EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Available Mid 2014?

[eml58]

Ok, out of the Dark corner for one more Post on the subject, just one.

I feel that Canon for quite some time have taken a deliberate path on "Marketing" of making Pre Announcements of Camera Bodies & Lenses with a definite view in mind, get the info out to the Public to ensure anything that Nikon bring to the Market will not impact on Canon's Market share by having Canon users defect to Nikon products that look more appetising (Nikon D800 perfect example, canon totally mis read the Market), and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that as a marketing Angle, except where the Announcements are made and the product then goes into the "Delayed" routine, the 1Dx was an example, but the delay wasn't significant, from memory it was 6 months or more, but the situation with this particular lens is laughable bordering on stupidity.

Back to the dark spot, I'm looking for that Dark Abbey/Church that featured so much in another thread, that will remain nameless as I've had my quota of warnings.

 

[tron]

First, the correct (complete) title of this thread should be:

EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Available Mid 2014? (CR1) ;D ;D

Seriously, apart from the few (my guess) who will need one (and only one) big white that will have to stay continuously on the camera, a 500mm f/4L and a second one with less mm (either 70-200 2.8 or 300 2.8 ) are just fine (and do exist!)

 

[ZoeEnPhos]

I've used the Nikon Lens myself on a D3x & D800 (Borrowed), at less than 3.4 Kgs, it's a good Lens, 200 end very good, 400 end less so, and the Nikon Teleconverters, forget them, how is it that Canon, who I feel make the best Long Lenses on the Planet, cant get their Crap together on this ??

Excellent point.

The Nikon 200-400 f/4 weighs 3.36 Kg. The Canon 1.4X TC weighs 225 g. Combined, that's 3.58 KG.

Are we supposed to believe that the company that makes a 400 f/2.8 that weighs a mere 3.84 Kg (compared to the Nikon version that weighs 4.6 Kg) is making a brand-new 200-400 that's actually heavier than a decade-old Nikon plus a teleconverter? And is going to cost at least half as much again as the Nikon version? Really? A $3,000+ premium for a built-in teleconverter that weighs more than the competition's offering?

This is quite the embarrassment for a company that's just revolutionized the supertelephoto world with its hand-holdable Great Whites. It's a big step backwards, and not one that I think anybody would have expected.

Here's hoping it's just a fluke, or that the rumors are misinformed...but that we're even discussing this at all is very much not good for Canon.

Cheers,

b&

Dear Sir,

Thanks for your excellent thoughts.
About the approximate weight of the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x I have twice handled this lens - first time with a 5DMarkIII and the second time equipped with the 1Dx camera body.
At the same occasion I also handled the EF500mm f/4L IS II USM and the bigger "brother" EF600/II and was surprised that the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x was somewhat in the same weight range that the both bigger supertele primes!
I would not think it is heavier but maybe maybe a little lighter than the EF600/II but not by much.
But again I would have needed a digital small scale with me but I did not have a scale with me on the both occasion.
By the way I find the EF300/2.8L IS with EF 1.4xIII/2x III extenders to be quite versatile both with 7D and 5DMarkIII because of my back-injury I am more mobile outdoors with a bit lighter total weight.
However when capturing BIF that sometimes flying TOWARDS you - a zoom will be quite handy but then I use the excellent EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM with my 7D and sometimes with the EF1.4xIII and I do not think it is too much hassle to actually,
change or remove the extenders - when you are used to do that it is done in none-time and of course I usually plan my photo excursions so I am prepared with two camera bodies one handheld and the other on a tripod. But this is of course normal when it comes to wild-life-outdoor-photography!
Wishing you all Happy Shootings! Here in Sweden the spring season has lately had some real approach!

//Charl

 

[J.R.]

It is interesting that the old 300 2.8 IS + TCs + 70-200 2.8 IS II + spare body might equal price of the 200-400. Depending, either scenario could be better.

That combination would certainly be an awful lot more versatile than this Great White Elephant. It very much seems like it's going to be a niche lens, which is not at all what one things of when one imagines a telephoto zoom. Again, I'm sure there will be scenarios for which it's ideal...but a general-purpose tool it certainly isn't.

Cheers,

b&

Depends on what is the definition of 'general purpose', which may be different for each individual. The 200-400 + 1.4x extender will result in a effective 200-560mm lens which may be more versatile than carrying two lenses.

Sounds quite useful for sports and wildlife shooters.

 

[dallasdave]

I only want this lens to come out because the original rumor also said the 100-400 mark 2 was supposed to come out around the same time - lol.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Sounds quite useful for sports and wildlife shooters.

Some of them, yes.

The problem is that the lens is slow and heavy and expensive compared with Canon's other offerings, and the zoom really doesn't get you all that much advantage.

Most situations where you're using a Great White, things are actually rather predictable. Sports in particular; the players are confined to the playing field and virtually always follow the rules of the game. You should know where the action will be before the play begins, and it should be very obvious where the action is moving to.

