PixelPerfect, come to think of it, it sure would have been easier to add it to the prime telephotos rather than the zoom. Interesting comment! I wonder why ?? Perhaps its brand new and they heard Nikon was coming out with one and they tried to beat that date. It does sound like a long wait for this. [like the other lenses too]
Bobby, because 280mm is just too short. I've tried my extremely sharp 70-200f4IS with a 1.4x, too short, and with my new 2x, and the IQ isn't nearly as good as the clean primes for BIFs. They are all fine for stills, but not for what I do.
Does the "twist" of the Zoom move the lenses internally to operate at a higher multiplier?
Like the effect a TC has on a prime lens?
I relate to the 100-400L push pull to be like the bellows commonly used long ago.
A couple of things to consider here ... I believe the 70-200/2.8 II is a little sharper than the 70-200/4 IS. And the AF with the TC is certainly better if you start with an f2.8 lens.
Netgarden wrote:
Bobby, because 280mm is just too short. I've tried my extremely sharp 70-200f4IS with a 1.4x, too short, and with my new 2x, and the IQ isn't nearly as good as the clean primes for BIFs. They are all fine for stills, but not for what I do.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I wonder why they didn't design the mk II superteles with built-in 1.4x TC too. Saves a lot of hassle.
For optical reasons I would be surprised if the 200-400L even allows use of (Canon's) external teleconverters. My guess is the rear elements are not recessed enough. If I'm correct, there'd be no desire to limit the primes in the same way.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I wonder why they didn't design the mk II superteles with built-in 1.4x TC too. Saves a lot of hassle.
garyvot wrote:
For optical reasons I would be surprised if the 200-400L even allows use of (Canon's) external teleconverters. My guess is the rear elements are not recessed enough. If I'm correct, there'd be no desire to limit the primes in the same way.
The images I have seen of the EF 200-400/4L IS do seem to suggest that it will be compatible with existing EF extenders. The drop-in filter is the rearmost element, and its position in front of the mount appears to leave sufficient space for additional extenders. The built-in extender is positioned in front of the drop-in filter, meaning that there was enough space in this design to permit a record four distinct, internally moving groups: focusing, zooming, image stabilizing, and extending. It helps a great deal that this lens is f/4.
Typically, lenses with such long focal lengths have apertures that are limited by the size of the front element, not by the need to have the exit pupil be sufficiently large and close to the image plane. Even the EF 200/2L IS, being the fastest current-production telephoto in its focal length range, has enough space in the rear for a drop-in filter as well as the extenders, so there is nothing to worry about for a 200-400/4 zoom.
Note however, that whether this lens will be given the lens mount contacts to communicate with an external extender is not known at this time. Optically and geometrically, there is space, but whether Canon will permit this lens to operate with external extenders (say that three times fast!), I cannot say.
wickerprints wrote:
The images I have seen of the EF 200-400/4L IS do seem to suggest that it will be compatible with existing EF extenders. The drop-in filter is the rearmost element, and its position in front of the mount appears to leave sufficient space for additional extenders. The built-in extender is positioned in front of the drop-in filter, meaning that there was enough space in this design to permit a record four distinct, internally moving groups: focusing, zooming, image stabilizing, and extending. It helps a great deal that this lens is f/4.
Typically, lenses with such long focal lengths have apertures that are limited by the size of the front element, not by the need to have the exit pupil be sufficiently large and close to the image plane. Even the EF 200/2L IS, being the fastest current-production telephoto in its focal length range, has enough space in the rear for a drop-in filter as well as the extenders, so there is nothing to worry about for a 200-400/4 zoom....Show more →
It would be good if you are correct. I am basing my supposition on the fact that Canon has never explicitly supported stacked teleconverters, and this lens is unique and different enough to expect some compromises. In addition, the 70-300L does not allow for converters, and I suspect the optical design of the 200-400L is equally complex.
