EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Availability

[Random Orbits]

So basically this is a 200-560mm f/4-5.6 lens? Now, due to the IS, if it is a highly portable (hand-holdable) lens ... great for sport and stalking game. If not, still, what's the point?

It's not made for you, and it's not made for me.

But there must be enough people out there or a big enough market for Canon to think it can make money with this lens.  If it can compete with the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II at 200, and come close to matching the performance of the 300, 400, 500/600 primes while losing a stop, then it will be worth that much to sports photographers, who often use multiple lenses on multiple bodies.

[sagittariansrock]

So basically this is a 200-560mm f/4-5.6 lens? Now, due to the IS, if it is a highly portable (hand-holdable) lens ... great for sport and stalking game. If not, still, what's the point?

I believe the IS in super-telephotos are not necessarily for hand-holding- at those focal lengths minor movements such as mirror slaps are exaggerated greatly, so you'd need it even on a tripod (which is why they HAVE either a tripod mode or tripod-sensing tech.)
Plus, hand-holdability is somewhat relative up to a point. Reportedly, Neuro handholds (and sometimes runs with) his 600 II.

[Sella174]

It's not made for you, and it's not made for me.

Yip, and I hope Canon is reading this thread, so they know to make two less on the first production run.

[preppyak]

So basically this is a 200-560mm f/4-5.6 lens? Now, due to the IS, if it is a highly portable (hand-holdable) lens ... great for sport and stalking game. If not, still, what's the point?

Well, a 400mm f/4 lens will cost you $6000+ from Canon. A 500 or 600mm lens from Canon will cost you $10k (though, they will be f/4, not f/5.6). A 200mm lens is another $750, and a 300mm f/4 is another $1000. So, in pure focal length you are getting a 50% discount. And of course you'd have to change between all of those. A 100-400 would presumably be an alternative, but, its an older design and you need to add a teleconverter to get to 560.

The point is that you get 200-400f/4 and 280-560 f/5.6 while not having to take a lens off the camera. In rough conditions (rain, snow, sand, etc), that's a big advantage. And in sports where the action moves from end to end quickly, you don't need one camera with a 200mm and one with a 5-600mm lens. Plus, with how the 1DX handles high iso, f/4 isn't too bad.

Definitely a very niche product, but, makes sense from a design standpoint if it's as sharp as the primes

[Arkarch]

So basically this is a 200-560mm f/4-5.6 lens? Now, due to the IS, if it is a highly portable (hand-holdable) lens ... great for sport and stalking game. If not, still, what's the point?

Well, a 400mm f/4 lens will cost you $6000+ from Canon. A 500 or 600mm lens from Canon will cost you $10k (though, they will be f/4, not f/5.6). A 200mm lens is another $750, and a 300mm f/4 is another $1000. So, in pure focal length you are getting a 50% discount. And of course you'd have to change between all of those. A 100-400 would presumably be an alternative, but, its an older design and you need to add a teleconverter to get to 560.

I dont see the discount - I see a premium.   

By your numbers,
200mm f/4 = $750
300mm f/4 = $1000
400mm f/4 = $6000
TC 1.4 III = $500

You get the 500/600 f/5.6 via the 1.4 that is also part of the 200-400 mechanism.
(edit - assuming the 1.4 works on a 400 f/4.0)

I total roughly $8250 done via components versus $10000+ as a single assembly. 

This is by no means a bad deal.  For the 25% premium you get an all-in-one that saves you swapping time or additional bodies so as not to miss the shot.  But still its all f/4.0+.

[TrumpetPower!]

I, too, don't quite get the idea behind this lens.

Specifically, I'm having a hard time figuring out how it's better than the classical combination of a 400 f/2.8 on one body plus a 70-200 f/2.8 on another body. Most of the time you'd want to exclusively cover the range between 200 and 400 you'd be shooting with a 300 and only a 300. Most of the rest of the time that you want the flexibility of a zoom, you don't want to be stopped at 200 at the wide end -- and cropping from where the 70-200 ends to where the 400 begins isn't a problem. Similarly, cropping from 400 to what you get at 560 isn't a problem -- or, if it is, you slap on the 1.4x on the 400 and now you've got not a 560 f/5.6 but a 560 f/4. And pardon me if I don't exactly feel a thrill when I think of a 100-500 f/5.6.

And all of those crop considerations go double seeing how the stop of DoF shallowness you loose by shooting at f/4 is basically the same as what you get by shooting at f/2.8 and cropping. All you're left with by using the 200-400 is a few extra megapickles in a world where we're already swimming in megapickles to spare.

And, oh-by-the-way, with the two-body setup you've got your backup body right there at the ready. With the 200-400...do you still have a 70-200 on a backup body? If so, how is the 200-400 better than the 400 f/2.8?

I'm just not getting it, obviously....

But, still. I understand that it's got great image quality. But so does the 400 and the 70-200....

Maybe it's really just meant as a replacement for a 300 f/2.8? That I could see. But I'd still think that the preferred replacement for a 300 f/2.8 would be 70-200 plus 400....

I could also see this as a replacement for the 100-400 -- but not at ten times the price! (Not that the price for the 200-400 1.4x is unjustified; it seems quite reasonable. I just mean that though it's functionally a good candidate to consider as a replacement for the 100-400, financially it's in an altogether different league. Kinda like how the 400 f/5.6 and the 400 f/2.8 are functionally somewhat kinda sorta comparable but not at all financially comparable.)

