Canon 200-400mm f4 lens - worth waiting for?

[FarQinell]

I see this new lens has a provisional price of 11000USD!!!

Too bad, I was looking forward to it. I guess 100-400mm is still the king in the "poor man's safari lens" category.

Totally agree - the 100-400L is a very good lightweight zoom lens - even pretty sharp at 400.
All Canon have to do for an upgrade is get a bit extra sharpness in to the optics and add improved IS - but for *od's sake leave the basic mechanics as they are.
Unfortunately they will probably re-invent the wheel and introduce a new IF design and triple the price.
But even then it will still be a fraction of the price of the 200-400!
That's the price of progress.

[jdavis37]

well a ferrari F50 has only 4 wheels, same as my mercedes... yet it cost a lot more.

you try to judge a product without knowing a *hit about it.   

It isn't prejudging, it is comparing to direct competition. The Canon, I would expect, to be a better lens, but the Nikon isn't, generally, considered a bad one, certainly many pros love it and it alone is a big reason why many Canon users switched to Nikon. But does the probability that the Canon lens perform "better" make enough of a difference in real world shooting enough of the time? That is the question by which the lens will live or die from a sales point of view.

For instance, the Canon 200 f2 is $1,000 (street price) more than the Nikon 200 f2, but I must see five to ten times more Canon versions than Nikon ones out there. But the lens differential is not enough to buy you a body. Now if a photographer can buy a good 200-400 and a D800 (or 2/3rds of a D4) for the same money, or less, as a "better" lens, that probably won't show dramatic image differences, it is a much harder sell.

P.S. I love the Karma thing, I vote keep it. I can instantly recognize the sycophants that are not interested in an actual discussion.

I had been waiting for Canon to produce a 200-400F4 ever since nikon introduced theirs.. a very convenient wildlife lens. Normally I am shooting with my 300F2.8 + 1.4X TC but miss the convenience of a sharp zoom (birds often changes sizes!).

Seeing the $11,000 price tag just means there won't be much temptation for me. I now many will act happy that Canon is charging 62% more than Nikon for a similar lens and will act like it is a good thing. Perhaps if I were wealthier I would agree.

But one can buy (a) a D4 + 200-400F4 + 1.4X TC for about $1300 less than they can buy the rumored 5D3 + Canon 200-400 lens. So you get 5+ fps extra with the Nikon combo and it costs less. Or buy the D800 versus D4 and the combo is $4300 less than the 5D + 200-400F4 combo.

I have owned Canon products since 1980 and have liked the quality, etc but will very much have to evaluate my next purchase. Canon has put a real premium on this lens well beyond what I was expecting. I thought a 20% markup over Nikon's pricing would be sufficient but was wrong. sadly with the 200-400 price it just is not a realistic option, especially if I were to consider the 1D-X versus 5D3. Ack!

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I see this new lens has a provisional price of 11000USD!!!
The Nikon 200-400 is available now for 7000USD.
That is a 4000 extra charge by Canon for a built in super duper 1.4X teleconverter - unbelievable!!

well a ferrari F50 has only 4 wheels, same as my mercedes... yet it cost a lot more.

honest, you try to judge a product without knowing a *hit about it.   

i would advice to wait a bit until we have seen tests.. then it´s early enough to compare it to the nikon lens.

yeah but $4000, FOUR-THOUSAND

[KeithR]

In order to accommodate the swing-in TC, I believe that there's "empty space" between the mount and the first optical element.

Isn't this essentially a built-in extension tube? While not identical in terms of positioning, the space for the TC to drop into presumably still has the effect of putting the main optics further away from the sensor, just like an exension tube does.

So if this is right, how will it affect focus at infinity?

[KeithR]

Urrghhh...

Never mind - the rear lens element is unaffected by any of this.

It's been a long, rough week...

[smirkypants]

Well, I'm going to get smitten to hell for this, but...

I had been waiting patiently for THREE years to get my hands on the Canon 200-400/f4. Three years of taking photos with a much inferior 100-400 zoom or a 400/f2.8 behemoth that I absolutely hate using because I feel like I give up all of my mobility. I hate the 2.8 so much that I only use it when it's cloudy because otherwise it's just too annoying to use.

Patiently... three years not switching to Nikon, whose 200-400/f4 I just adore. Then a few days ago I come to find that this lens will cost $11,000. Holy crap!!! Eleven grand!! I do pretty damned well but there's no way I can justify that amount of cash. No. Way.

So today I see at B&H that they have a refurbished 200-400/f4 Nikon beauty for $6300. I bought it. Sorry guys, I bought it. With the difference in price between the two lenses I can almost get a D4 and I can definitely get a D800 and have a lot of cash left over.

I have to say, I feel really guilty about this. Sure the Canon may be a bit better with the built-in 1.4x, but not $4700 better. Sorry Canon, you lost me.

