« on: July 07, 2011, 09:25:30 AM »
For $2K, you'll be lucky to just get the 400mm f/5.6 with IS - I'd guess that lens, if released, will come in at ~$2200.
Yeah, yer right. I was kind of lowballing the price. I got my 400mm f/5.6 used for about $950.00, so that distorted the starting point in my mental math.
My main point, though, was that I'd like to see Canon and others (Sigma, etc.) think a little more outside the box (to use a detestable corporate cliche') in terms of focal lengths of long tele fixed lenses.
There is a lot of innovation in zoom ranges, but we keep getting all the same fixed tele lenses over and over (300-400-500-600). Here's what I keep thinking: I already have the 70-200 f/2.8, and I want another longer lens for more reach. The 300 f/4.0 is a very good lens, but I can't get really excited about it since I have essentially the same thing if I put my 1.4x on the 70-200. The next choice up is the 400mm 5.6, which I own and love, but it's too tight for quite a few things while on the 7D in addition to being a slow f/5.6. As I said in an earlier post, I'd love to trade 50mm and some money to get that extra f/stop (4.0), and the lens would then be differentiated from what I get with the 70-200 + 1.4X. Putting the 1.4X on a 350mm f/4.0 would yield an attractive (rounded off) 500mm f/5.6.
Here, I'm mainly talking about the "mid-level" L lenses (300mm f/4.0, 400mm f/5.6). I'm not sure the same thinking applies the "big whites" (300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, etc.). The 300mm f/2.8 is already differentiated from 70-200 + 1.4X because it is f/2.8, rather than f/4.0 with the zoom combo.