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

[photophreek]

I can't justify f5.6 with the TC engaged for the same price as the 400mm f2.8 II. There must be a lot of R&D Canon has to recoup on this lens for it to be priced at $11K.

 

[canon816]

I can't justify f5.6 with the TC is engaged for the same price as the 400mm f2.8 II. There must be a lot of R&D Canon has to recoup on this lens for it to be priced at $11K.

I agree that the guess of $11k is a bit steep, but its tough to compare it with a 400 f2.8. I use a 600 f4 and a 300 f2.8 frequently, and depending on where I plan to shoot and what I am shooting will help me to decide which lens to bring.

Its just too much gear for me to bring both. This is why the 200-400 would interest me. It would give me more flexibility when I am out in the field and allow me to cover a broad range of zooms. 200-560mm. Also, unless I am shooting subjects that are very close to my tele lenses such as birds, I often stop my lens down to f6.3, f7.1 or f8 for a little higher IQ and longer DOF with larger wildlife. Of course DOF considerations come first but I do find that I am often not shooting wide open.

Also, my 600f4 (NON IS version) weighs 13 lbs. The 400 f2.8 weighs over 11. Both are an absolute bear of a lens and need a tripod to shoot with. The 200-400 will likely come in much lighter. Maybe in the 7-9 lb range. It could even be lighter! (Afterall the new 600 f4 is only 8.5lbs!!) While this would still be a bear to shoot handheld it would certainly be do-able and with a monopod would be a breeze...

All said and done, if the IQ compares to either of my long lenses at their respective focal lengths (560 is pretty close to 600) I would be inclined to consolidate my kit and sell the 300 and 600 to put towards the 200-400.

 

[RLPhoto]

Why so serious?

... meaning you weren't serious? Sorry, didn't pick up that, maybe you could use smilies to make it clearer. Personally, I'm currently just annoyed about Canon's policy - and I have been using Canon for 25 years - and maybe this shows a little now and then :-o

I like using good glass to get the shots I want for fun and for pay. It'd be fun to take on a weekend sometime to shoot some wildlife or compressed landscapes, especially with CPS being so kind to me lately.

 

[photophreek]

canon816:

I've been contemplaring the 200-400 since it's development announcement. However, since then, the 400mm f2.8II was announced and at probably the same price as the 200-400. The ver 1 of the 400 is certainly a heavy lens, but the ver II is the same weight as the 500mm f4 IS ver 1 which I own. Notwithstanding the versatility of the zoom, it's the ultimate aperture of the 200-400 that is my issue and as a result, difficult for me to decide on the 200-400 over the 400mm f2.8 II.

 

[canon816]

canon816:

I've been contemplaring the 200-400 since it's development announcement. However, since then, the 400mm f2.8II was announced and at probably the same price as the 200-400. The ver 1 of the 400 is certainly a heavy lens, but the ver II is the same weight as the 500mm f4 IS ver 1 which I own. Notwithstanding the versatility of the zoom, it's the ultimate aperture of the 200-400 that is my issue and as a result, difficult for me to decide on the 200-400 over the 400mm f2.8 II.

Excellent points. And the new 400 will be one heck of a lens! It really boils down to how you intend to use the lens of choice. I primarily use prime lenses for telephoto because I found that I was shooting at max focal distance most of the time. The IQ loss resulting from tele-zooms did not justify the zoom range. I am spending more and more time shooting from a Kayak and and currently bring two bodies that cover the 200mm to 420mm (300+1.4TC), so for me the 200 -400 would be a great lens.... as long as it doesnt capsize my boat.

That said, Canon has never produced a lens of this caliber in this zoom range. So it will certainly be interesting to see the final product.

 

[FarQinell]

What's the point of a built in 1.4X TC anyway - an expensive gimmick?

Why not a simple 200-560mm f4 to f5.6 zoom design?

Better still a 300-560 - after all who is really interested in 200 f4.

This new lens at the proposed price will be embarrassing for Canon if it is not pin sharp at 560/5.6 - IMO.

 

[RunAndGun]

What's the point of a built in 1.4X TC anyway - an expensive gimmick?

Why not a simple 200-560mm f4 to f5.6 zoom design?

Better still a 300-560 - after all who is really interested in 200 f4.

This new lens at the proposed price will be embarrassing for Canon if it is not pin sharp at 560/5.6 - IMO.

I don't know if I'd call it a gimmick. More of a convenience. Gives the lens some more flexibility and range. Maybe I look at it from a slightly different perspective being a TV photog and most of our lenses have built-in 2x extenders. Both of my lenses have a 2x built in. My wide angle 13x4.5mm, which in FF 35mm equates to 17.5mm-230mm becomes a 35mm-460mm; and my long lens 22x7.8mm, which equates to 30.5mm-670mm becomes 61mm-1340mm, all at the flip of a single lever. Granted, I don't like to use the extender unless I have to because it does cut your light and if you're wide open anyway you can get image degradation, but there have been many times where I could not have gotten the shot without it or not as good of a shot. And if it's built-in, you are a LOT more likely to use it. I have a 1.4x in my still bag and I RARELY use it. What's going to be quicker and easier if you need a little more reach? Flipping a lever or taking your lens off, putting on an extender and then putting the lens back on? And the converse is true if you need to get your back-end back quickly.

Just my take on it. But in stills, it's easy to crop in post if you need to get a little tighter, too. We really don't have that luxury in TV(well, a little, but the price to pay for the hit in image quality is much more significant.)

 

[Loswr]

The f/4 supertele lenses take a 1.4x TC very well. But - installing and removing it can be inconvenient. With this lens, it's just a lever flip, plus you're getting a TC optically matched to the lens.

I'd be interested in this lens, except I know 560mm is shorter than I often need - thus, the 500/4 II + 1.4x III seems like the best bet for me.

 

[Razor2012]

Might be good for someone with the 70-200 2.8II, would nicely match. Canon has the long end covered now, we just need the wide, can we say 14-24?