[smirkypants]

smirkypants,
You just did the exact same equation I outlined many would make above. I know more well heeled hobbyists that will buy the 200-400, at $11,000, than pros with that kind of many to invest in a lens they have done without up till now.

Have no doubt. The Nikkor 200-400/f4 is a spectacular lens. On a D3 with a 1.4 adapter it crushes my 1D4 + 100-400/f4.5-5.6 with the camera's "built in" 1.3 adapter. Mauls it. Destroys it. Sure it's not a fair comparison, but up until the point the Canon 200-400 comes out, it's the only comparison that can be made.

The thing is that I know Canon owes me nothing. I'm just a consumer of their products and little else. Still, I feel betrayed. I stayed brand loyal to Canon waiting for a lens that was always just around the corner when all along I could have been shooting the Nikkor lens.

I'm seriously frustrated and bummed but did what I felt I had to do as someone who relies on his gear to pay the rent.

[cfargo]

Well, I'm going to get smitten to hell for this, but...

I had been waiting patiently for THREE years to get my hands on the Canon 200-400/f4. Three years of taking photos with a much inferior 100-400 zoom or a 400/f2.8 behemoth that I absolutely hate using because I feel like I give up all of my mobility. I hate the 2.8 so much that I only use it when it's cloudy because otherwise it's just too annoying to use.

Patiently... three years not switching to Nikon, whose 200-400/f4 I just adore. Then a few days ago I come to find that this lens will cost $11,000. Holy crap!!! Eleven grand!! I do pretty damned well but there's no way I can justify that amount of cash. No. Way.

So today I see at B&H that they have a refurbished 200-400/f4 Nikon beauty for $6300. I bought it. Sorry guys, I bought it. With the difference in price between the two lenses I can almost get a D4 and I can definitely get a D800 and have a lot of cash left over.

I have to say, I feel really guilty about this. Sure the Canon may be a bit better with the built-in 1.4x, but not $4700 better. Sorry Canon, you lost me.

Why the heck would you jump ship over a "RUMORED" price? Good luck getting your Nikon gear serviced as now all Nikon gear has to go to one of 23 services station (big backlogs) unlike Canon where you can get it serviced at any of hundreds of service centers.

[CrimsonBlue]

That Nikon lens is $7000 new.  It's been out for 2 years.  It doesn't have a built in 1.4x Extender (huge plus for most).

Canon lenses always get a high markup at launch, and then lower (more so than Nikon) with time.  It will be $8000-$9000 in 18 months - not cheaper than Nikon, but far closer.

Sorry if that doesn't fit your time frame, but Nikon was first to bring it to market.

[EYEONE]

Well, I'm going to get smitten to hell for this, but...

I had been waiting patiently for THREE years to get my hands on the Canon 200-400/f4. Three years of taking photos with a much inferior 100-400 zoom or a 400/f2.8 behemoth that I absolutely hate using because I feel like I give up all of my mobility. I hate the 2.8 so much that I only use it when it's cloudy because otherwise it's just too annoying to use.

Patiently... three years not switching to Nikon, whose 200-400/f4 I just adore. Then a few days ago I come to find that this lens will cost $11,000. Holy crap!!! Eleven grand!! I do pretty damned well but there's no way I can justify that amount of cash. No. Way.

So today I see at B&H that they have a refurbished 200-400/f4 Nikon beauty for $6300. I bought it. Sorry guys, I bought it. With the difference in price between the two lenses I can almost get a D4 and I can definitely get a D800 and have a lot of cash left over.

I have to say, I feel really guilty about this. Sure the Canon may be a bit better with the built-in 1.4x, but not $4700 better. Sorry Canon, you lost me.

You know that this lens is not even officially announced yet right? I gotta say (if your story is even true) that was not a smart thing to do.

But happy shooting anyway.

[smirkypants]

...if your story is even true...

I'm a fairly well known polo photographer (big fish/little pond). You can check out my site at www.pitchblackpolo.com. Thanks for that.

[CrimsonBlue]

I don't think he meant any disrespect about your photog creds.  It's just rare to see folks with tons of expensive gear jump from one camp to the other based on one lens.  It definitely happens, and it goes both ways. 

Nice site, and nice shots.  What you shoot with is your own business -- I'm just glad you're sharing your photos with us!

[EYEONE]

...if your story is even true...

I'm a fairly well known polo photographer (big fish/little pond). You can check out my site at www.pitchblackpolo.com. Thanks for that.

Not questioning your creds. Doesn't really matter to me what you shoot. I was referring to your story of switching to Nikon. Talk is cheap and people on forums love to talk big about switching. Most of them don't realize that it doesn't matter in the slightest.

[jdavis37]

Well, I'm going to get smitten to hell for this, but...

I had been waiting patiently for THREE years to get my hands on the Canon 200-400/f4. Three years of taking photos with a much inferior 100-400 zoom or a 400/f2.8 behemoth that I absolutely hate using because I feel like I give up all of my mobility. I hate the 2.8 so much that I only use it when it's cloudy because otherwise it's just too annoying to use.

