Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Information

[dolina]

A separate extender sells for $430. Materials-wise it should be cheaper when integrated.

Rather I think the weight and price is mostly from Canon trying to surpass Nikon's 200-400 VR II.

Anyway, not in the market for this thing. I rather get a white prime than a white zoom.

 

[sanj]

This lens has my name written on it. Am going to get it for sure.
Am tired of paying excess baggage every time I travel to Africa. Every time I board a small airplane...

Will sell both my 300 2.8 and 600 f4 (both version 1) and replace it with this. No more sensor dust, excess baggage etc.

I have lost shots earlier because my subjects came too close. Now I wont.

And on the long end 540mm f5.6 and 600mm f4 is not that different for me. If one day I start making money with my tele shots I will buy the 800...

Happiness...

 

[Lee Jay]

<li>Pricing: somewhere around $11000.</li>

Yawn....

If you can't afford it, why even comment? My money is in the bank just waiting and I'll be one of the first in line.

I can afford it, I just wouldn't buy it. It's simply not worth it. If it had been, say, 100-300/2.8 (all zoom range, no TC switch) and, say, $4000, that would have been interesting. As it is, the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS is far more interesting - it has more aperture (107mm versus 100mm), a wider total range (120-600mm versus 200-560mm), a faster maximum f-stop (f/2.8 versus f/4), and a current price of $3,000 (versus $11,000).

 

[mrsfotografie]

A separate extender sells for $430. Materials-wise it should be cheaper when integrated.

I disagree, the engineering and manufacturing cost for something that moves and needs to be positioned in place within tight tolerances is more expensive than a static component.

 

[TexPhoto]

This lens has my name written on it. Am going to get it for sure.
Am tired of paying excess baggage every time I travel to Africa. Every time I board a small airplane...

Will sell both my 300 2.8 and 600 f4 (both version 1) and replace it with this. No more sensor dust, excess baggage etc.

I have lost shots earlier because my subjects came too close. Now I wont.

And on the long end 540mm f5.6 and 600mm f4 is not that different for me. If one day I start making money with my tele shots I will buy the 800...

Happiness...

A friend of mine is a pro wildlife shooter , and sadly a Nikon user . He loves the 200-400, and travels the world with one.

 

[CanonWife]

Dang--This was going to be my husband's Christmas gift. I've been searching Canon EU/Canon US for months trying to get an Olympic used one for him. Guess I'll just have to give him a little note hidden in some lingerie that says "as soon as Canon makes it you'll get the 200-400"! :-*

 

[EchoLocation]

This lens was on display at a camera show in Hong Kong a few weeks ago(I live in China, but nowhere close to there, so i didn't take much notice of it.) My wife showed me an ad for the Canon booth at the show(the ad was all in Chinese,) and the ad clearly stated that the 6D would be on display as well as the 200-400mm 1.4x.
I basically forgot that this lens hasn't been announced yet(or has it?) as I have seen this lens so many different times in the past couple of years. I'm not sure if the lens on display at the camera show here in China was a preproduction model or a consumer model....
this is definitely turning in to quite the saga.....

 

[pj1974]

I think this lens will be a real hit for wildlife photographers, particularly professionals, or those with sufficiently large bank accounts

While some people compare it to tele primes. While I'd love to own a Canon 600mm f/4 II - I would find the lack of zoom limiting at times - eg for providing habitual context of wildlife, even birds) - or when larger subjects fill the composition. Then other people compare the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x (as as zoom) to xx-300mm 2.8 zoom lenses. However I believe the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x is a lens in a league of it's own, and shouldn't be compared to such lenses.

The closest current Canon lens is the 100-400mm L. But it's design (push/pull), older IS, IQ and ultimate reach are not the same. (For the record I expect the 200-400mm 1.4x lens will have very high IQ, and if the 1.4x inbuilt teleconverter is tailored to the lens, I expect it will be particularly good still @ 500mm f/5.6)

I'm not into sports photography at all (and thus don't need a f/2.8 telelens). Even then, lots of indoor photography requires a faster prime (eg around f/2) So I don't think it should be compared to the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 - as they are different lenses.

Now, I won't be the first to say that getting a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and using a 2x teleconverter will be a great 'budget' workaround... (and even then, not THAT cheap, but substantially cheaper than the rumoured price of the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x) However as a dedicated lens, I expect the Canon's AF will be faster and more accurate and the eventual IQ will be better. 8)

I believe the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 lens is also quite a 'comparable' - though of course it doesn't have the 1.4x. (Note: the latest version of this lens was the Nikon 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED VR AF-S, introduced April 2010 - price $7000 US). That's a popular lens with a number of Nikon wildlife photog's.

