Soon to be Launched EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href=""></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>From Canon Singapore

</strong>Canon Singapore posted an image on the their Facebook page showing the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x.</p>
<p><strong>They say in the caption:</strong>

<em>“Be one of the first to check out the <strong>soon to be launched EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x</strong> at the EOS Experience Roadshow happening this weekend! We’ll be at Cathay Orchard Cineleisure this 4-6 January from 11am-10pm! See you there!”</em></p>
<p>The wait may finally be over. How much you ask? I’m still hearing it’ll be about $11,000 USD.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151216535287883&set=a.289075002882.144120.286731937882&type=1&theater" target="_blank">Canon Singapore</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[sanj]

The time has come to go bust.

 

[sanj]

Is it me or the lens does not look that huge? I would be delighted if it is not huge.

 

[tiger82]

I've handled it. I mated it to a 1Dx at Photoplus and it is huge and quite hefty. Great combination though.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I've handled it. I mated it to a 1Dx at Photoplus and it is huge and quite hefty. Great combination though.

I hear it's about the same weight as the EF 600 f/4L IS II at around 8lbs.

 

[tiger82]

They had a 600 there too, it's about the same size. Handling is a little different because of the added lever for the 1.4x TC.

 

[RLPhoto]

One of the worse kept secrets ever. : absolutely no surprise in its release.

 

[Tom W]

It's a bank-account buster, but I really like this one.

 

[infared]

$11,000....WOW!
I would expect image quality to be "stunning" even with the extender in place. I know it is just me...but I do not "get" a lens of this configuration at this cost factor. I guess it gives pros good versatility in certain situations.
...but at that cost with an extender switch..sounds like the lens could be open to some serious maintenance situations down the road. Not trying to be negative...just standing back and scratching my head, based on what I know about photography. It is interesting, to say the least.

 

[kubelik]

$11,000....WOW!
I would expect image quality to be "stunning" even with the extender in place. I know it is just me...but I do not "get" a lens of this configuration at this cost factor. I guess it gives pros good versatility in certain situations.
...but at that cost with an extender switch..sounds like the lens could be open to some serious maintenance situations down the road. Not trying to be negative...just standing back and scratching my head, based on what I know about photography. It is interesting, to say the least.

actually, I know a lot of bird and sports shooters that would love to have this lens. it's pretty much the ultimate long lens in terms of flexibility, first between having the 200-400 zoom range, and then being able to throw in a 1.4x extender without having to unmount the camera, attach the extender, and then remount the camera.

 

[Stone]

actually, I know a lot of bird and sports shooters that would love to have this lens. it's pretty much the ultimate long lens in terms of flexibility, first between having the 200-400 zoom range, and then being able to throw in a 1.4x extender without having to unmount the camera, attach the extender, and then remount the camera.

It's a versatile lens no doubt, but I wouldn't consider it the "ultimate". I think the ultimate would be a 200-400 f2.8 with no builtin tc. Sure it would be an absolutely massive lens, but a fast 200-400 for big field sports would let you shoot all day and well into the evening with amazing subject isolation. Throw on your own 2x tc and you've got yourself a killer birding lens at 400-800 f5.6. Now that's a lens I could see myself selling a car for

The 200-400 is exciting, but I'm still saving for the 400 2.8....

 

[kubelik]

It's a versatile lens no doubt, but I wouldn't consider it the "ultimate". I think the ultimate would be a 200-400 f2.8 with no builtin tc. Sure it would be an absolutely massive lens, but a fast 200-400 for big field sports would let you shoot all day and well into the evening with amazing subject isolation. Throw on your own 2x tc and you've got yourself a killer birding lens at 400-800 f5.6. Now that's a lens I could see myself selling a car for

The 200-400 is exciting, but I'm still saving for the 400 2.8....

sure, there are plenty of theoretical combinations that would could surmise as more flexible. I'm talking about pitted against current, real-world lenses, it's the most flexible bird+sport lens on the market. plus, I'd disagree that a 200-400 f/2.8 wouldn't be hindered by its massive size. even for field sports, you want to be able to move (even more so with birding), and just because it's on a monopod or tripod doesn't mean that mass and inertia become meaningless.

