EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Available Mid 2014?

[Bob Howland]

Perhaps Sigma will be out with their new 120-300mm f/2.8 OS Sport lens before long and throw in a 2x converter with it. 

I personally got tired of waiting and got the 300mm f/2.8L IS II: cheaper and works a charm with both v3 teleconverters.

I have a 300 f/2.8 IS and both V2 converters and the image quality is outstanding. But that's with a 300 prime, one of the sharpest lens that Canon makes. The issue I have is that I often shoot in dusty environments and dislike taking the lens off to change/add/remove TC's.

I'd rather have a 200-500 f/4 and a 1.4X TC than a 120-300 f/2.8 and a 2X TC. I think the image quality and focusing speed would both be much better.

[Marsu42]

But Sigma will probably have one out and available for $3500 before this hits the street.

... but the Sigma won't be white, so Canon is in the clear :->

[psolberg]

I hope this fiasco doesn't become standard for other camera companies. Announce a product they will not have for ages.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

holy crp that is a long wait! They seem to be having mad QC issues at their new lens plants (even the 24-70 II has copies varying quite a bit in where the DOF falls in each corner and even a bit in center frame wide open performance and that was after months of delays even).

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Perhaps it will be the kit lens for the mythical EOS 3D...   

I hear that it will come with it's own load bearing unicorn with tripod saddle. (like how the 1200mm came with it's own giant custom tripod or that giant Leica (?) super tele that came with it's own CAR to help transport it, only this is more magical!)

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I personally got tired of waiting and got the 300mm f/2.8L IS II: cheaper and works a charm with both v3 teleconverters.

if you can live without the zoom, that combo is one heck of a lot lighter and easier to wield too

i can see the appeal of the 200-400+flip in 1.4x for some though

[LetTheRightLensIn]

This is all reminding me of the infamous mythical octopus in The Goonies! 

[JonAustin]

I guess I'm in the other camp ... I give Canon kudos for refusing to release the lens until it meets their QC requirements, suffering possible embarrassment and lost sales now, rather than damage to their reputation for quality later.

I doubt that I would ever buy this lens, but I might consider a non-TC version. For now, I'm waiting to see if the 100-400 zoom gets a refresh. If I need this kind of reach before that lens is released, I'll rent 300 or 400mm prime.

[kirispupis]

It is quite clear why the development is taking so long.  Clearly this lens is made possible through magical fairies.  Unfortunately they have run into a few problems.

- A number of the fairies are on strike, presumably due to poor working conditions
- The replacement fairies are too fat, explaining the heft of this lens

[TrumpetPower!]

It was reported to be heavier than the 400/2.8 IS II (3850g).

If so, that would turn this white elephant into an even worse fiasco than the 400 f/4 DO.

The problem with the f/4 DO is that, sure, okay, it's comparatively small and lightweight. But it's still big and heavy, it's still very expensive, it's slow, and it doesn't have great image quality. Indeed, except for weight, the 300 f/2.8  with a teleconverter is comparably priced, much better optically, and much more versatile.

If the 200-400 is as expensive and heavy as the rumors are generally agreeing upon...well, then, you've got a lens that's heavier than the 400 f/2.8, slower than the 400 f/2.8, and roughly as expensive as a 400 f/2.8. That's an awful lot to give up just for the convenience of flipping a switch for the teleconverter.

The lens isn't going to have significantly better image quality than the other Great Whites; they're already close enough to perfection that, though there's always room for improvement, there's never going to be room for much improvement. So if it's not going to be a clear winner in terms of IQ, if it's not going to win on price, if it's not going to win on weight, and if it's going to lose pretty significantly in terms of speed and reach, if all it really wins is the convenience factor at the cost of all those other disadvantages...well, it's going to fit a very small niche indeed.

When it comes right down to it, it really seems to be nothing more than a grossly overpriced and overweight upgrade to the 100-400. I'm still thinking the classic combination of a 70-200 f/2.8, a 400 f/2.8, and maybe a teleconverter is going to mop the floor with this new lens for all but a few edge cases. (And, yes -- I know those edge cases exist, and those who spend a lot of time shooting in said edge cases are going to buy this lens no matter what.)

I'd really love to see a lens like this succeed, but either the weight or the price would have to be dramatically improved for me to have much hopes for it. Put the price at (or below) $7,000 and leave the weight or keep the price where it's rumored and get the weight under 7 pounds. Not much else, I fear, can save it at this point.

Regardless, that Canon actually officially announced this before the first copies had come off the production line is unprofessional. Go ahead and announce it before you've got enough on hand to sell, but don't announce it before you've actually got something in your hands you happily plan on selling. It's that whole thing about counting unhatched chicks....

It's a shame, too. Canon is the undisputed master of the supertelephoto. If anybody was going to pull this off, you would have bet on Canon to be the one to do it. That they're flailing around so miserably suggests to me that some heads should already be rolling.

Cheers,

b&

[ddashti]

That is definitely a long wait! What happened to "3rd quarter of 2013"?

[9VIII]

...had a chance to play with the upcoming, but yet-to-be-officially-announced EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x.

Regardless, that Canon actually officially announced this before the first copies had come off the production line is unprofessional.

[TrumpetPower!]

...had a chance to play with the upcoming, but yet-to-be-officially-announced EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x.