Although I can afford it, I very much doubt that I'll ever buy the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x- as I'll choose to use and send my money for other things - including donations to international charities. I just can't justify that price (at least not at this time). As I do like to photography birds (both in flight and perched) - as well as other wildlife, the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x offers a lot in terms of zoom range and I'm sure high IQ. The IS will be helpful, particularly at 560mm f/5.6, and f/4 between 200-400 is not at all shabby!

Currently I have the Canon 70-300mm L - which I love for it's amazing IQ and particularly its portability (fits in my Lowe shoulder bag, and is nicely weighted and compact) . On my 7D it translates to a 480mm on a FF, which isn't too bad - though at times I desire more reach (naturally) and of course the 560mm f/5.6 on a 7D would nearly double that - being the equivalent of about 900mm on FF. :

Well... that's my 2 cents worth. I'm looking forward to it being 100% released, then the reviews -and more importantly - great photos made with it! Cheers.

Paul

 

[samkatz]

I don't have the $$ or the physical strength to carry this lens. But if I had both, why not opt for either the 500f4 L or the 600 F4 L? really, if I'm going to empty the bank account and get a herniated disk, I'd go for the prime, with no gimmicks..

Am one who's still hoping for a replacement for the 100-400 L that's a bit sharper, better IS(a given) and lighter weight(I doubt it). Am also considering the 400 F 4 DO. However, I wouldnt spend 6K unless they upgraded it from the original.

 

[brant]

600 F4 L FTW!!! ;D

 

[dhofmann]

Am one who's still hoping for a replacement for the 100-400 L that's a bit sharper, better IS(a given) and lighter weight(I doubt it).

To avoid cannibalizing sales of the 200-400 lens, maybe they will announce a new 100-400 after sales of the 200-400 start to dwindle.

 

[MichaelHodges]

A few posters make a good point: Why not just get the 500 or 600?

Well, sometimes you miss shots with a prime. A good example would be a bird flying right at you. Bears with cubs are another reason why a zoom would be superior. Also, the built-in TC offers a big advantage. Changing a TC in the rain or snow is awful.

I like the "look" that primes give for wildlife. But if this lens can be as sharp as the 300 or 500, while offering the ability to pull back to 200mm to get those hooves or cubs in the frame, then it's going to be a popular lens. If it's not as sharp as the primes, then it's in serious trouble.

----------------------------------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

 

[candyman]

I like handholding a lens. I don't mind the 200-400 will take more time to actually hit the market.
I don't look like this guy but I see you need some bodybuilding before you can hold this lens. So time to go to the gym ;D

 

[jasonsim]

Anyone looking for the 200-400 + 1.4x range, should consider a 300mm f/2.8L IS II with 1.4x III and 2x III. I just got mine and that combo is super sharp and versatile. Will be selling my old 500mm f/4L IS and old 300mm f/2.8L IS now. If I need something longer than 600mm f/5.6, I have my 800mm f/5.6L IS.

The price of the 300mm f/2.8L IS II has also dropped recently to $6800.00 most places. Add the 2% bonus most places are giving ( Amazon, BH, Adorama ) and purchase with a rewards card ( Amazon give 3x points for items purchased with Amazon Chase card) and you can get a 2x III for nearly nothing.

Kind regards,
Jason

Well the big worry is will that 560mm be as clean as the old 500mm? If it is, then that old heavy 500 will be less missed than I thought.

And will I want to shoot at f5.6 for the duration of a day in shadows and late afternoons?....back to shooting at 400mm. Not that big of a deal. I do find when shooting with my 300, I am always wishing for a 400. 400 is useful for sports and larger wildlife. Quite a few times I had to run backwards so I could get far enough away for a full shot of a close Bobcat. Tree shooting would be great at 400 also.

Air shows, well 500mm was tight. I had myself wishing for a 400 a few times. It's too bad they could apply that inboard teleconverter to a 500mm. That would be a big seller. Sure, I prefer 500mm, but there are quite a few uses for 400. A revamp of the 400DO would have been great. I'm tired of my shoulders hurting! So the 200-400 still doesn't help that much.

 

[sanj]

Am one who's still hoping for a replacement for the 100-400 L that's a bit sharper, better IS(a given) and lighter weight(I doubt it).

To avoid cannibalizing sales of the 200-400 lens, maybe they will announce a new 100-400 after sales of the 200-400 start to dwindle.

I am not sure if I agree. Different market segments entirely..!! Not to say that the 100-400 may come later, but for certain the lenses cater to different people.