This is a recent thread with over 33,000 views in it's first 20 days on the forums.
This topic seems popular enough that I wanted to bring it back from page 4 to page 1, for those who may have missed it.
With all the recent activity, some threads tend to get buried.
If I were starting out buying lenses, with a robust budget, this lens would be high on my list. I'm pretty happy with the crappy gear I have now, but like most of us here I will buy more gear(s) and fancy lenses out of my price range.
schristie11 wrote:
This is a recent thread with over 33,000 views in it's first 20 days on the forums.
This topic seems popular enough that I wanted to bring it back from page 4 to page 1, for those who may have missed it.
With all the duplicate posts about 24-70L vs. 24-105L and bokeh arguments, some threads tend to get buried.
It's not the bumping itself, it's the actual word I referred to.
Didn't mean to hurt you or to insinuate anything malicious. I even added a smiley to make sure I was understood correctly. Seems like I wasn't that successful. I apologize if I offended you.
dehowie wrote:
This is a great topic!
One of the things that has always felt so much different about shooting with my 500,600 or 800 is that feel that you are working with basically the best that money and technology can buy for its price.
The build on one of these things in a lot of ways reminds me of how Japanese built Samurai swords over the last thousand years with each one hand built taking incredible care.
You really feel like you are using a precision tool that has had a huge amount of time and care invested in it to make it as good as it can be.
I'm sure the 200-400 will be the same and if its image quality is anything like any of my big primes ill be grabbing one quick smart..
...Show more →
Darren,
I'll be very interested in your assessment of this lens when it does arrive.
regards Gerard
Tapeman wrote:
If I were starting out buying lenses, with a robust budget, this lens would be high on my list. I'm pretty happy with the crappy gear I have now, but like most of us here I will buy more gear(s) and fancy lenses out of my price range.
Indeed I agree.
I'd buy the following first
8-15/4L Fisheye.
16-35/2.8L II
24-70/2.8L
70-200/2.8L IS II
200-400/4L IS
I can not recall seeing another FM Canon gear thread this long about a new lens announcement.
Even all MkII supertelephotos collectively haven't caused this much interest and speculation.
Once Canon publishes the 200-400L price, it will likely be a downer.
I mean, Canon as well as their retail network must sense that the interest in the lens has been very keen. That knowledge will certainly not make them price the lens with restraint and customer consideration, at least not initially.
PetKal wrote:
I can not recall seeing another FM Canon gear thread this long about a new lens announcement.
Even all MkII supertelephotos collectively haven't caused this much interest and speculation.
Once Canon publishes the 200-400L price, it will likely be a downer.
I mean, Canon as well as their retail network must sense that the interest in the lens has been very keen. That knowledge will certainly not make them price the lens with restraint and customer consideration, at least not initially.
Gwapito Peter I feel 80% of those responding on this thread will never buy the 200-400mm IS. We're all bored wherever we are.
PetKal wrote:
I can not recall seeing another FM Canon gear thread this long about a new lens announcement.
Even all MkII supertelephotos collectively haven't caused this much interest and speculation.
Once Canon publishes the 200-400L price, it will likely be a downer.
I mean, Canon as well as their retail network must sense that the interest in the lens has been very keen. That knowledge will certainly not make them price the lens with restraint and customer consideration, at least not initially.
Perhaps it's the customer's responsibility to have reasonable expectations for this price. It's doesn't take a genius to guess the price range of this lens.
This is a lens for professionals. The people who actually buy this lens are not going to be overly concerned about the price. Most amateurs are not going to be able to afford this lens like most people can't afford a jaguar or water front property.
Come on Canon, charge as much for this lens as you possibly can.
dolina wrote:
Gwapito Peter I feel 80% of those responding on this thread will never buy the 200-400mm IS. We're all bored wherever we are.
Thank you, pogito Paolo, have to remember that diminutive form of "gwapo".
I suspect even the most hardened gearedheads will pause before plonking close to $8,000 on 200-400 f/4. After all, one could get 500 f/4 IS MkII for just a bit more money.
However, the urge to be the first owner of the new lens (in the States, in Canada, on FM Forum, in California, or wherever) must be overwhelmingly potent for some folks.
I didn't read through all the pages (I know shame on me) but anyone ever thought how the image quality would be with the on and off 1.4 x switch? Does the 1.4x TC glass actually retract so it won't obstruct the 200-400?
I would like to own one if the budget can afford it but I'd wait for the early adopters to see how image quality is affected by this built-in TC.
PetKal wrote:
I can not recall seeing another FM Canon gear thread this long about a new lens announcement.
Even all MkII supertelephotos collectively haven't caused this much interest and speculation.
I think it's because there's a lot of pent-up demand for this type of lens, especially with the little teleconverter surprise. I think that it was one of the few things that could get us Canon users thinking about Nikon (besides the 14-24, that is). I'm very interested because of the flexibility that this lens offers.
Once Canon publishes the 200-400L price, it will likely be a downer.
I mean, Canon as well as their retail network must sense that the interest in the lens has been very keen. That knowledge will certainly not make them price the lens with restraint and customer consideration, at least not initially.
Yes, that price will be a serious obstacle, and will keep me shooting with my present tools/toys for a while anyway. I just can't justify what I think they'll be asking for one of these at this point in time.
PetKal wrote:
Thank you, pogito Paolo, have to remember that diminutive form of "gwapo".
I suspect even the most hardened gearedheads will pause before plonking close to $8,000 on 200-400 f/4. After all, one could get 500 f/4 IS MkII for just a bit more money.
However, the urge to be the first owner of the new lens (in the States, in Canada, on FM Forum, in California, or wherever) must be overwhelmingly potent for some folks.
I wish I had that kind of moolah to buy first batch. But as it stands this lens to me is far more interesting to talk about than to actually buy.
Initially I was very excited about this lens, but then reality sets in. Eating cup-noodles for a year, refinancing my mortgage, and risking a divorce is just too much!
Seriously, though, if after some time the price gets to the $7K range, I may just bite the bullet. It still would be 5x more expensive than any single piece equipment I've bought so far, but if I buy it, it will be the last lens I will ever buy