And there's much less need for a zoom at supertelephoto ranges. If a runner is coming straight at you from a hundred yards away, it's going to be a long time before her apparent size changes significantly -- more than enough time to sling the Great White over your shoulder and pick up your second body with the 70-200. But if she's coming straight at you from ten yards away, in the blink of an eye she's going to go from filling the frame with a 200mm lens to filling the frame of a 180° fisheye.

That's why the combination of the 70-200 plus a supertelephoto is so useful. Past 200 you can crop the 200 until the supertelephoto takes over; at that point, you really don't need a zoom any more.

What you might need is more focal length, which really means more speed. And that's where this thing is desperately lacking. With the TC engaged, it's a 280-560 f/5.6. A 300mm f/5.6 lens is pathetic, and a 560mm f/5.6 lens is rather sad. Indeed, I'm having a hard time imagining this lens at 560 significantly beating the 400 f/2.8 II simply cropped to the same field of view. Even if it's better on the test bench...well, in the field, the 400 has a two stop advantage over the 200-400 in that situation, and that'll overwhelm any theoretical advantages the 200-400 might have.

And past that? The 400 turns into an 800 f/5.6 with a 2X TC with performance not that far off the actual 800 f/5.6, Canon's biggest and most expensive lens on the market. The 200-400 is going to need an external TC in addition to its built-in one, and then it's an 800 f/8 that probably needs to be stopped down to f/11 - f/13, hardly better than a RokiBowYang mirror telephoto.

Again, if it weighed five or six pounds (regardless of price) or if it cost five or six grand (regardless of weight) or if it was a stop faster (regardless of both price and weight), it'd be a very attractive lens, probably a game changer. But heavy and expensive and slow? And three years late?

Cheers,

b&

 

[vlim]

This might be an error mid 2014 could mean mid 2013 8)

 

[acoll123]

I primarily shoot sports and would love to have this lens for field sports. At f/4 it is kind of slow but I just got a 1Dx and can probably afford the loss of light in exchange for the flexibility. I don't think I would use the teleconverter very often if at all and would probably prefer a less expensive option without it.

 

[J.R.]

Sounds quite useful for sports and wildlife shooters.

Some of them, yes.

The problem is that the lens is slow and heavy and expensive compared with Canon's other offerings, and the zoom really doesn't get you all that much advantage.

Most situations where you're using a Great White, things are actually rather predictable. Sports in particular; the players are confined to the playing field and virtually always follow the rules of the game. You should know where the action will be before the play begins, and it should be very obvious where the action is moving to.

And there's much less need for a zoom at supertelephoto ranges. If a runner is coming straight at you from a hundred yards away, it's going to be a long time before her apparent size changes significantly -- more than enough time to sling the Great White over your shoulder and pick up your second body with the 70-200. But if she's coming straight at you from ten yards away, in the blink of an eye she's going to go from filling the frame with a 200mm lens to filling the frame of a 180° fisheye.

That's why the combination of the 70-200 plus a supertelephoto is so useful. Past 200 you can crop the 200 until the supertelephoto takes over; at that point, you really don't need a zoom any more.

What you might need is more focal length, which really means more speed. And that's where this thing is desperately lacking. With the TC engaged, it's a 280-560 f/5.6. A 300mm f/5.6 lens is pathetic, and a 560mm f/5.6 lens is rather sad. Indeed, I'm having a hard time imagining this lens at 560 significantly beating the 400 f/2.8 II simply cropped to the same field of view. Even if it's better on the test bench...well, in the field, the 400 has a two stop advantage over the 200-400 in that situation, and that'll overwhelm any theoretical advantages the 200-400 might have.

And past that? The 400 turns into an 800 f/5.6 with a 2X TC with performance not that far off the actual 800 f/5.6, Canon's biggest and most expensive lens on the market. The 200-400 is going to need an external TC in addition to its built-in one, and then it's an 800 f/8 that probably needs to be stopped down to f/11 - f/13, hardly better than a RokiBowYang mirror telephoto.

Again, if it weighed five or six pounds (regardless of price) or if it cost five or six grand (regardless of weight) or if it was a stop faster (regardless of both price and weight), it'd be a very attractive lens, probably a game changer. But heavy and expensive and slow? And three years late?

Cheers,

b&

Nicely summarized ... I agree.

Cheers ... J.R.

 

[eml58]

Sounds quite useful for sports and wildlife shooters.

Some of them, yes.

The problem is that the lens is slow and heavy and expensive compared with Canon's other offerings, and the zoom really doesn't get you all that much advantage.

Most situations where you're using a Great White, things are actually rather predictable. Sports in particular; the players are confined to the playing field and virtually always follow the rules of the game. You should know where the action will be before the play begins, and it should be very obvious where the action is moving to.

And there's much less need for a zoom at supertelephoto ranges. If a runner is coming straight at you from a hundred yards away, it's going to be a long time before her apparent size changes significantly -- more than enough time to sling the Great White over your shoulder and pick up your second body with the 70-200. But if she's coming straight at you from ten yards away, in the blink of an eye she's going to go from filling the frame with a 200mm lens to filling the frame of a 180° fisheye.

