Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4X [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

Share

When’s it coming?
The Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x was mentioned as an in development product by Canon back in February, 2011. A lot of us expected an official product announcement sometime in the following 6 months, however that hasn’t happened. The perceived delay is probably due to Canon wanting to get the new 500 & 600 super telephotos into the hands of photographers first. Shipments have started in small numbers, and stock levels should improve in the coming months.

I have been told that an official announcement has been delayed a few times, however we may see it finally announced in June, 2012. There is also a possibility of it not being announced until the pre-Photokina announcements in August or September. You can “almost guarantee” it won’t be announced after Photokina I’m told.

Availability? I would expect late 2012 or early 2013. The price I have heard for this lens will be in the are of $10,999 USD.

cr

[Dylan777]

Price tag on recent "L" lenses are getting out of reach for me 

[RLPhoto]

Why canon?! Because the next thing us mere mortals need is another 10,000$ lens.

I Admit though, it would be a fun rental.

[vlim]

Unfortunately that's too expensive for most of us ! that's why a new version of the 100-400 L IS is absolutely needed

[bdunbar79]

I can appreciate the difficulty in producing a zoom lens from 200-400 at a widest aperture of f/4 is, but seriously and practically, a lens that can only go to f/4 for me would not be worth $10k, period.  Now, the 500, 600, and 800 lenses that do that, sure.  But 200-400 is not enough coverage for me and I need f/2.8 at those focal lengths.  Personal preference of course.

[Dylan777]

Unfortunately that's too expensive for most of us ! that's why a new version of the 100-400 L IS is absolutely needed

+1...Also, please NO more pull & push zoom

[preppyak]

Unfortunately that's too expensive for most of us ! that's why a new version of the 100-400 L IS is absolutely needed

Yeah, although that too will probably be $2000-2500 if the price increases are consistent.

[sb]

Unfortunately that's too expensive for most of us ! that's why a new version of the 100-400 L IS is absolutely needed

Yeah, although that too will probably be $2000-2500 if the price increases are consistent.

+1 Most definitely. Don't start selling your mk1 100-400 just yet, prices are heading into uncharted territory.

[kirispupis]

This is rather sad as a price of $11k makes this lens way overpriced.

Consider this.
   Nikon 300/2.8 VR - $5,800
   Canon 300/2.8 II -  $7,300 (25.8% premium)

   Nikon 200-400     - $7,000

If you apply the same premium to a Canon 200-400, you arrive at a price of $8,800.  Of course, the Canon 200-400 has the built in 1.4x extender, but if this lens is priced at $11k that means you are effectively paying $2,200 for the extender - compared to the III versions that cost $500.

Given current trends $9,500 would be an appropriate price for this lens.  At $11k the lens begins to compete with the 400/2.8 II - which does not have the flexibility of a zoom but does offer better bokeh, faster AF, and the ability to become an 800/5.6.  For my uses, that would put the 400/2.8 II as the better buy.

[davehollandpics]

I was really hoping it would have been ready for the Olympics.  A lens with a range of 200-560 would be really useful, especially when you can't move around a whole lot.

[EOBeav]

Another one to kit with the next Rebel?

[Random Orbits]

Unfortunately that's too expensive for most of us ! that's why a new version of the 100-400 L IS is absolutely needed

Yeah, although that too will probably be $2000-2500 if the price increases are consistent.

Even so, it would stilll be a decent value if IQ is improved.  Think of it as combined 300 f/4 IS and 400 f/5.6 primes.  If the resulting IQ is better than those two lenses and the price is a less then the sum, then it'd be a pretty good value with zoom flexibility down to 100mm.

[t.linn]

At that price, this product is really irrelevant to me regardless of its features and benefits.  L lenses have always been expensive but Canon appears determined to see exactly how much they can gouge their customer base before these lenses stop selling.  I hope they find the ceiling soon.

I see some folks arguing that the price can be justified by comparing it to the cost of this lens plus that lens, etc.  To me—and this is just my opinion—price gouging is determined by the cost of competing goods that offer reasonably similar performance.  We don't know how this lens will compare to Nikon's 200-400 but I'm guessing it is not going to be significantly superior.

[canon816]

If you apply the same premium to a Canon 200-400, you arrive at a price of $8,800.  Of course, the Canon 200-400 has the built in 1.4x extender, but if this lens is priced at $11k that means you are effectively paying $2,200 for the extender - compared to the III versions that cost $500.

You can't compare the built in 1.4 TC to a 1.4TC III.  Whether anyone wants to admit it or not there is significant image degredation with Canon's 1.4x and 2.0x TC's.  A built in TC on the 200-400 will be calibrated to the rest of the glass on that specific copy and will likely be of much higher optical quality then the add on TC's.

It's an apple to an orange. 

[gofioamasado]

I've got a doubt:
if 1,4x extender is activated, will it take any light away, like other external extenders?