Canon 200-400 f4 with 1.4x Converter - my spec ideas

What do you think about my math?

  • Logical, most likely to be true

    Votes: 2 66.7%
  • Not likely to be true

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • You really want me to look and figure out math???

    Votes: 1 33.3%

  • Total voters
    3
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 31, 2011
34
0
4,851
Ok, First off, I have no clue of a release date or even seen this lens. Just after reading the post about wither to get a 300 2.8 or wait for the 200-400 to come out. It made me think and I wanted to crunch some numbers of lenses that are already out there.

With all that being said, here is what I came up with.

The Weight:


Let's compare

Nikon 300 2.8 - 6.3lbs
Nikon 200-400 - 7.3lbs
Nikon 400 2.8 - 10.2lbs

Canon 300 2.8 II - 5.18lbs
Canon 400 2.8 II - 8.5lbs
1.4 converter - .5lbs

difference between 300-400
Nikon 300 is 62% the size of the 400
Canon 300 is 61% the size of the 400
so we have a close enough comparison.

so Nikon's 200-400 is 116% bigger then Nikon's 300

So we would get a Canon version of the 200-400 being around 6lbs adding .5 lbs for the converter you get:

Canon 200-400 with 1.4x - 6.5lbs


Now going onto Price*:
*based on current prices on their websites

Nikon 400 2.8 - $9550
Nikon 300 2.8 - $5900
Nikon 200-400 4 - $7000

Canon 400 2.8 - $11500
Canon 300 2.8 - $7300
Canon 1.4x converter - $500

Nikon 300 is 62% of the price of the Nikon 400
Canon 300 is 63% of the price of the Canon 400
so we have a close enough comparison.

Nikon 200-400 is 118% the price of the Nikon 300
so if we take 118% of the Canon 300, we would get around $8600
adding $500 for a converter

a Canon 200-400 f/4 with 1.4x converter - $9100

curious what others think. I tried to do this as logically as possible.
 
The subject has been beaten to death for the past year on all the photography sites. The lens will definitely be expensive and heavy, assuming that it actually ever appears.

I agree with your logic, it matches what has been speculated for a year now.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.