Why The EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Delay?

[dolina]

Other than the filter I could imagine accidental body/lens detachments happening when changing focusing modes and MFD.

But then again Canon has already made warnings about the body bulge for other lenses like the TSE 17mm.

[dr croubie]

Something tells me that the solution to this is not going to be anything to do with redesigning the 200-400.

They'll probably use it as an excuse to leave the inbuilt flash off the 7D mk2 and 70D "for our own good"...

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Is the image shown the actual product image of the lens?

Its a image of a prototype as used at the Olympics.  There is no actual production yet, only hand made prototypes..

[dr croubie]

Other than the filter I could imagine accidental body/lens detachments happening when changing focusing modes and MFD.

like the switch on the left side before the bulge.
AF -> PF -> MF -> Lensinthemud

[trowski]

There are pictures on Bob Atkins' website of the 200-400 with a 7D attached:

That DI filter isn't coming out with the lens mounted...

I'm utterly amazed that any of you are stunned at this design decision on the 200-400mm and even pretend that this might be changed. Have you looked at Canon's other super telephoto lenses? Lenses that share this exact same DI filter location (under the pop-up flash) are the 200mm f/1.8L, 200mm f/2L IS, 300mm f/2.8L IS, 300 f/2.8L IS II, 400mm f/2.8L IS, 400mm f/2.8L IS II, 400mm f/4 DO, and probably several others. Is it slightly annoying when using the 7D? Yes, but usually I know if I want to use a polarizer or not when I start shooting.

Other than the filter I could imagine accidental body/lens detachments happening when changing focusing modes and MFD.

like the switch on the left side before the bulge.
AF -> PF -> MF -> Lensinthemud

Last I checked, just pressing the lens release button doesn't immediately drop the lens off the camera. Some amount of turning was required. Maybe it's not an ideal location, but the AF/PF/MF not an often used switch. Canon could remove this switch and I wouldn't notice. However, again this design is shared with the other new super telephoto lenses. The switch location is identical on the version II 300mm and 400mm. It's only a little farther away on the version II 500mm and 600mm.

Side of the 300mm f/2.8L IS II:


I can see where the 1.4x might be causing them some design headaches since it's new to their still photography lens line-up. Perhaps there's some design challenges there that were not expected. However, including a switchable extender in a lens is not new to Canon: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/424578-REG/Canon_YJ20X8_5B_IRS_YJ20x85BIRS_2_3_20x_ENG_EFP.html

*shakes head* Honestly I think people on this forum really need to stop just trying to invent problems and letting their imaginations run wild without doing a few moments of research.

[sanj]

Just a thought - I wonder if they tried to build a "Drop-In" Tele-Converter?  That way there would be no bump.  Space would clearly need to be bigger than a DI Filter and optical alignment might make it impossible ... but it would be interesting.

Defeats the purpose I think.

[sanj]

I know I am a bit selfish when I say this but the current filter drop design does not bother me as I never use filters on tele lenses. And if I had to put a filter on these lenses it would be almost certainly a grad and that would go in the front.
If for any special reason I had to put a filter at the back end of the lens I would unmount it and put it.
Besides I do not use 7D.
But again, I realize this is selfish and Canon should design drop in filter for all potential buyers.

[neuroanatomist]

You're right, of course, Trowski.  I never even looked at the shorter supertele lenses that closely - my 600 II has sufficient space.  I suppose people are grasping at straws because this is one more delay in a long line of delays from Canon...

And if I had to put a filter on these lenses it would be almost certainly a grad and that would go in the front.

You'd need a pretty big grad filter (minimum front element size is 100mm diameter, filter would need to be even bigger) to put in front of a supertele lens, and some jury-rigged way to hold it there since there are no filter threads in front. 

[sanj]

You're right, of course, Trowski.  I never even looked at the shorter supertele lenses that closely - my 600 II has sufficient space.  I suppose people are grasping at straws because this is one more delay in a long line of delays from Canon...

And if I had to put a filter on these lenses it would be almost certainly a grad and that would go in the front.

You'd need a pretty big grad filter (minimum front element size is 100mm diameter, filter would need to be even bigger) to put in front of a supertele lens, and some jury-rigged way to hold it there since there are no filter threads in front.

You suppose the 200-400 has front element that large?

[neuroanatomist]

You suppose the 200-400 has front element that large?

Yes.  With a telephoto lens design, the entrance pupil is basically at the front element, and since the entrance pupil is the optical representation of the physical aperture (iris diaphragm) it has the same diameter.  400mm f/4 means a 100mm diameter entrance pupil (400 / 4 = 100).  With it being a zoom lens, the front element may need to be a little larger than that, to reduce vignetting.  If you compare it to the 500/4 II (~125mm diameter front element), you can see that it's probably at least 100mm in diameter:

[sanj]

Thank you Neuro. I understand corrected.

[Kit.]

And if I had to put a filter on these lenses it would be almost certainly a grad and that would go in the front.

You'd need a pretty big grad filter (minimum front element size is 100mm diameter, filter would need to be even bigger) to put in front of a supertele lens,

http://www.cokin.co.uk/pages/cokinX.htm

and some jury-rigged way to hold it there since there are no filter threads in front.

There is a lens hood mount.