Patiently... three years not switching to Nikon, whose 200-400/f4 I just adore. Then a few days ago I come to find that this lens will cost $11,000. Holy crap!!! Eleven grand!! I do pretty damned well but there's no way I can justify that amount of cash. No. Way.

So today I see at B&H that they have a refurbished 200-400/f4 Nikon beauty for $6300. I bought it. Sorry guys, I bought it. With the difference in price between the two lenses I can almost get a D4 and I can definitely get a D800 and have a lot of cash left over.

I have to say, I feel really guilty about this. Sure the Canon may be a bit better with the built-in 1.4x, but not $4700 better. Sorry Canon, you lost me.

Am sure many have done the quick math on the 200-400 price comparisons between Nikon and Canon. Iornically for years it was the cheaper Canon lens prices that we benefitted from. The MkI Canon 300 F2.8 used to sell new for $4500 USD and nikon's was close to $6000, and so on. In recent years Canon's glass has exceeded Nikon's in terms of pricing quite often and now ith the 200-400F it alos exceeds in priving in a grand way. Roughly $4000 more.

Everything I say from this point is said with the assumption that optically and Af speed etc I am assuming the Canon to be as good or better than the nikon. I have shot Canon since 1980. Not because Nikon is worse but mostly becasue what Canon has sold has been better for what I do. Both companies make great gear.

The news that my "dream" lens may be as high as $11K is disheartening for me. I was happy to see Canon may finally put their best Af into the 5d series mkaing it effectively the fabled EOS3D we have talked about. if it is 6.9 fps I can live with that. SOunds like a GREAT body.

But the 200-400F4 price is just too much for me to stomach, assuming it is true. I can buy a D4 + 200-400 F4 + TC for $1300 less than the rumored price for a 5D + 200-400F4. Not jumping shiop or jumping off  aledge but just commenting on what info we have. The built in TC is really nice. That said it isnt worth $4K to me. When I shoot with the TC attached to my 300 F2.8, the built in switch would be VERY nice since it is  aprime. With a zoom, however, I can usually live with 200-400 or 280-560 as the overlap is very large. So attaching a TC only costs me a stop and assuming the high ISO on the 5D is going to be quite good I can live without the stop. especially for $4K.

I'll wait til it is released to really whine (privately mind you not on here ). Wil I consider a D4? yes I will as it may be  abetter solution for the photography I do. Of course if the Canon lens sells for closer to $10K the odds of me staying with Canon increases. Still the D4 offers 11 fps, etc etc and if cheaper than the 5D + Canon glass I have to consider it. The 200-400F4 would be on my camera 95% of the time.

I know many will be glad Canon is charging $4K more than Nikon.. not sure why but they will defend it vehemently. I'm disappointed but it is what it is. Am sure many will still buy it and Canon will do well with it. But it is equally fair for people to consider the option of either D800 or D4 + Nikon 200-400 if that is what meets their needs and pocket books! I love the idea of a 200-400F4 lens.. just not at $11K! Put wheel son it and  a steering wheel and maybe it works better!

PS I wasnt expecting the lens to sell for $2995 but had guessed it would be about $9K, a price on the higher end of what I felt I could justify. At $11K it is past point of consideration frr me. especialy when you compare Canon's other new lenses ( 24-70 F2.8 price, no 14-24 f2.8 lens, 70-200 f2.8 price and so on ).

[smirkypants]

It's just rare to see folks with tons of expensive gear jump from one camp to the other based on one lens.

While this is true, this is a very specific kind of lens: a fast, long, super-telephoto zoom. Polo is a sport with huge fields (300 yards by 160 yards) and the ponies can be extremely far or as close as a dozen yards away when I'm shooting mid-field. I like to hand-hold as much as possible and run up and down the sidelines as much as I can. I have a couple of choices: I can shoot two cameras (one with the 400/2.8 and the other with the 70-200/2.8 ) and be trapped in one place from the weight, or I can shoot with the 100-400 if it is cloudless and I'm willing to give a little on the IQ.

Both options are bad and the 200-400 is a solutions. I can run up and down the field, plop myself down and shoot with my elbow on my knee. It's a 7 pound lens. It's not pleasant, but it can be done and the IQ boost is worth the extra pain in the ass. With the improvements in ISO performance, I don't see 2.8 as necessary as it once was. Sure I get some nicer bokeh, but I also lose tons of shots from being out of position. I prefer to get the shot especially since I'm often hired by specific clients to shoot THEM on the field.

So I guess my needs are specific and thus far poorly addressed by Canon. I'd have switched to Nikon three years ago but I didn't like 12MP images that when cropped couldn't be made into the 20-30 prints my clients pay the big bucks for. It's not like I am switching because of just any lens, this is THE lens. This is the money-maker. Period.

Does the switching "based on one lens" make sense now?