missing 200-400 and 100-400 announcements?
- Thread starter dallasdave
- Start date
- Status
I don't have experience with a lens of 3.6 kG
How is it to work handheld with a lens of this weight?
How is it to work handheld with a lens of this weight?
Upvote
0
candyman said:
The obvious answer is, it depends on your strength and what you are shooting. Last Saturday I used a 5D3, 300mm f2.8 IS and 1.4x converter all afternoon at an airshow. The combined weight is about 3.6kg and my arms got a bit tired towards the end but not as bad as I thought they might (I'm not the strongest of people). The main problem was trying to hold steading in very high winds. Certainly if I got something heavier, a monopod would be essential. The thing is, you'll never be able to judge until you try - a couple of minutes in a shop is nothing like wielding a heavy lens for hours
Upvote
0
The prototype I tried out at Focus on Imaging in March felt similar to the 300 f/2.8 IS, so I would expect it to be under 3 kg too.dolina said:So Canon changed the MFD from the prototypes?
It is heavier than what I was expecting it to be. I was expecting it to be within 3kg and closer to the 500/4 IS II
$10,000~ price tag wasn't that surprising.
Upvote
0
As the man said it depends on your fitness level.
But what I have seen of photos from the Olympics this lens sends to be attached to a nice sturdy monopod.
But what I have seen of photos from the Olympics this lens sends to be attached to a nice sturdy monopod.
GuyF said:candyman said:
The obvious answer is, it depends on your strength and what you are shooting. Last Saturday I used a 5D3, 300mm f2.8 IS and 1.4x converter all afternoon at an airshow. The combined weight is about 3.6kg and my arms got a bit tired towards the end but not as bad as I thought they might (I'm not the strongest of people). The main problem was trying to hold steading in very high winds. Certainly if I got something heavier, a monopod would be essential. The thing is, you'll never be able to judge until you try - a couple of minutes in a shop is nothing like wielding a heavy lens for hours
Upvote
0
Pros could beg to differ but I think a 500mm f/4L IS II is a much better value for money and much more useful.
Of course I compare apple to oranges here but still 10000 is too much for a zoom .... 1 stop better than ... 100-400!
Now a 500mm f/4L IS II on the other hand... I stop now! I will think of it in 3-4 years (unless 5D4 is announced oh well ...)
Of course I compare apple to oranges here but still 10000 is too much for a zoom .... 1 stop better than ... 100-400!
Now a 500mm f/4L IS II on the other hand... I stop now! I will think of it in 3-4 years (unless 5D4 is announced oh well ...)
Upvote
0
No, they do not. The lens is under d3evelopment, so sample lenses that are handmade are being loaned out. Apparently, Canon is still not ready to produce them. Growing those large flourite crystals is a expensive and time consuming process, and once the design is finalized, the growing can commence in earnest.dallasdave said:
Upvote
0
My take is they need to produce enough copies before spending on shipping any units out. I hope the copies used in the Olympics gets distributed to our CPS so I can loan them out for a few days.Mt Spokane Photography said:
Upvote
0
M
M.ST
Guest
The new EF 200-400 is definitely no walk around lens, very heavy and expensive.
Who needs such a lens?
Don´t waste your money and use one of the big Canon telephoto lenses instead.
For travelling I wait for a new 100-400 lens.
Who needs such a lens?
Don´t waste your money and use one of the big Canon telephoto lenses instead.
For travelling I wait for a new 100-400 lens.
Upvote
0
M.ST said:
Who needs such a lens?
I don't know, who needs a macro lens? Instead of macro people should just be happy with mid range zoom.
who needs long prime glass anyway? Instead go use a wide ange.
Need a wedding lens? I recommend you shoot without a lens...
This lens will have a great following and for many it will be a great consolidation of focal lengths. Sport photographers, nature photographers and traveling photographers just to name a few.
I know that I would happily give up my big glass for this lens if the IQ is just as good. I do a ton of wildlife photography and hike to access most of it. Currently I carry in an old 600 f4 and a 3002.8. I also shoot from a kayak and carry 2 bodies with long and short glass. I also travel and hate having to choose which lenses to fly with.
Well, maybe you are right. Who needs this lens anyway, maybe i'm the only one who could benefit from this lens.... Stupid canon...
Upvote
0
I
IIIHobbs
Guest
canon816 said:
LOL
Different strokes...
The 200-400 1.4x will be extremely versatile and much appreciated by those who benefit from the obvious flexibility offered by this lens. For any/everyone else, use whatever suits your needs.
Upvote
0
I'm a sports photographer and unfortunately I won't be buying it either. If it only opens up to f/4, that won't be good enough for most of my stuff.
Edit: No fault of the lens, but AU's scheduling practices, ie everything has to be outside at 7pm
Edit: No fault of the lens, but AU's scheduling practices, ie everything has to be outside at 7pm
Upvote
0
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 availablecanon816 said:
Upvote
0
tron said:Maybe you are correct! Stupid? No But professional? Still NO!canon816 said:I don't remember it being officially announced... :tron said:
Nothing sells better then hype... Maybe it is part of their marketing strategy... perhaps not so stupid after all.
Upvote
0
Dimension comparison between the 400, 500, 600 and 800.
400's 13.5-inch
500's 15.1-inch
200-400's 14.5-inch?
Reported to be heavier than the 400 (3850g). So does this mean the 200-400 is lighter than the 600 (3920g)?
400's 13.5-inch
500's 15.1-inch
200-400's 14.5-inch?
Reported to be heavier than the 400 (3850g). So does this mean the 200-400 is lighter than the 600 (3920g)?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
