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

[risc32]

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.

 

[max]

So lets see...
Nikon 200-400mm f/4 = 7 grand.
1.4x TC =300 bucks.

Seems a bit expensive if you ask me... 7-8 grand would be killer!! But it most probably will be 10-11

 

[pj1974]

Like some of the others who have posted in this thread, I am interested in how this lens performs, even though I doubt I will purchase it (I can 'afford' it... but most likely will decide to put so much of my money into other things... and that being not necessarily into photography).

If the Canon 200-400mm IS USM 1.4x lens is as sharp as my 70-300mm L IS USM lens, and performs well with the 1.4x engaged (ie has great IQ and AF is still fast and accurate), I believe it would be very attractive for those that require the flexibility of a zoom up to 560mm.

Obviously I'd prefer a lens that has f/2.8 to 400mm or even f/4 all the way to 560mm. But having said that, the weight (and probably other related issues, ie incorporating IS in a lens of that size) might be prohibitive.

Most of my wildlife shots (including BIF) I manage to seem to get fairly close (it probably depends the bird / environment and my own 'being discreet' nature). So there have been times when I've done BIF photos of eg Australia's Wattle Bird (a small to mid sized bird), and I was too close at 300mm, and had to zoom out to about 200mm.

Obviously there are situations when one can never have enough mm (eg birds or other wildlife that won't let you get close, or moon shots, etc). For what it's worth, I feel like I really appreciate the flexibility of a zoom when out in the field, and the range of 200mm - 400mm @ f/4 and 280 - 560 @ f/5.6 is a great range, imho. (I don't do sports photography).

I really like the photo comparisons of various Canon tele lenses that KitsVancouver gave a link to (thanks). So while a large part of this post is also academic to me (and I do hope that it performs very well) - I'll keep my eyes peeled. Maybe when I get to retirement I will look at it with different eyes.... a great IS on such a lens is also very helpful!

Canon have come out with a high-spec lens in the 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x - and I think this is a good sign for the future... particularly if its a hit with pro's and enthusiasts. I'm looking forward to reviews, and more importantly seeing great photos from this lens. In the meantime I'm very happy with my very portable 70-300mm L, which in my Canon 7D, gives me a lot of very portable quality for a lot less price!

Paul

 

[canon816]

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?

+1. Hopefully with better optics then Nikon's.

 

[Gcon]

Time to flip a coin. Left kidney is heads, right kidney is tails. ;D

 

[sanj]

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

Thanks for that. Yeah it is "small".
But some people have actually touched it and say it's big. Lets see... Hope the wait is close to over.

 

[sanj]

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...

Ideal situation 600 prime at f4 is better, AGREE. But for me the flexibility of this lens is very welcome. Provided of of course the IQ is close to the prime... When shooting wildlife in open plains even the 600 falls short many times. So the 200-400 and 800 seem ideal to me.

 

[sanj]

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.

Yes the lock was always there.

 

[sproggit]

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]

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...

Naaaaa. This lens will be extremely popular I believe. Flames or not. Pausing for them or not.
People who do not want to pay for this have the 100-400 at their disposal...

And is 6D not selling very well? I thought it was..!!

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

 

[sanj]

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.

Yeah I meant 800 II.

 

[dolina]

To me the 200-400 is the super tele to have if you are (a) only allowed one as the zoom is very useful, (b) want the built-in extender and you have (c) a lot of light.

 

[Renzokuken]

Please allow me to share the photos of the new lens. They are taken in Singapore

Built-in Tele Converter

Lens Hood

Heard from the staff that this lens still remains as a prototype and is not yet launched

 

[sanj]

Thanks for posting the pictures...