Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Development Announced

[neuroanatomist]

The photo has a metal loop that I think is not a part of the lens, but rather a part of an anti-theft device (the one with a metal wire that has a lock on one side, and a big lump on the other side that wouldn't pass through the loop).

Thats the empty space to put the internal teleconverter when not in use, like the TV lenses.

Learnt something today, thanks !

That lump wouldn't serve any purpose in terms of anti-theft - when you look an enlarged image of it, you see that it's held in place by 4 little screws.  Incidentally, the lug is also shown in that photo, also held in place by 4 little screws, making it completely useless as an anti-theft device, right?  No key needed, just a common Phillips screwdriver to make off with the lens?  No, I don't think so.

I'm glad that lump is there - when I first looked at the new lens, it was on my iPhone.  I wondered about the 'built-in' TC and thought it was a bad idea if it could not be removed from the optical path (theoretically, it could have been turned off by shifting elements to reduce the magnification to 1.0x).  Seeing the 'lump' reassures me that the TC elements do move out of the optical path when the TC is not in use.

[Justin]

I for one am enthralled by the possibilities of this lens. I'm guessing the built in tele extender will really minimize any degradation in IQ. It's going to be between this lens and the 500 for me. But framing up wildlife with a zoom has real advantages, even over maximum reach.

[Xinz]

what would be the approximate time frame we can see this lens on field

[max]

To me it seems a bit expensive... obviously I have no idea about IQ but...

Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6 $1600 (but at 400 the glass is half the size in area)
Sigma 100-300 f/4 aprox $1200 (as I remember)
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 aprox $2000 (as I remember)
Sigma 300-800 f/5.6 aprox $7500 (different range i know, but 800 5.6 should have same size glass than 400 4... but its an 800mm)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 aprox $2200
Canon 300mm f/4 IS  aprox $1300
Canon 400mm f/5.6 aprox $1400

So to me without knowing anything about anything!! I would kina price in the 4-5000 range.

But thats just me... I will not buy this lens as i dont need it.

I would love a 70-200mm 2.8 that goes to a 140-400 5.6 with a 2xTC

[Etienne]

Cool lens. Nice to know that it's there, but I am sure it will be too expensive for the little I would need it right now.

[stark-arts]

MSRP somewhere around 7 - definitely not the replacement to the 100-400 though the 70-300L could be...

[kubelik]

To me it seems a bit expensive... obviously I have no idea about IQ but...

Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6 $1600 (but at 400 the glass is half the size in area)
Sigma 100-300 f/4 aprox $1200 (as I remember)
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 aprox $2000 (as I remember)
Sigma 300-800 f/5.6 aprox $7500 (different range i know, but 800 5.6 should have same size glass than 400 4... but its an 800mm)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 aprox $2200
Canon 300mm f/4 IS  aprox $1300
Canon 400mm f/5.6 aprox $1400

So to me without knowing anything about anything!! I would kina price in the 4-5000 range.

But thats just me... I will not buy this lens as i dont need it.

I would love a 70-200mm 2.8 that goes to a 140-400 5.6 with a 2xTC

Max, you are sort of comparing it to the wrong crowd of lenses.  I'd look at it this way:

Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6 L IS - $1800 listed - is 5.6 at 400mm and thus can't take 1.4x extender except on 1-series bodies, has older generation IS

Canon 400 f/4 DO IS - $6400 listed - is missing 200-399mm zoom range, requires separate 1.4x extender, questionable bokeh and image quality, has older generation IS, however it is much lighter

Canon 400 f/2.8 L IS II - expected $11000 listed - goes to f/2.8 but is missing 200-399mm zoom range, requires separate extenders

Nikon 200-400 f/4 AF-S VR - $6300 listed - requires separate 1.4x extender

that's really more the way the competition shapes up.  so an approximately $7000 price tag seems fairly reasonable to expect

[J-Man]

$7000 sounds about right, though I'd prefer it to be less than $5000.

I wonder if IQ will be better than the current 400/2.8 with & without 1.4x.

[WarStreet]

MSRP somewhere around 7 - definitely not the replacement to the 100-400 though the 70-300L could be...

The 70-300L : f5.6 @ 300mm
     100-400L : f5.6 @ 400mm
     200-400L : f5.6 @ 560mm

so, none of these lenses can be a replacement of the 100-400 since they are different category of lenses.
With every stop increase the prices increase alot.

Nikon's 200-400 VRII  esp price is $7000. Newer lenses always cost more, and the fact that it has a 1.4 TC build in (current canon TC 1.4 III esp is $500) I don't think it is far fetched to expect an esp price of $7500. Actually, at this price, I believe it is a better value for money compared to the nikon. 

[kubelik]

Nikon's 200-400 VRII  esp price is $7000. Newer lenses always cost more, and the fact that it has a 1.4 TC build in (current canon TC 1.4 III esp is $500) I don't think it is far fetched to expect an esp price of $7500. Actually, at this price, I believe it is a better value for money compared to the nikon. 

yes.  the ability to change a 1.4x TC on and off without having to manually dismount and remount the lens is absolutely huge.

I think the real question becomes ... shell out $7500 for this lens, or $9500 for the 500 f/4 L IS II?

[neuroanatomist]

I think the real question becomes ... shell out $7500 for this lens, or $9500 for the 500 f/4 L IS II?

I dunno...my guess on the cost of the new lens is at least $8500. 

Personally, given the choice I think I'd opt for the 500/4 II - then, for 10K you'd have the option of a 700mm f/5.6 IS.

Have you looked at the MTF charts for the 500/4 II?  Almost all the lines are squished against the top of the plot.  It puts the 70-200 II to shame...

[WarStreet]

I dunno...my guess on the cost of the new lens is at least $8500. 

I won't be shocked to see a $8500 price. As Kubelik said, the advantage of build in TC is huge. Maybe I am exaggerating, but could the flexibility of this lens, help in removing the need of an extra body/lens for some ?

[liv_img]

That's the perfect lens for wildlife photography many of us have been waiting for years, looking with dispare at the Nikon 200-400mm f/4.

And NO, it's clearly NOT the replacement of the small and much cheaper Canon EF 100-400mm/4.5-5.6L. Nikon has both lenses in their range: the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and the 200-400mm f/4. Both are for different users. I will buy the 200-400mm f/4!

[lol]

This is the best surprise of the announcements today! A dream wildlife lens, within the known laws of physics anyway. I wanted a long-ish zoom tele beyond the 100-400 for a while, as primes would be limiting even if you could afford to faff around swapping extenders around. I think the balance of range and spec keeps it well within my hand holding ability.

I'd guess the eventual street price will be in the ball park of the 300mm f/2.8L II. I think my saving up time will be comparable to the development time so this is perfect too!

[motorhead]

This will be a must have lens for me. I use an EF100-400 for motorsports now and have often complained about the unwanted bottom end.  200-400 with the option of the extra 160mm reach will be perfect. It will also sit better into my existing lens range.

The next 12 months might become a very expensive one what with this and the possibility of the 1Ds replacement at some stage.

Richard