OTOH, the 70-300L is clearly designed for maximum compactness (in fact it's not all that much bigger than the 70-300 DO), while the 200-400 is pretty stretched out, so you could well be right.
garyvot wrote:
It would be good if you are correct. I am basing my supposition on the fact that Canon has never explicitly supported stacked teleconverters, and this lens is unique and different enough to expect some compromises. In addition, the 70-300L does not allow for converters, and I suspect the optical design of the 200-400L is equally complex.
OTOH, the 70-300L is clearly designed for maximum compactness (in fact it's not all that much bigger than the 70-300 DO), while the 200-400 is pretty stretched out, so you could well be right.
I am quite certain that there is no geometric reason why an extender will not work on the 200-400/4L IS--there is no glass behind the drop-in filter, and the filter's position clearly leaves sufficient space for a protruding extender. If the extender doesn't work, it will be because Canon deliberately doesn't build in support for it electronically, and this is very difficult to imagine, given that the old EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS supports both extenders, and this lens is MUCH more expensive, not to mention a constant f/4.
Also, it stands to reason that if 1D-series users buy this lens, they may want to use a 2x extender with it to get a 400-800/8, and they might simply flip the internal extender out of the way and employ their existing 2x II or 2x III. Not permitting this would be a very senseless decision on Canon's part.
For a few years, I heard a people say that a single lens that could cover 200-900mm was inconceivable to build and would not be portable.
Now, with a flip of a switch (- kidney) you can have the impossible!
If you consider swaping a FF 5D and 7D at your hip...
Then this lens will let you could cover 200-900mm out of the box.
Keep in mind that the 1.4x tele forces f/5.6 when zoom is extended fully.
Does [1.4x + 1.6x = 3x]
3X at f/5.6 out of the box.. Wow!
200 f/4 to 600 f/5.6 on a FF body.
320 f/4 to 900 f/5.6 on a 1.6x 7D body.
Extended to 600 f/5.6 on a FF body + another 1.4x TC = 800mm f/8.
Extended to 900 f/5.6 on a 1.6x 7D body + another 1.4x TC = 1200mm f/8.
(approx rounded numbers)
I'm certain someone will still add another 2.x just because they can
for their favorite photo thread titled "Cuervo 1800 vs Canon 1800."
To make it clear this new lens is constant 200-400 f/4 or 280-560 f/5.6 with muliplier enabled. It only becomes f/8 if you added an external 1.4x as well, if that's possible.
No, it does not. Magnification factors are not additive, but multiplicative. That is,
1.4x + 1.6x = (1.4)(1.6)x = 2.24x,
not 3x. You can understand this by thinking about two hypothetical teleconverters, one which magnifies the image by a factor of 2, and the other by a factor of 3. Put together, the first TC magnifies a 1 cm line into a 2 cm line, and then the second TC magnifies this by 3x, giving a 6 cm line, not a 5 cm line.
Presently, a magnification factor of exactly 3x is not possible with any combination of Canon TCs, and such a magnification does not correspond to an integer number of stops of light loss, being 2 Log/Log[2] = 3.169925... stops.
If a lens at 2.8x TC has a maximum aperture of f/5.6, then this means with no TC, the lens would be f/2, three stops faster. The only current production EF lenses capable of this are the EF 135/2L and the 200/2L IS, though such stacked TCs are not officially supported.
RobDickinson wrote:
It seems to have the same drop in filters the primes have I doubt it has any rear element issues.
I just think canons beleive in its typical use will be purely with a 1.4 tc and it needs that quickly (i.e. sports field shooters).
I suspect that the only serious use of a 2X teleconverter with this lens would be with 1-series shooters that can AF at f/8. Otherwise, the 1.4X is the limit anyway, outside of pin-taping and third-party teleconverters that don't report their presence.
From what the images I've seen tell me, it should be compatible with Canon's individual teleconverters also.
RazorTM wrote:
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.
Another picture that shows it has the Power Focus on it