 

[Stone]

sure, there are plenty of theoretical combinations that would could surmise as more flexible. I'm talking about pitted against current, real-world lenses, it's the most flexible bird+sport lens on the market. plus, I'd disagree that a 200-400 f/2.8 wouldn't be hindered by its massive size. even for field sports, you want to be able to move (even more so with birding), and just because it's on a monopod or tripod doesn't mean that mass and inertia become meaningless.

I don't entirely disagree with you. This lens is Canon's long overdue answer to Nikon's 200-400 and throwing in the builtin tc is a pretty good display of one-upmanship. I'm sure it will have stellar optics and f4 was probably the best tradeoff between speed and "portability". But I guarantee you if someone built my theoretical fast 200-400, you'd see it on the sidelines and out in the wild. I'd just spend an extra hour per week in the gym, although I don't consider any of the superteles all that heavy.

 

[dolina]

Weighs like a 600 and costs almost as much... ;D

 

[robbymack]

Woohoo...oh right I'll never be able to afford it. 200-400 without the extender please canon at maybe a price similar to the Nikon?

 

[infared]

$11,000....WOW!
I would expect image quality to be "stunning" even with the extender in place. I know it is just me...but I do not "get" a lens of this configuration at this cost factor. I guess it gives pros good versatility in certain situations.
...but at that cost with an extender switch..sounds like the lens could be open to some serious maintenance situations down the road. Not trying to be negative...just standing back and scratching my head, based on what I know about photography. It is interesting, to say the least.

actually, I know a lot of bird and sports shooters that would love to have this lens. it's pretty much the ultimate long lens in terms of flexibility, first between having the 200-400 zoom range, and then being able to throw in a 1.4x extender without having to unmount the camera, attach the extender, and then remount the camera.

yeah...it is not something I could ever afford to buy...but I am REALLY interested to see a review of the lens, as it is quite complicated, to see how it performs. ...I get the flexibility part...but $11 GRAND!!!! WOW!.

 

[Loswr]

I debated this vs. the 500/4 II vs the 600/4 II. Since the 200-400 wasn't available (and technically, I suppose still is not available), I didn't consider it too strongly. But even so, the 600mm is more useful, to me.

With the 1D X (and soon 5DIII) having f/8 AF capability, this lens would be more interesting if it could take a 1.4xIII, but the design precludes that. Personally, I'd rather have 600mm at f/4 than 560mm at f/5.6.

But I'm interested to see how this lens performs, regardless...

 

[Plainsman]

So its going to be very expensive, heavy and slow at the top end.

Same price as the one stop faster 600/4 II maybe.

If this lens is not sharp at 560/5.6 it will bomb.

Even the extremely sharp 300/2.8 II prime has to be stopped down to get half decent images with matching 1.4X converter. So how useful will a 560/8 be on this new zoom?

 

[KitsVancouver]

Is it me or the lens does not look that huge? I would be delighted if it is not huge.

It looks "small" to me as well. You can find some comparison photos online that show it beside the 400 2.8 and 600 4.0. The front element diameter makes it look a bit "wimpy" to me.

http://images.wantmi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Canon_super_tele_comparison.jpg

 

[jasonsim]

I suspect that the use of the built in 1.4x will need no stopping down. I don't need to stop down my 300mm f/2.8L IS II + 2x III combo. I use it at f/5.6 all day long:

When I used to have the 2x II, I would stop it down slightly to f/6.3:

As many have said on here though, I don't think this will be the ultimate birding lens. 560, is still on the short side. I often need my 800mm, which btw you can buy for less than the price of the 200-400mm.

I think this will be the lens of choice for those on Safari's where they are stuck in a jeep or something and need the flexibility of the zoom. Also for outdoor sports in daylight.

Kind regards,
Jason

So its going to be very expensive, heavy and slow at the top end.

Same price as the one stop faster 600/4 II maybe.

If this lens is not sharp at 560/5.6 it will bomb.

Even the extremely sharp 300/2.8 II prime has to be stopped down to get half decent images with matching 1.4X converter. So how useful will a 560/8 be on this new zoom?