KitsVancouver said:sanj said: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
neuroanatomist said: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...
risc32 said:i also don't see any need to stop down my 300mm 2.8, but if you feel like you do, go right ahead.
Did this lens have that tele lock in the earlier photos? i don't remember it, but i might have just missed it.
sproggit said:I think this is where I get flamed out to Jupiter, or laughed out of sight... :-\
I am trying to figure out what Canon's digital photography strategy actually is, who their market researchers (if they have any) actually bother talking to, and why they keep shooting themselves in the foot. (And I am sorry that I'm about to wander off topic a bit, but stay with me...)
Canon has recently launched 2 cameras which, for them, are absolute turkeys: the mirror less interchangeable lens EOSM, and the large-sensor G1X. Lots of R&D money wasted in being the last major brand to enter a markets sector, then doing so with a poor product. (Pause for flames).
Meanwhile, in the SLR space they introduce yet another variant camera, the 6D. This is really just a silly compromise - it is selling at the price the 5D should have been offered for, but with a stack of useful features held back. (Pause for more flames).
And in the lens space, they want to charge $11,000 for this? If it had been 5 or even 6 thousand, I could have conceded it made sense. If it was off-the-scale awesome, then 7500 with some steep cash back options.
But the fact remains that this is likely to sell in only small numbers because of that price tag. I cannot help but wonder if the fact that Canon's last annual profits came in at under a billion are down to a very poor product strategy. They are building products that people don't seem to want (G1X a great example), then when they find one that should have the potential to sell like hot cakes (this 200-400mm) they go and price it out of the market. The amateur who has pushed his or her budget to a 5DIII is hardly going to spend several multiples of the price of the camera on a single lens, no matter how good it is.
I've been a loyal Canon user for many years, and owned the 10D, 40D and now have a 7, but I just fail to see the point of this.
Emperor Canon of the Camera Kingdom has no clothes on...
sanj said:When shooting wildlife in open plains even the 600 falls short many times. So the 200-400 and 800 seem ideal to me.![]()
neuroanatomist said:sanj said:When shooting wildlife in open plains even the 600 falls short many times. So the 200-400 and 800 seem ideal to me.![]()
Maybe if Canon releases an 800/5.6L IS II. But I'll take the 600 II over the current 800. With the 1.4xIII on the 600 II, the 840mm f/5.6 combo delivers better IQ than the current 800/5.6, plus the new 600+1.4x is lighter, and allows me to use all 61 AF points on my 1D X (the current 800/5.6 is a Group F lens, allowing only 47 of the 61 AF points to be used). The 600 II + 2xIII is also optically better than the 800 + 1.4xIII. Given that, I expect we'll see a new 800 II coming along pretty soon, because the 600 II seems to have made the current 800/5.6L IS obsolete.