Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
- Thread starter J.R.
- Start date
surapon
80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
Dear JR.
That is a great question---
May be too many EF 400 mm by Canon in the Market already ???
EF 400 mm. F/ 2.8 L IS MK II = $ 11,490
EF 400 F/ 4.0 DO. IS = $ 6469
EF 400 mm. F/ 5.6 L = $ 1339.
May be one day, Canon may have 400 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS in $ 6000 US Dollars Range----That is my my dream too.
Happy Sunday.
Surapon
That is a great question---
May be too many EF 400 mm by Canon in the Market already ???
EF 400 mm. F/ 2.8 L IS MK II = $ 11,490
EF 400 F/ 4.0 DO. IS = $ 6469
EF 400 mm. F/ 5.6 L = $ 1339.
May be one day, Canon may have 400 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS in $ 6000 US Dollars Range----That is my my dream too.
Happy Sunday.
Surapon
Upvote
0
I found a little used Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR on my local craigslist. A local doctor had bought it and used it twice. I even bought a used D300s to use playing with it, and a gimbal head, and was still below $3300. Considering how over priced Nikon lenses usually are, I'll have no problem selling for a lot more if I ever do it.
Upvote
0
From what I can see it's just a matter of the 500f4 being an overall better choice for anyone who thinks they want a 400f4. If 400mm is actually the focal length you need then the 400f2.8 is probably the correct choice, and if you're on a budget then nothing will ever beat the 400f5.6. If you're using the lens in an application where a 600mm or 800mm lens would be ideal, but just don't want the additional size and weight, then the 500f4 is probably a much better compromise than a 400f4 would have been given that you're only losing 100mm in focal length while I doubt a 400f4 would give any better IQ. The 500f4 is also lighter than either of the 200-400f4 zoom lenses out there.
I really think the 500f4 is the ultimate "middle class" big white.
I really think the 500f4 is the ultimate "middle class" big white.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Canon developed a prototype 400/4 (bottom lens) in 2000, alongside the 400/4 DO, although only the latter was brought to market.
Kind of makes the thread pointless. Canon does offer a 400mm f/4 IS.
No red ring, but I see this at the local NBA games all the time so it must be ok.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
takesome1 said:
It was a common discussion point before the MkII supertele lenses came out, when people felt the 'DO premium' means a non-DO 400/4 would be substantially cheaper. At this point, a 400/4 non-DO would have the built/optical qualities of the MkII lenses, and cost more than the current DO.
Worth noting that Canon has patented DO teleconverters, and IIRC several new DO supertele designs.
Upvote
0
Wish you were correct about being able to get a 500 f4L IS II for less than $10K. Lowest price listed on current canon price watch is $10,187. There are probably some grey market deals for less from non-authorized dealers out there, but I won't go that route.
I agree that I would probably prefer a 500 f4L IS over a 400 f4L IS if the prices were close. The factor that would sway me towards the 400 f4L IS would be a marked weight reduction.
I agree that I would probably prefer a 500 f4L IS over a 400 f4L IS if the prices were close. The factor that would sway me towards the 400 f4L IS would be a marked weight reduction.
Upvote
0
And I still don,t get why here the Superteles are way cheaper than in US, but you get all the good discounts on camera bodies, refurbished etc..neuroanatomist said:
Upvote
0
Does that make my 300 f/2.8 IS II low class? If so, it sure didn't feel that way when I paid my AMEX bill that month. I'm just kidding, but I've never heard the big whites discussed in terms of class9VIII said:
Upvote
0
