I would replace my 70-300L if the IQ of the new 100-400 is better than the 70-300L
What do you think, will it be better?
What do you think, will it be better?
Upvote
0
candyman said:I would replace my 70-300L if the IQ of the new 100-400 is better than the 70-300L
What do you think, will it be better?
neuroanatomist said:kirispupis said:If it has those attributes I will buy it.
Me, too!
Mt Spokane Photography said:Rumors are just that. Nothing you read here is guaranteed, and many post that a item is confirmed based on talking to a local camera salesman, who likely has no real inside knowledge.
Never buy or sell equipment based on just a rumor. Just enjoy the many fine contributors to the site and take photos!
You seem to be confusing the statement that it was under development with a new product announcement. That is a big difference. It might take years to develop a product, there may be little pitfalls along the way, like the Tusanmi, which they should have predicted (very unprofessional not to have predicted that), and shut down the power consuming fluorite line and ruined many months production worth of crystals, if not more. That alone likely set back development for almost a year, since production would certainly have priority over R&D.tron said:If this is your profession so be it. But Canon is stupid in everything related to 200-400 in the sense that they announced it months er year(s) I mean before it will actually be available. They were not professional enough to say even approximately when it will be available
K-amps said:Canon has really done well modifying buyer behaviour... the current 100-400 is about $1600 and you guys are saying that you are willing to buy a mk.ii for 2x the price?
kirispupis said:My suspicion with the delay in the 200-400 is a factor of trying to balance market sustainability with engineering. I fully believe that Canon already has the know-how to build this lens. Where the problem comes is building one that will actually sell. How much of a premium will people pay for the built in extender?
Canon's 300/2.8 II is currently priced at $7250. Nikon's 300/2.8 VR is currently priced at $5700 compared to their 200-400 VR II at $6700. If you extrapolate this price then it comes to $8500 for a Canon 200-400. The 1.4x III extender is $500.
However the latest CR posts have put the price at $10k-$11k. That is a hefty premium for the convenience. At these prices the 300/2.8 II is quite a bit cheaper and handles a 2x extender very well. This also puts it in competition with the 400/2.8 II.
For this product to be a success, IMHO, they really can't price it above $9500. Even at that price I expect a number of people to find the 300/2.8 II to be a better alternative. The reason we are seeing the delay is Canon is finding it difficult to design the lens for that price while still keeping it within the optical standards of their best telephotos.
IMHO Canon really made a mistake here. They would help themselves far more by releasing a 200-400 without the 1.4x extender at $8500.