Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Update [CR2]

[hoodlum]

I'm looking forward to seeing how the II version of this lens is designed and performs ... and I'm potentially in the market for it ... but I'd rather see a 300mm f/4 IS II with built-in 1.4x TC!

Sound interesting but based on the premium Canon charged for the TC in the 200-400mm I would expect it to cost close to $5k. Just too much for the flexibility of not having to remove the TC.

 

[schill]

I'm looking forward to seeing how the II version of this lens is designed and performs ... and I'm potentially in the market for it ... but I'd rather see a 300mm f/4 IS II with built-in 1.4x TC!

Sound interesting but based on the premium Canon charged for the TC in the 200-400mm I would expect it to cost close to $5k. Just too much for the flexibility of not having to remove the TC.

I think a built-in teleconverter would also significantly affect the compactness of the 300/4.

 

[tron]

I'm looking forward to seeing how the II version of this lens is designed and performs ... and I'm potentially in the market for it ... but I'd rather see a 300mm f/4 IS II with built-in 1.4x TC!

Sound interesting but based on the premium Canon charged for the TC in the 200-400mm I would expect it to cost close to $5k. Just too much for the flexibility of not having to remove the TC.

I think a built-in teleconverter would also significantly affect the compactness of the 300/4.

The last thing a 300mm f/4L needs is a built-in teleconverter :-\

 

[JonAustin]

Sound interesting but based on the premium Canon charged for the TC in the 200-400mm I would expect it to cost close to $5k. Just too much for the flexibility of not having to remove the TC.

Without a doubt, the 200-400 + TC is a pricey piece of glass, but what we don't know is how much of this price is for the build of the basic lens, how much for the built-in TC and how much is new-product premium on this recently released lens that Canon reportedly still can't (hand-)build fast enough to meet current demand.

Given the current price of the latest versions of Canon's TCs ($500), it would seem generous to double that price and say a built-in TC for a prime lens (as opposed to the 200-400 zoom) would add $1,000 to the price.

And let's say that a 300 f/4 IS II would be priced at twice the current model. OK, that's $2,700. So add these together, and I would speculate an announcement price around $3,700 ... let's just round that up to $4,000. That's still 20% below your $5K estimate.

Maybe that's "too much for the flexibility of not having to remove a TC" for you, but maybe not for me!

As for Schill's post that a built-in TC would "significantly affect the compactness of the 300/4; well, sure. But it would no longer be just a 300/4 ... it would now be a "300/4 + 420/5.6"!

And as for Tron's comment that "the last thing a 300mm f/4L needs is a built-in teleconverter," well, I don't know about that either. I'd say that the LAST thing a 300 f/4L needs would be a built-in nightlight, a pink-with-purple-polka-dots paint job or integrated Bluetooth. Personally, I'd put a built-in TC much higher up the list of things this lens could benefit from. ("Needs" seems a little strong to me.)

 

[tron]

Sound interesting but based on the premium Canon charged for the TC in the 200-400mm I would expect it to cost close to $5k. Just too much for the flexibility of not having to remove the TC.

Without a doubt, the 200-400 + TC is a pricey piece of glass, but what we don't know is how much of this price is for the build of the basic lens, how much for the built-in TC and how much is new-product premium on this recently released lens that Canon reportedly still can't (hand-)build fast enough to meet current demand.

Given the current price of the latest versions of Canon's TCs ($500), it would seem generous to double that price and say a built-in TC for a prime lens (as opposed to the 200-400 zoom) would add $1,000 to the price.

And let's say that a 300 f/4 IS II would be priced at twice the current model. OK, that's $2,700. So add these together, and I would speculate an announcement price around $3,700 ... let's just round that up to $4,000. That's still 20% below your $5K estimate.

Maybe that's "too much for the flexibility of not having to remove a TC" for you, but maybe not for me!

As for Schill's post that a built-in TC would "significantly affect the compactness of the 300/4; well, sure. But it would no longer be just a 300/4 ... it would now be a "300/4 + 420/5.6"!

And as for Tron's comment that "the last thing a 300mm f/4L needs is a built-in teleconverter," well, I don't know about that either. I'd say that the LAST thing a 300 f/4L needs would be a built-in nightlight, a pink-with-purple-polka-dots paint job or integrated Bluetooth. Personally, I'd put a built-in TC much higher up the list of things this lens could benefit from. ("Needs" seems a little strong to me.)

Well a 300mm f/4L IS could benefit by getting the basics: the sharpness of 300mm f/4L non-IS plus 4 stops of IS for a start...

That would put the cost at around $2K. Compare that with a $4K 300mm f/4L IS 1.4X.

 

[dstppy]

Dstppy - Even I refrained from saying that. You had to go and spoil it for everyone now, didn't you.

See me after class and remember to bring your pink oboe.

Actually, thinking back 20 years, I believe I still owe detention because I left with so many days owed, so I can't stay after tonight . . .

 

[MichaelHodges]

The only negative of the 300 F4 L IS, IMHO, is the weak 1st gen IS system. I know photogs who have sold their 300 2.8's for 300 F4's, insisting on a combo of 300 F4 IS and 600 F4 IS or 500 F4 IS.

 

[mrsfotografie]

The only negative of the 300 F4 L IS, IMHO, is the weak 1st gen IS system. I know photogs who have sold their 300 2.8's for 300 F4's, insisting on a combo of 300 F4 IS and 600 F4 IS or 500 F4 IS.

I have considered this idea before; with a DOF as thin as it is at 300 mm f/4 (and a lens that is sharp wide-open), who needs f/2.8?

 

[AlanF]

The only negative of the 300 F4 L IS, IMHO, is the weak 1st gen IS system. I know photogs who have sold their 300 2.8's for 300 F4's, insisting on a combo of 300 F4 IS and 600 F4 IS or 500 F4 IS.

I have considered this idea before; with a DOF as thin as it is at 300 mm f/4 (and a lens that is sharp wide-open), who needs f/2.8?

I do. The 300mm f/2.8 II works brilliantly with the 2xTC III to give a 600mm at f/5.6. The 300mm f/4 with the 2xTC is poor and also is f/8. The bokeh at f/2.8 is superb, and the extra stop gives greater versatility.

 

[mrsfotografie]

The only negative of the 300 F4 L IS, IMHO, is the weak 1st gen IS system. I know photogs who have sold their 300 2.8's for 300 F4's, insisting on a combo of 300 F4 IS and 600 F4 IS or 500 F4 IS.

I have considered this idea before; with a DOF as thin as it is at 300 mm f/4 (and a lens that is sharp wide-open), who needs f/2.8?

I do. The 300mm f/2.8 II works brilliantly with the 2xTC III to give a 600mm at f/5.6. The 300mm f/4 with the 2xTC is poor and also is f/8. The bokeh at f/2.8 is superb, and the extra stop gives greater versatility.

Thanks, hadn't considered that. Aside from the benefits of TC versatility, and obviously the AF benefit of having f/2.8, how hit and miss is f/2.8 at this focal length?

 

[AlanF]

Very, very fast and accurate. Apart from the modern feedback loop technology employed in the newest lenses, the wider the aperture the more the light that is used for processing and the greater the sensitivity. Remember, your lens focusses at its widest aperture when stopped down.