M Vers wrote:
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.
bipock an example would be the price difference between the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM ($2,374) & the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM ($1,376).
You cant have weather or dust resistance with the push pull pump design of the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ($1,614).
To be honest I would have be more excited with the EF 400mm f/5.6L IS ($2,175-2,300) than the 200-400mm IS.
Interestingly, judging by the higher resolution image of this lens, it doesn't look quite a big and bulky as you might expect. For example, when you look carefully at the size of the lettering and switches relative to the lens itself, it doesn't seem as large to me as the Nikon version, which is amost the size/weight of the Nikkor 500. I wish we had some actual specifications to go on.
HenkvdT wrote:
I don't think it will be over 4K. Looks like 77mm, doesn't it?
It will most definitely cost over 4K. As mentioned before the Nikon variant, which is an older design and does not have a built in 1.4x TC, is priced at 6.5K. Just look at what Canon has been doing in regards to pricing.
HenkvdT wrote:
I don't think it will be over 4K. Looks like 77mm, doesn't it?
400mm F4 is going to need 100mm of aperture. If the inlet pupil is first element (typically is on telephoto lenses) then that sets the minimum on the front element.
This is a big sucker. Let nothing suggest otherwise.
dolina wrote:
bipock an example would be the price difference between the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM ($2,374) & the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM ($1,376).
You cant have weather or dust resistance with the push pull pump design of the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ($1,614).
To be honest I would have be more excited with the EF 400mm f/5.6L IS ($2,175-2,300) than the 200-400mm IS.
What I just like about it is the integrated TC.
Biggest improvement in the 70-200 was the optics and IS. We're assuming better optics. Still can't see it being that much more.
Same with the 100-400.
I found it to be funny that within a year of release, the 70-200 had rebate money on it. That suggests to me that Canon wasn't seeing the sales numbers they anticipated, much in the way vehicles have rebates. Seems to me logic would be price it right off the bat and go from there. I still don't think their pricing matrix is correct hence, come spring, the 70-200 will have rebate money again. I also think they will be disappointed with their sales figures on the new teles and this lens, assuming pricing is where people are suggesting ($7k and up). The demand is there, the supply is there, but the pricing is so far above the heads of alot of their targeted consumers that they aren't going to get the return. I'd love to have a 70-200/200-400 combo and would sell every lens I have now to get it - but not at $10k in cost. In real life, non-pixelpeeping photography, the gain isn't there.
The picture is not totally clear, but it looks like this has no front threads for a filter, just like other Canon super telephoto lenses. The fact that it does have a rear drop in filter provision showing in the photo also supports that it will likely be set up for no front filter. Very likely it will have the rubber front edge and come with a dedicated reversable hood. I make great use of the drop in polarizer on my 300 f2.8 L IS, and look forward to having that feature as part of this lens.
The EF 400mm f/5.6L IS is a 1993 lens that has no IS, optics for film, no weather or dust sealing. no Subwavelength Structure Coating and the other tech found in the 2010 super teles and the 200-400mm IS.
So yes it does need an update.
The MSRP of $7,000 is based on the price of lenses with same & similar front aperture sizes and the Nikkor 200-400mm. Why should Canon initially offer it for less than Nikon? They normally do that 6-9 months after.
bipock wrote:
Biggest improvement in the 70-200 was the optics and IS. We're assuming better optics. Still can't see it being that much more.
Same with the 100-400.
I found it to be funny that within a year of release, the 70-200 had rebate money on it. That suggests to me that Canon wasn't seeing the sales numbers they anticipated, much in the way vehicles have rebates. Seems to me logic would be price it right off the bat and go from there. I still don't think their pricing matrix is correct hence, come spring, the 70-200 will have rebate money again. I also think they will be disappointed with their sales figures on the new teles and this lens, assuming pricing is where people are suggesting ($7k and up). The demand is there, the supply is there, but the pricing is so far above the heads of alot of their targeted consumers that they aren't going to get the return. I'd love to have a 70-200/200-400 combo and would sell every lens I have now to get it - but not at $10k in cost. In real life, non-pixelpeeping photography, the gain isn't there.
jdben622 wrote:
FOR THE RECORD: if this lens is more than $4K, I'm selling all of my gear and moving to Nikon.
Okay then I'll sell you some of my Nikon gear to help you on your way and help finance me getting one of these.
I don't know for myself if the EF200-400 is in the plans. I like the range and already have the Nikon version and with G adapter. I find that whether I use it on by Canon body or Nikon body it's size limits what I will take in the feild. It is bigger and heavier than many people may think. I would believe the Canon to be just as big. Already having an 800 the 200-400 is a good compliment but carrying two big whites can be quite exhaustive. I have many a time taken both the Nikon 200-400 and Canon 800EF together but man at the end of the day I feel it.
I wonder if the internal 1.4 is a TC-III or something designed specifically for the lens. I traditionally am not a fan of TC's but in this lens I think it is a good idea, but I would hope that it is one that is easily swapped out when a few years down the road Canon redesigns and has TC-1V that the 200-400 could have the existing one swapped out assuming they are compatible. The main avantage of external TCs can use them on many lenses and if a new one comes out you can easily upgrade it.
All that said I still wish it could have been an EF150-600 instead.
and help finance me getting one of these.