missing 200-400 and 100-400 announcements?

[bvukich]

If it has those attributes I will buy it.

Me, too!

Me three.  I've rented the current version and was quite impressed.  Good AF, good IS, sharp...  I even liked the shotgun zoom, makes it really quick and easy to go from wide and see the whole field (football) and zoom all the way in nearly instantly to catch some action.

I really want one, but I can wait until there's a new version.  I'll just rent it again if I need it before that.

[Dylan777]

Rumors are just that.  Nothing you read here is guaranteed, and many post that a item is confirmed based on talking to a local camera salesman, who likely has no real inside knowledge.
Never buy or sell equipment based on just a rumor.  Just enjoy the many fine contributors to the site and take photos!

+1.....I'm in the same boat waiting for new 100-400mm. I'm currently cover from 16 - 200mm at F2.8 straight - range I use most. Therefore, I'm no hurry for 100-400 yet, but it would be nice to have a lens that can cover up to 400mm. 

[dolina]

And remember not all rumors are created equal.

Some rumors are circulated by those who are under a non-disclosure agreement
Some rumors are based on hypothesis from known product life cycles, upcoming events, anniversaries and milestones
Some rumors are wishful thinking from Internet forums
Some rumors are just plain bogus

Buy based on requirement weighted upon available information.

Remember, all refreshed gear will cost more than what they are replacing.

[K-amps]

Canon has really done well modifying buyer behaviour... the current 100-400 is about $1600 and you guys are saying that you are willing to buy a mk.ii for 2x the price? 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If this is your profession so be it. But Canon is stupid in everything related to 200-400 in the sense that they announced it months er year(s) I mean before it will actually be available. They were not professional enough to say even approximately when it will be available

You seem to be confusing the statement that it was under development with a new product announcement.  That is a big difference.  It might take years to develop a product, there may be little pitfalls along the way, like the Tusanmi, which they should have predicted (very unprofessional not to have predicted that), and shut down the power consuming fluorite line and ruined many months production worth of crystals, if not more.  That alone likely set back development for almost a year, since production would certainly have priority over R&D.
Once the product is announced, then start the clock to delivery.  Right now, only prototypes have been seen, and for all we know, another tweak in the design is needed before its ready to announce.

[dolina]

Canon has really done well modifying buyer behaviour... the current 100-400 is about $1600 and you guys are saying that you are willing to buy a mk.ii for 2x the price? 

Market dictates price. 

[dallasdave]

What's frustrating to me is that the 100-400 is such an old model and yet they won't update it, and the 200-400 was in use at the Olympics and yet there's no news on it either.

[kirispupis]

My suspicion with the delay in the 200-400 is a factor of trying to balance market sustainability with engineering.  I fully believe that Canon already has the know-how to build this lens.  Where the problem comes is building one that will actually sell.  How much of a premium will people pay for the built in extender?

Canon's 300/2.8 II is currently priced at $7250.  Nikon's 300/2.8 VR is currently priced at $5700 compared to their 200-400 VR II at $6700.  If you extrapolate this price then it comes to $8500 for a Canon 200-400.  The 1.4x III extender is $500.

However the latest CR posts have put the price at $10k-$11k.  That is a hefty premium for the convenience.  At these prices the 300/2.8 II is quite a bit cheaper and handles a 2x extender very well.  This also puts it in competition with the 400/2.8 II.

For this product to be a success, IMHO, they really can't price it above $9500.  Even at that price I expect a number of people to find the 300/2.8 II to be a better alternative.  The reason we are seeing the delay is Canon is finding it difficult to design the lens for that price while still keeping it within the optical standards of their best telephotos.

IMHO Canon really made a mistake here.  They would help themselves far more by releasing a 200-400 without the 1.4x extender at $8500.

[leecheeyee]

I want for the new 100-400 for long long ago!!!

[FarQinell]

My suspicion with the delay in the 200-400 is a factor of trying to balance market sustainability with engineering.  I fully believe that Canon already has the know-how to build this lens.  Where the problem comes is building one that will actually sell.  How much of a premium will people pay for the built in extender?

Canon's 300/2.8 II is currently priced at $7250.  Nikon's 300/2.8 VR is currently priced at $5700 compared to their 200-400 VR II at $6700.  If you extrapolate this price then it comes to $8500 for a Canon 200-400.  The 1.4x III extender is $500.

However the latest CR posts have put the price at $10k-$11k.  That is a hefty premium for the convenience.  At these prices the 300/2.8 II is quite a bit cheaper and handles a 2x extender very well.  This also puts it in competition with the 400/2.8 II.

For this product to be a success, IMHO, they really can't price it above $9500.  Even at that price I expect a number of people to find the 300/2.8 II to be a better alternative.  The reason we are seeing the delay is Canon is finding it difficult to design the lens for that price while still keeping it within the optical standards of their best telephotos.

IMHO Canon really made a mistake here.  They would help themselves far more by releasing a 200-400 without the 1.4x extender at $8500.

I agree. In fact why did Canon bother with the fancy built in extender?
Surely a 200-560 zoom would have been much easier to design and manufacture.
If the new lens is not extremely sharp at 560/5.6 it will be considered a failure if the asking price is very high IMHO.

[jthomson]

The 10K price doesn't make much sense.

The Nikon 200-400 is $1000 less than the Nikon 500mm.

I can't see the Canon unit being more expensive than the Canon 500mm.
If it really is 10 K then  the Nikon 200-400 plus a converter plus a camera  would be less than the Canon lens.


I like the Idea of the 200-400 1.4x, but if it is more expensive and heavier  than a 500mm  then i don't think it will sell well.