Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Information

[ddashti]

Wow. A video turns the long-lingering "idea" into a reality!

[Zv]

Granted it is pricey and that it maxes out at 560mm @ f/5.6 as someone put it BUT look at what you get - a pretty awesome zoom range of 200-560mm, the latest image stabilization, a built in teleconvertor (bet that wasn't easy to do!), weather sealing and L build quality. And it's light enough to handhold. Based on Canon's recent lens you can be sure IQ will be pretty darn good too!

Do I have 11k to spend? Nope.

Do I wish Canon made a cheaper version? Sure would be nice of them but aint gonna happen.

I'll leave the sports and wildlife to the rich and be content with my puny 70-200 and 7D instead!

[dolina]

As heavy as the 600/4 IS II (3920g)? I wonder if it'll approach the weight of the 800/5.6 IS (4500g)!

Priced nearly as much as the 400/2.8 IS II ($11,500)?

The pluses of this lens are the zoom and built-in extender. A short f/4 and and longer f/5.6 are still slow even with modern bodies like the 1DX. Compromises like these are acceptable on a $7,000 lens but not on a $11,000 lens.

I expect this to sell as much as the 800/5.6 IS after the 600/4 IS II was introduced!

[mrsfotografie]

Would you rather canon just have a 200-400 and drop the teleconverter?

Yes! It would be a great replacement for my 100-400. I don't really require the extra reach and have a 1.4 TC for when I do. I would like to gain a stop on the long end, but keep the versatility of a zoom.

No built-in TC would reduce the price and weight somewhat, which is good. I however doubt Canon will release a 200-400 w/o TC because it will eat into the sales of the 200-400 w/ TC.

[telephonic]

Allow me to fantasize this beast PLUS 1.4X on 1DX. 

[dolina]

A separate extender sells for $430. Materials-wise it should be cheaper when integrated.

Rather I think the weight and price is mostly from Canon trying to surpass Nikon's 200-400 VR II.

Anyway, not in the market for this thing. I rather get a white prime than a white zoom.

[sanj]

This lens has my name written on it. Am going to get it for sure.
Am tired of paying excess baggage every time I travel to Africa. Every time I board a small airplane...

Will sell both my 300 2.8 and 600 f4 (both version 1) and replace it with this. No more sensor dust, excess baggage etc.

I have lost shots earlier because my subjects came too close. Now I wont.

And on the long end 540mm f5.6 and 600mm f4 is not that different for me. If one day I start making money with my tele shots I will buy the 800...

Happiness...

[Lee Jay]

<li>Pricing: somewhere around $11000.</li>

Yawn....

If you can't afford it, why even comment? My money is in the bank just waiting and I'll be one of the first in line.

I can afford it, I just wouldn't buy it.  It's simply not worth it.  If it had been, say, 100-300/2.8 (all zoom range, no TC switch) and, say, $4000, that would have been interesting.  As it is, the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS is far more interesting - it has more aperture (107mm versus 100mm), a wider total range (120-600mm versus 200-560mm), a faster maximum f-stop (f/2.8 versus f/4), and a current price of $3,000 (versus $11,000).

[mrsfotografie]

A separate extender sells for $430. Materials-wise it should be cheaper when integrated.

I disagree, the engineering and manufacturing cost for something that moves and needs to be positioned in place within tight tolerances is more expensive than a static component.

[TexPhoto]

This lens has my name written on it. Am going to get it for sure.
Am tired of paying excess baggage every time I travel to Africa. Every time I board a small airplane...

Will sell both my 300 2.8 and 600 f4 (both version 1) and replace it with this. No more sensor dust, excess baggage etc.

I have lost shots earlier because my subjects came too close. Now I wont.

And on the long end 540mm f5.6 and 600mm f4 is not that different for me. If one day I start making money with my tele shots I will buy the 800...

Happiness...

A friend of mine is a pro wildlife shooter , and sadly a Nikon user .  He loves the 200-400, and travels the world with one. 