That's why the combination of the 70-200 plus a supertelephoto is so useful. Past 200 you can crop the 200 until the supertelephoto takes over; at that point, you really don't need a zoom any more.

What you might need is more focal length, which really means more speed. And that's where this thing is desperately lacking. With the TC engaged, it's a 280-560 f/5.6. A 300mm f/5.6 lens is pathetic, and a 560mm f/5.6 lens is rather sad. Indeed, I'm having a hard time imagining this lens at 560 significantly beating the 400 f/2.8 II simply cropped to the same field of view. Even if it's better on the test bench...well, in the field, the 400 has a two stop advantage over the 200-400 in that situation, and that'll overwhelm any theoretical advantages the 200-400 might have.

And past that? The 400 turns into an 800 f/5.6 with a 2X TC with performance not that far off the actual 800 f/5.6, Canon's biggest and most expensive lens on the market. The 200-400 is going to need an external TC in addition to its built-in one, and then it's an 800 f/8 that probably needs to be stopped down to f/11 - f/13, hardly better than a RokiBowYang mirror telephoto.

Again, if it weighed five or six pounds (regardless of price) or if it cost five or six grand (regardless of weight) or if it was a stop faster (regardless of both price and weight), it'd be a very attractive lens, probably a game changer. But heavy and expensive and slow? And three years late?

Cheers,

b&

Nicely summarized ... I agree.

Cheers ... J.R.

Yes, agree with everything Trumpet Power has said, having the 200f/2,300f/2.8, 400f/2.8 & 600f/4 currently it will always be a difficult decision to give up f/2.8, but when I look at my Images & review what I actually shoot at, I find although I do shoot from time to time at less than f/4, it's not that much, Mostly I shoot at f/4 to f/8, so the versatility factor of the zoom would be useful, the one Lens I would sell if I purchased the 200-400 would be the 400f/2.8 V2, not a chance I will sell the 300f/2.8 V2 until Canon produce V3, and that's not likely for a few years.

 

[eml58]

This might be an error mid 2014 could mean mid 2013 8)

You could be right, I live in hope.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Perhaps Sigma will be out with their new 120-300mm f/2.8 OS Sport lens before long and throw in a 2x converter with it.

What's this mean? I've had that lens combination since it came out. Do miss the focus limiter switch of the new model but don't miss the price. Only thing I don't like is the inherent clumsiness of detaching a 2X TC, and the rather offputting OOF blur performance in some shots.

Other than that, though, sure 400mm f/2.8 would be a grand improvement but I actually do often find the zoom useful at times in wildlife shooting (usually going from extreme close - i.e. roughly 240mm before factoring in crop factor - to extreme long, roughly 560mm again before the crop), and the weight of the 120-300mm + EF 2X Extender III is already close enough to unmanageable handheld that I would think twice about going to a 400mm. Of course I don't spend hours sitting in blinds; I just walk all over the place and try to get closeups of critters. Works surprisingly well on many things.

ha, Canon.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Perhaps Sigma will be out with their new 120-300mm f/2.8 OS Sport lens before long and throw in a 2x converter with it.

What's this mean? I've had that lens combination since it came out. Do miss the focus limiter switch of the new model but don't miss the price. Only thing I don't like is the inherent clumsiness of detaching a 2X TC, and the rather offputting OOF blur performance in some shots.

Other than that, though, sure 400mm f/2.8 would be a grand improvement but I actually do often find the zoom useful at times in wildlife shooting (usually going from extreme close - i.e. roughly 240mm before factoring in crop factor - to extreme long, roughly 560mm again before the crop), and the weight of the 120-300mm + EF 2X Extender III is already close enough to unmanageable handheld that I would think twice about going to a 400mm. Of course I don't spend hours sitting in blinds; I just walk all over the place and try to get closeups of critters. Works surprisingly well on many things.

ha, Canon.

I had a Sigma 120-300 OS and I've found it very lacking when compared to Canon's offerings. I ditched it for a 400mm f2.8 L IS and there is no comparison. Like many Sigma's with HSM, I found the AF to be a little erratic and a bit hit and miss for fast moving objects. It was too large and heavy for what it was. The focal length was well short of the stated 300mm, nearer 280mm at infinity. Focus 3m away and it's nearer 240mm....which was appalling. If I popped a 2x converter on it and A-B compared focal lengths with my 400mm at 4m , I found them to be very close in focal length....which means where guys are thinking they have a 600mm f5.6, it's actually closer to a 400mm f5.6. This focal length is better realized in a number of options...even a 2x on a 70-200 f2.8 II L offers a better focussing, better IS, lighter, smaller and cheaper options. Optically there was little between them (70-200 vs 120-300) but my 400L is better all round except weight. Even without a converter, at it's closest focus distance, the sigma gains only 40mm over the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II....which is a tiny increase at such a long length. I think this Sigma lens is a missed opportunity and that's a real pity.

I seem to be one of the few who could really give a stuff about the new 200-400 f4 L IS lens. If I had the money, I'd either replace my 400 L IS mk I and upgrade to a mkII or consider the new 500mm f4 L IS II as my light and portable option....have you tried one? It's SO bonkers light!