I just don't get it....

b&

[neuroanatomist]

I just don't get it....

Then...don't get it! 

[TrumpetPower!]

I just don't get it....

Then...don't get it! 

Well...wasn't exactly planning on it...besides, I think I'm a one Great White kinda guy, anyway. I know there're others who think they can handle more than one, and I'm sure some of them do. But one's enough for me.

...besides, I hate to think of what would happen should the 400 even get wind that I've seen pictures shot with a 200-400....

b&

[eml58]

Wildlife !! Sports !!
Without any doubt, this will be "The" Wildlife Lens.
For those asking "why" "Will it sell", Look at Nikons 200-400f/4, USD$7,000 10 Years in Production into it's second iteration and sells very very well.

When I'm shooting Safari in particular where you need this particular range 200-560, this Lens saves me having to carry 4 current Lenses 200f/2, 300f/2.8, 400f/2.8 & 600f/4 (Unless I feel I need the f/2.8 for low light), I would likely still carry the 300f/2.8 as I cant see the new 200-400f/4 being quite as sharp as the 300, but I know this will be an amazing Lens. heavy ?? I shoot the 400f/2.8 & 600f/4 from a Monopod rig with a Wimberley, so this will simply go on the Monopod Rig, or a Beanbag, no different to the current way I shoot. f/4 ?? when I look at my History of shooting Wildlife Images very few of my Images are at less than f/4, my ONLY disappointment is it wont be available for my Tanzania shoot in June/July, or likely my Svalbard shoot in September/October, Bummer, but there's next year.

[eml58]

Thank you for the information.

You just may have it for that Safari ?? shoot in September Sanj, maybe not though, might need to put the Safari off untill March 2014 just to be sure.

I just booked a Trip to Namibia for 2014 to shoot the Himba, so this works great for me for 2014, Yippee !!!!!

[expatinasia]

Must admit to also being a little confused by this lens. It has a built in 1.4X but that means you can't take it off and use it on something else. Seems quite big, and not only in weight but actual size too - may be an issue when you have to travel by air to the events you cover.

So for sports you have a 70-200 f/2.8 ii on one camera, plus a 300 and/or 400 f2.8 ii with a 1.4x iii (if needed) on another.

Interesting. I hope they give a copy to TDP guy so he can do a full review and compare it to the 300 and 400 f/2.8 ii with and without extender.

[eml58]

In early march I was shooting Leopard in Northern South Africa (Mala Mala & Londolozi), with me was a Pro Photographer, Greg DuToit, he had a Nikon D3x with the Nikon 200-400f/4, I was using Two Canon 1Dx with the 200f/2, 300f/2.8 V2, 400f/2.8 v2 (The 200f/2 I had set up to my 5DMK3)(the 600f/4 V2 I had but mostly didn't use, too long on this trip), it was for me a perfect example while shooting of the value of this particular Lens (the 200-400), 1 Body attached to one Lens that covers 200-560 at between f/4 & f/5.6, for a Wildlife shooter to be able to Frame your shot as close to exact as possible in Camera, without having to shoot too long, or too short, this is it, flexibility, but yes, that flexibility comes at a cost, but that's life in general, not just in Photography, this will not be an everyones Lens like the 70-200f/2.8 L II or the 24-70f/2.8 L II, the new 200-400f/4 (1.4x) is a specialised Lens that will suit a particular type of Shooter, Wildlife & Sports & the 10k-12k price Tag isn't going to worry too much the shooter that's really interested in this Lens.

[neuroanatomist]

I hope they give a copy to TDP guy so he can do a full review and compare it to the 300 and 400 f/2.8 ii with and without extender.

They don't 'give', he buys them retail (although I suspect B&H does put him at the head of the line for purchasing new lenses).  I'm sure that as soon as they're available, Bryan will buy one to review.

[TrumpetPower!]

When I'm shooting Safari in particular where you need this particular range 200-560, this Lens saves me having to carry 4 current Lenses 200f/2, 300f/2.8, 400f/2.8 & 600f/4

Well, I've never been on safari, so I'll certainly defer to your experience. But I personally don't see using all four of the lenses you list...I'd go with just the 200 and the 400 and the 1.4x TC. I'd have two bodies regardless; might as well have a lens attached to each. And I'd like to think that either I or my guide would have enough experience (or time) to know which to have ready. And to get into an optimal position for whichever lens was best. I also don't think I'd use the TC very much, except in slow-paced, deliberative settings...there's an advantage to using a TC, yes, but not a huge one.

So, that again brings us to the matter of whether the 200 and the 400 plus a 1.4x TC beats a slower all-in-one design. For convenience, maybe...but I'd still want the redundancy, which kinda does away with the convenience....

Cheers,

b&

[TrumpetPower!]

I hope they give a copy to TDP guy so he can do a full review and compare it to the 300 and 400 f/2.8 ii with and without extender.

They don't 'give', he buys them retail (although I suspect B&H does put him at the head of the line for purchasing new lenses.  I'm sure that as soon as they're available, Bryan will buy one to review.

Doesn't he also take frequent advantage of the CPS loaner / trial program?

b&