM (1.9m) or Nikkor 200-400mm VR II (2m)
