it will be interesting to see how sells of this lens will do considering newspapers and magazines don't have large amounts of money to spare at the moment. Even shooters from AP don't shoot w/ the latest & greatest. With many papers/companies already having 400mm lenses, some even still using the original 400mm 2.8L MK1, I wonder how many will invest in this lens with the cost being 7-9k.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Maybe now that canon have revamped and added to the bulk of the white expensive lens line. they could do something about lenses most people can actualy afford.
Having taken the L's into stratosphere prices (for each size) they could have a sub L line .
Imagine a Line of good quality (not L IQ but much better than base) glass that better amateurs can afford/justify
30/1.8 (FF Ring USM) 50/1.4 (ring USM) 85/1.8 (IS) 200/2.8 (IS) 300/4 (new IS) 400/5.6 (IS)
Maybe even replace the 100-400L with a 100-400 5.6 (new IS)
I think there would be a big market, which is not exactly going to rob buyers from these new L's ...Show more →
Venus wrote:
Slow in the coming for Nikon has had this tele-zoom at F4 long time ago.
If you want to make such comparisons, let's see...when is Nikon going to release a 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 with autofocus? You're going to have to wait a very, very long time for that. How about a 135/2? A tilt-shift 17/4? Or any macro lens capable of higher magnification than 1:1? Or an 800/5.6?
And for what it's worth, the Nikon 200-400/4 performs quite poorly near infinity focus. It is a very well-known problem with this lens.
And by the way, they seem to have forgotten to come up with an IS version of the humble 400mm F5.6L! A four stop IS, two ED lenses instead of the one in the old version and, a minimum focal length of 1.5m would be a killer!
How do you know they "forgot?" Just because one isn't being announced at this time doesn't mean it won't ever be updated. You're wishing for an update for a lens that Nikon doesn't even have, yet you criticize Canon for being "slow" to make a design that Nikon doesn't even do particularly well, especially given the price point.
I was able to view a high-resolution image of this lens, and it appears that the drop-in filter is the last element along the optical axis. Judging from its position along the barrel, and comparing this with lenses like the 200/2L IS and 300/2.8L IS (which we know are extender compatible), I am fairly certain that this new 200-400/4L IS will also be compatible with existing Canon extenders.
Oh, and I'm going to take a shot in the dark and guess that this lens will have two fluorite elements and at least two additional UD elements, with a total element count of 20-24, not counting the extender, which will add around 6-7 more elements.
So that means they should cost around US$6000 and $7000 respectively.
Anyway, I think that built in TC could be both a selling point as well as a turn-off to some people. For people who've already own a TC, they're basically paying extra for something they already have or don't want/need. On the other hand, it could be an advantage to those who don't have a TC.
n0b0 wrote:
So that means they should cost around US$6000 and $7000 respectively.
Anyway, I think that built in TC could be both a selling point as well as a turn-off to some people. For people who've already own a TC, they're basically paying extra for something they already have or don't want/need. On the other hand, it could be an advantage to those who don't have a TC.
You are dreaming. The current 1999 500mm IS & 600mm IS are $6,700 & $8,800 respectively.
I think a TC specific to a focal length will produce better IQ and AF response than a generic TC for all.
wickerprints wrote:
Now taking bets on MSRP: I will say it's going to come in at around $7500.
When I saw the little bump on the side for the extender, I thought of that line Arnold Schwarzenegger delivered in the movie "Twins": "IT'S NOT A TOOOMAHHHH."
It is nice to see Canon breaking some new grounds with supertelephoto lenses.
Many of us have been hoping for a refractive 400 f/4 lens......I guess this is it.
It will be heavy...perhaps 3.3 kg or so ?
I am afraid it will hit the shelves with an intro price pushing towards $8k or even $9k.
If the design emphasis has been on FL flexibility and usefulness, how much IQ goodness will be built into the lens ?
What kind of a performance hit will the lens suffer on the extended FL range ?
The market success of the lens will also depend on its IQ at 400 (560)mm. That's where most folks would end up using it much of the time.
One way or another, the old 100-400 is here to stay. Its greatness is not only in satisfactory IQ, but also in relatively low weight as well as the price.
I don't need 200-400 f/4 because I am well covered in that range already. However, the new zoom might represent an alternative to folks who are contemplating getting 500 f/4 or 400 DO.
realmunseen wrote:
Canon EF 400 f/2.8L IS II lens weights 8.49 lbs (3.85kg)
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II lens weights 7.4 lb (3.4 kg)
I expect the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x to weight in very close to the Nikon because of the added weight of the built in extender canceling the lighter materials used in the barrel.
And integrated 1.4x TC would add about 150g, so I can't see that pushing it up toward Nikon's weight. Also Canon's new bodies are much lighter than Nikon's. Must have left them a bit slack jawed when they saw the specs of the mk II lenses.
Venus wrote:
Slow in the coming for Nikon has had this tele-zoom at F4 long time ago. And by the way, they seem to have forgotten to come up with an IS version of the humble 400mm F5.6L! A four stop IS, two ED lenses instead of the one in the old version and, a minimum focal length of 1.5m would be a killer!
You won't see that small an mfd in a prime, but given the new 400 f/2.8L II has an mfd of 2.7m, they could possibly get it down to 2.5m, which would be a great improvement.
n0b0 wrote:
Anyway, I think that built in TC could be both a selling point as well as a turn-off to some people. For people who've already own a TC, they're basically paying extra for something they already have or don't want/need. On the other hand, it could be an advantage to those who don't have a TC.
Well you won't be able to use this TC on any other lens, so you'll still need an external TC if you want more reach on any other lens.
I think it's brilliant idea and would love to have seen it in the prime superteles. Being able to switch your TC on or off with essentially no down time in shooting (and not having to expose the sensor) is excellent.
PetKal wrote:
It is nice to see Canon breaking some new grounds with supertelephoto lenses.
Many of us have been hoping for a refractive 400 f/4 lens......I guess this is it.
It will be heavy...perhaps 3.3 kg or so ?
I am afraid it will hit the shelves with an intro price pushing towards $8k or even $9k.
If the design emphasis has been on FL flexibility and usefulness, how much IQ goodness will be built into the lens ?
What kind of a performance hit will the lens suffer on the extended FL range ?
The market success of the lens will also depend on its IQ at 400 (560)mm. That's where most folks would end up using it much of the time.
One way or another, the old 100-400 is here to stay. Its greatness is not only in satisfactory IQ, but also in relatively low weight as well as the price.
I don't need 200-400 f/4 because I am well covered in that range already. However, the new zoom might represent an alternative to folks who are contemplating getting 500 f/4 or 400 DO. ...Show more →
+1, besides I don't see need of 200mm end at all on this lens.
