It's just too bad the price will be so high. The dust argument goes out the window when you could buy a 7D and 70-200/4 to go along with your long tele (giving you a backup body too) for less than this lens.
Canon is doing everything right from an engineering perspective these days. It's just the price tags the marketing department puts on their products that make things go horribly wrong. (And, yes, I know that enough well-heeled pros and camera collectors will buy this lens to make it profitable.)
Assuming the lens performs the way I see it in my head, the implementation of the built in 1.4x TC is absolute genius (apart from the additional cost it will most likely present). I just hope it's designed well enough to take consistent switching between 1x and 1.4x over an extended period of time.
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."
CKrueger wrote:
Canon is doing everything right from an engineering perspective these days. It's just the price tags the marketing department puts on their products that make things go horribly wrong. (And, yes, I know that enough well-heeled pros and camera collectors will buy this lens to make it profitable.)
Yes - seems that Canon is focusing on top-notch L lens gear development, neglecting the EF line with some necessary improvements there. Slower but excellent primes and EF lenses will soon be a niche for third-party suppliers to dive in.
dolina wrote:
Wish it was like this for other lenses as well. Swapping out extenders in the field is a risk i would love not to have to deal with
Perhaps they will implement it in other lenses as well--maybe even a 1x macro that can have a built in converter to increase magnification 3-5x on the fly. This might allow the lens to focus to infinity when the converter is inactive.
This new release is very exciting to say the least. Seems Canon has focused on the long end of things except for the fisheye. I'm kind of bummed about that. I would have much preferred an update to the 24-70, a 50 1.4 II, or an exceptional UWA zoom. If the 70-200 II that I own is any indicatin, then the quality of these new long lenses should be superb.
I think the design looks fantastic - there's only a small chance I will ever own one of these, but I can hope
As far as I can tell, the internal TC means one of two things:
1) Without the extender, the end of the barrel is longer than a design without the TC, giving the lens a higher magnification ratio at closes focusing distances.
2) The internal TC makes the TC group to come closer to the rear element than a regular TC solution.
It's probably #2 - would that have any effect of the quality of the TC?
Nowhere Man wrote:
I disagree. I think the 400/5.6L (IS) is for the semi-pro shooter and would probably be priced $2.5k or slightly below. That puts it in the reach of many more shooters than this lens will ever be.
This beast of a zoom is clearly aimed at the pro-shooter given the ridiculous price tag it's going to carry. Only time will tell though.
Are you suggesting that a 400 5.6L, which currently runs $1200 new, would balloon to $2500 for adding nothing more than IS? Why would anyone pay that much for it? We'd all be better going to the 100-400.
bipock wrote:
[Are you suggesting that a 400 5.6L, which currently runs $1200 new, would balloon to $2500 for adding nothing more than IS? Why would anyone pay that much for it? .
Fully possible. It happened with about the same price ratio to the 70 200 F/4 IS over non-IS.
bipock wrote:
Are you suggesting that a 400 5.6L, which currently runs $1200 new, would balloon to $2500 for adding nothing more than IS? Why would anyone pay that much for it? We'd all be better going to the 100-400.
Even if the 100-400 is replaced by an MKII version it will probably cost somewhere around $2500, the same would most likely apply to a 400/5.6 IS. Just look at how much the 70-300L costs for example.