Regardless, that Canon actually officially announced this before the first copies had come off the production line is unprofessional.

Except, of course, that Canon did officially announce it. See the press release here:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/2/7/canon200400mm

The EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x is scheduled for launch during 2011.

Cheers,

b&

[eml58]

It was reported to be heavier than the 400/2.8 IS II (3850g).

If so, that would turn this white elephant into an even worse fiasco than the 400 f/4 DO.

The problem with the f/4 DO is that, sure, okay, it's comparatively small and lightweight. But it's still big and heavy, it's still very expensive, it's slow, and it doesn't have great image quality. Indeed, except for weight, the 300 f/2.8  with a teleconverter is comparably priced, much better optically, and much more versatile.

If the 200-400 is as expensive and heavy as the rumors are generally agreeing upon...well, then, you've got a lens that's heavier than the 400 f/2.8, slower than the 400 f/2.8, and roughly as expensive as a 400 f/2.8. That's an awful lot to give up just for the convenience of flipping a switch for the teleconverter.

The lens isn't going to have significantly better image quality than the other Great Whites; they're already close enough to perfection that, though there's always room for improvement, there's never going to be room for much improvement. So if it's not going to be a clear winner in terms of IQ, if it's not going to win on price, if it's not going to win on weight, and if it's going to lose pretty significantly in terms of speed and reach, if all it really wins is the convenience factor at the cost of all those other disadvantages...well, it's going to fit a very small niche indeed.

When it comes right down to it, it really seems to be nothing more than a grossly overpriced and overweight upgrade to the 100-400. I'm still thinking the classic combination of a 70-200 f/2.8, a 400 f/2.8, and maybe a teleconverter is going to mop the floor with this new lens for all but a few edge cases. (And, yes -- I know those edge cases exist, and those who spend a lot of time shooting in said edge cases are going to buy this lens no matter what.)

I'd really love to see a lens like this succeed, but either the weight or the price would have to be dramatically improved for me to have much hopes for it. Put the price at (or below) $7,000 and leave the weight or keep the price where it's rumored and get the weight under 7 pounds. Not much else, I fear, can save it at this point.

Regardless, that Canon actually officially announced this before the first copies had come off the production line is unprofessional. Go ahead and announce it before you've got enough on hand to sell, but don't announce it before you've actually got something in your hands you happily plan on selling. It's that whole thing about counting unhatched chicks....

It's a shame, too. Canon is the undisputed master of the supertelephoto. If anybody was going to pull this off, you would have bet on Canon to be the one to do it. That they're flailing around so miserably suggests to me that some heads should already be rolling.

Cheers,

b&

Cant fault your logic on this Trumpet Power, what a disappointment, to have openly declared this Lens in 2011 for a late 2011 Availability, and the beat goes on.

On weight, the unit I handled in Singapore in January was I felt around 4Kgs, slightly heavier than my 400f/2.8 V2 & 600f/4 V2 Lenses, not much, but slightly heavier. At that time the Canon Singapore Guys were saying with some confidence I might add, mid 2013, which I read as possibly Sept/Oct 2013, if it's now mid 2014 (and that's not confirmed) then I'm Gob Smacked.

I dont want to start a debate like the "DR" Thread, but the fact is Nikon have had a 200-400f/4 available for close to 10 Years, they sell quite a lot of these as well, I certainly find a load of Nikon shooters on Safari with the 200-400f/4, and I've used the Nikon Lens myself on a D3x & D800 (Borrowed), at less than 3.4 Kgs, it's a good Lens, 200 end very good, 400 end less so, and the Nikon Teleconverters, forget them, how is it that Canon, who I feel make the best Long Lenses on the Planet, cant get their Crap together on this ?? My 200f/2, 300f/2.8/400f/2.8 & 600f/4 with the V III teleconverters, are all simply amazing Lenses, what's the difficulty here for a Company like Canon to get this right in less than 3 years ??

I agree with most other Posters, Canon should have kept their Traps closed on this Lens until they had a Product 6 months from Market, simply makes them seem idiotic with these 2 & 3 year pre announcement announcements.

At least I get to balance the value on my 400f/2.8 for another year before selling it.

[TrumpetPower!]

I've used the Nikon Lens myself on a D3x & D800 (Borrowed), at less than 3.4 Kgs, it's a good Lens, 200 end very good, 400 end less so, and the Nikon Teleconverters, forget them, how is it that Canon, who I feel make the best Long Lenses on the Planet, cant get their Crap together on this ??

Excellent point.

The Nikon 200-400 f/4 weighs 3.36 Kg. The Canon 1.4X TC weighs 225 g. Combined, that's 3.58 KG.

Are we supposed to believe that the company that makes a 400 f/2.8 that weighs a mere 3.84 Kg (compared to the Nikon version that weighs 4.6 Kg) is making a brand-new 200-400 that's actually heavier than a decade-old Nikon plus a teleconverter? And is going to cost at least half as much again as the Nikon version? Really? A $3,000+ premium for a built-in teleconverter that weighs more than the competition's offering?

This is quite the embarrassment for a company that's just revolutionized the supertelephoto world with its hand-holdable Great Whites. It's a big step backwards, and not one that I think anybody would have expected.

Here's hoping it's just a fluke, or that the rumors are misinformed...but that we're even discussing this at all is very much not good for Canon.

Cheers,

b&