[CanonWife]

Dang--This was going to be my husband's Christmas gift.  I've been searching Canon EU/Canon US for months trying to get an Olympic used one for him.  Guess I'll just have to give him a little note hidden in some lingerie that says "as soon as Canon makes it you'll get the 200-400"!

[EchoLocation]

This lens was on display at a camera show in Hong Kong a few weeks ago(I live in China, but nowhere close to there, so i didn't take much notice of it.) My wife showed me an ad for the Canon booth at the show(the ad was all in Chinese,) and the ad clearly stated that the 6D would be on display as well as the 200-400mm 1.4x.
I basically forgot that this lens hasn't been announced yet(or has it?) as I have seen this lens so many different times in the past couple of years. I'm not sure if the lens on display at the camera show here in China was a preproduction model or a consumer model....
this is definitely turning in to quite the saga.....

[pj1974]

I think this lens will be a real hit for wildlife photographers, particularly professionals, or those with sufficiently large bank accounts 

While some people compare it to tele primes. While I'd love to own a Canon 600mm f/4 II - I would find the lack of zoom limiting at times - eg for providing habitual context of wildlife, even birds) - or when larger subjects fill the composition. Then other people compare the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x (as as zoom)  to xx-300mm 2.8 zoom lenses.  However I believe the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x is a lens in a league of it's own, and shouldn't be compared to such lenses.

The closest current Canon lens is the 100-400mm L.  But it's design (push/pull), older IS, IQ and ultimate reach are not the same.  (For the record I expect the 200-400mm 1.4x lens will have very high IQ, and if the 1.4x inbuilt teleconverter is tailored to the lens, I expect it will be particularly good still @ 500mm f/5.6) 

I'm not into sports photography at all (and thus don't need a f/2.8 telelens).  Even then, lots of indoor photography requires a faster prime (eg around f/2)  So I don't think it should be compared to the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 - as they are different lenses.

Now, I won't be the first to say that getting a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and using a 2x teleconverter will be a great 'budget' workaround... (and even then, not THAT cheap, but substantially cheaper than the rumoured price of the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x)  However as a dedicated lens, I expect the Canon's AF will be faster and more accurate and the eventual IQ will be better. 

I believe the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 lens is also quite a 'comparable' - though of course it doesn't have the 1.4x. (Note: the latest version of this lens was the Nikon 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED VR AF-S, introduced April 2010 - price $7000 US).  That's a popular lens with a number of Nikon wildlife photog's.

Although I can afford it, I very much doubt that I'll ever buy the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x- as I'll choose to use and send my money for other things - including donations to international charities. I just can't justify that price (at least not at this time). As I do like to photography birds (both in flight and perched) - as well as other wildlife, the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x offers a lot in terms of zoom range and I'm sure high IQ. The IS will be helpful, particularly at 560mm f/5.6, and f/4 between 200-400 is not at all shabby!

Currently I have the Canon 70-300mm L - which I love for it's amazing IQ and particularly its portability (fits in my Lowe shoulder bag, and is nicely weighted and compact) . On my 7D it translates to a 480mm on a FF, which isn't too bad - though at times I desire more reach (naturally) and of course the 560mm f/5.6 on a 7D would nearly double that - being the equivalent of about 900mm on FF.   

Well... that's my 2 cents worth.  I'm looking forward to it being 100% released, then the reviews -and more importantly - great photos made with it! Cheers.

Paul

[samkatz]

I don't have the $$ or the physical strength to carry this lens.  But if I had both, why not opt for either the 500f4 L or the 600 F4 L?  really, if I'm going to empty the bank account and get a herniated disk, I'd go for the prime, with no gimmicks..

Am one who's still hoping for a replacement for the 100-400 L that's a bit sharper, better IS(a given) and lighter weight(I doubt it).  Am also considering the 400 F 4 DO. However, I wouldnt spend 6K unless they upgraded it from the original.

[brant]

600 F4 L FTW!!!