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

[FarQinell]

The idea of putting glass between a 200-400mm zoom lens (however good!) and a camera to get some extra focal length does no appeal to me!
A lot of people are waiting for this lens which is going to cost a heck of a lot of money.
It had better be really sharp at 560mm!!
Why didn't Canon consider say a simple much cheaper 200-500mm f5.6 zoom design - so that they could drop the 400mm f5.6 L and the equally old 100-400mm L?
Lets hope this forthcoming lens does not end like another expensive partially successful Canon lens - the 400mm f4 DO - all they had to do here was to scale up the wonderful 300mm f2.8 but that was far to simple!

 

[lol]

A 200-500 is not a replacement for the 100-400 or 400 prime.

Also while the use of extenders has always been questioned, in this case it is built into the lens. Canon can fully optimise the performance of the built in extender and the rest of the lens characteristics beyond what an external generic one might offer.

I have no doubt the 200-400 will be a great seller for its class, even if not reaching huge numbers from the likely very high price. Lots of people would love the zoom range it offers over primes in a similar range.

 

[jwong]

The idea of putting glass between a 200-400mm zoom lens (however good!) and a camera to get some extra focal length does no appeal to me!
A lot of people are waiting for this lens which is going to cost a heck of a lot of money.
It had better be really sharp at 560mm!!
Why didn't Canon consider say a simple much cheaper 200-500mm f5.6 zoom design - so that they could drop the 400mm f5.6 L and the equally old 100-400mm L?
Lets hope this forthcoming lens does not end like another expensive partially successful Canon lens - the 400mm f4 DO - all they had to do here was to scale up the wonderful 300mm f2.8 but that was far to simple!

A constant f/5.6 for 200-500? There wouldn't be much of a market for that because there are too many existing options to cover large portions of that range. The 70-300 and 100-400 would already cover a lot of that range with faster apertures. The existing 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 goes for less than 2k. How much would people pay for a slower lens whose only useful range is 400-500mm. Maybe canon should just make a 500mm or a 600mm f/5.6 prime. That might go well as a kit with the 100-400mm.

 

[dryanparker]

From what I've seen out of the N***n 200-400, it's pretty awesome. I wonder how many pro N***n shooters use this lens? Can anyone shed any light on that?

I suppose if it was that big a deal to Canon, they wouldn't have let N***n have complete share of that market for so long. Same might be said for the 14-24/2.8. I'd sure love to have four lenses to cover 14-200 at f/2.8 and up to 400 at f/4.

 

[wopbv4]

A 200-500 is not a replacement for the 100-400 or 400 prime.

Also while the use of extenders has always been questioned, in this case it is built into the lens. Canon can fully optimise the performance of the built in extender and the rest of the lens characteristics beyond what an external generic one might offer.

I have no doubt the 200-400 will be a great seller for its class, even if not reaching huge numbers from the likely very high price. Lots of people would love the zoom range it offers over primes in a similar range.

+1 I fully agree.
I need a top of the range 200-400 zoom. The extender option is like a bonus for me.
I know I will have to pay top dollars, especially in Australia, I expect to pay above 15,000$ as the 400 mm F2.8 is 12,666$ over here in OZ

 

[Stu_bert]

From what I've seen out of the N***n 200-400, it's pretty awesome. I wonder how many pro N***n shooters use this lens? Can anyone shed any light on that?

I suppose if it was that big a deal to Canon, they wouldn't have let N***n have complete share of that market for so long. Same might be said for the 14-24/2.8. I'd sure love to have four lenses to cover 14-200 at f/2.8 and up to 400 at f/4.

Andy Biggs and Andy Rouse (both wildlife Pros) swear by the lens for a lot of their work I believe, based on the quality and range being appropriate for a lot of their work. They also used to both be Canon users.

Having said that Tom Hogan indicates that the Nikon is not without some shortfalls. I believe Tom has one as well.

 

[smirkypants]

The 200-400/f4 from You-Know-Who is a fantastic lens. I would have switched long ago to You-Know-Who if they produced a decent crop-bodied camera. It can be had for around $7000. If the Canon is around $10,000... well, that's the price of a D800 + 200-400/f4. There's also the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 +1.4 that gets you into the same focal range for much, much less. It's good, but not killer.

 

[Admin US West]

The 200-400/f4 from You-Know-Who is a fantastic lens. I would have switched long ago to You-Know-Who if they produced a decent crop-bodied camera. It can be had for around $7000. If the Canon is around $10,000... well, that's the price of a D800 + 200-400/f4. There's also the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 +1.4 that gets you into the same focal range for much, much less. It's good, but not killer.

I really expect North of $10,000. Its pretty wishful to expect it to be a low cost lens. You only need look at a simple prime lens like the Canon 500mm MK II price to realize this. A zoom is more costly to build.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754507-USA/Canon_5124B002_500mm_f_4L_EF_IS.html

 

[KeithR]

There's also the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 +1.4 that gets you into the same focal range for much, much less. It's good, but not killer.

Oh, I beg to differ.

Mine is as near as dammit as sharp at 420mm (based on images, not MTF charts) as the new Canon 300mm f/2.8 is at 300mm.

 

[TexPhoto]

One pro photographer I know uses the Nikon 200-400 exclusively for his long lens wildlife work and loves it. Canon does not put out lousy lenses, or slap an "L" on it. But why don't we wait and see.

The Sigma 120-300 f2.8 plus 1.4X or even 2X sounds like an interesting alternative.

 

[jasonsim]

If one has sharp 100-400mm and 500mm f4L IS lenses, would the 200-400mm be a good replacement for both?

I'm leaning towards NO since the 100-400mm is plenty good for most wildlife and much lighter. And the 500mm f/4L with a 1.4x makes 700mm; a great focal length for birding on a crop body.

What was Canon really thinking when they made the 200-400mm?

 

[drummstikk]

From what I've seen out of the N***n 200-400, it's pretty awesome. I wonder how many pro N***n shooters use this lens? Can anyone shed any light on that?

Another freelance Nikon Shooter in my area owns a 200mm 2.0, 300mm 2.8 and 400mm 2.8, as well as a 200mm-400mm 4.0. He seems to use the 200mm-400mm quite a bit and does not seem like the type to compromise on image quality. It's quite safe to presume it's an awesome lens. It's not the most common lens I see in the field, though.

Among both Canon and Nikon shooters, I'm really surprised how often I see the 400mm 2.8. I'd love one, but get along fine without one and would almost certainly get a 300mm 2.8 first if I had a pillow case full of cash.

Part of my strategy in buying my set of Alienbee/White Lightning monolights was that I could spend around $2700.00 on the 5 lights, reflectors and radios and make the need for a 300mm 2.8 and 400mm 2.8 a lot less compelling. I get away quite well with the much-less-pricey 300mm 4.0 and 400mm 5.6, plus the lights make the color and action stopping better and post production easier. The biggest thing in this economy is that I'm servicing around $15000 less debt than I would be if I'd gone for the "big 2.8's." But of all the present and foreseeable-future "white L's," the 200-400 looks like the one I'd be most likely to consider as my next purchase.

 

[FarQinell]

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!!
If one really wanted a 200-400 it would be worth while considering switching to Nikon I think.
Lets face it if you wanted to use this zoom frequently beyond 400mm you would be far far better off with a 500/4 Canon prime.

 

[Canon-F1]

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.

 

[sb]

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.

 

[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]

Been thinking about this lens design...

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...