Why The EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Delay?

[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="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/why-the-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x-delays/"></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="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/why-the-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x-delays/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>The million dollar question….


</strong>We’ve been banging on the proverbial doors trying to find out why the known EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x has yet to be officially announced, priced (it’s going to be $10,000+) and made available to the  people that need it.</p>
<p>The latest we’ve heard, and from a pretty knowledgeable person is that the lens has needed a redesign in regards to the “bump” that holds the built-in 1.4 TC. The person wouldn’t elaborate as to why it was an issue, but it was brought to the attention of Canon at the Olympics that some pros were complaining that the “bump”, or a function of the “bump” got in the way of something. Again, what the something was wasn’t elaborated upon. If anyone out there knows, I’d love to hear it.</p>
<p>This is about the only explanation I have received beyond “manufacturing issues”, which could also be playing a small roll I suppose. However, lately we’ve seen that the new super-telephoto lenses are now making their way to “in stock” status around the planet. Maybe we’re closer to the new supertelephoto finally being announced.</p>
<p>Sorry we can’t be more conclusive on this one, this is the best information we have.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Viggo]

It couldn't be that it is in the way when dismounting the lens?

 

[SJTstudios]

It couldn't be that it is in the way when dismounting the lens?

I would think so, I've heard that there is some issue with the teleconverters movement with dismounting.

 

[dolina]

They must not like "bulge" jokes. ;D

 

[PackLight]

$10,000 + price tag.
No need for Canon to hurry on my account.

 

[M.ST]

A few people had the chance to test the lens.

Most of them are not very happy with the build quality of the build in TC and the image quality if you add the TC.

I have both TC´s, why should I pay extra money for a build in TC?

My personal opinion: The lens is too big and havy as a walkaround lens compared to the EF 100-400 IS. The solution with the build in TC is not amazing. For the mentioned price I prefer the normal big whites.

 

[gunnar997]

The lens is too big and havy as a walkaround lens compared to the EF 100-400 IS. The solution with the build in TC is not amazing. For the mentioned price I prefer the normal big whites.

this lens is not meant to be a walk around lens.. just like the 400 f/2.8 and 500 and 600 f/4's.. you don't see people walking around town with those unless they have a purpose to.. its meant for sport, wild life, and journalism when you need flexibility and be the fastest possible lens you can get. hence the price tag.
the 100-400 is more of just a general purpose tele that does everything which is why it is smaller and lighter

as far as the TC goes.. its for connivence.. so you don't have to take your body off put the TC on and put your body back on.. Just move the lever and you're ready to go! just like TV lenses (which is what that stems from) it just makes things easier on the fly so you can get that shot more easily

 

[EchoLocation]

I'm definitely not going to buy this lens, but it has been really interesting following it from the 5DIII spy shots in Africa(or wherever) to the Olympics. There is definitely quite a bit of mystery and speculation about it. I've been wondering why it hasn't been officially announced yet.

 

[bchernicoff]

I imagine that perfectly centering the extender when swung in from the side was a decent engineering challenge.

It would also have to be user-proof such that if the user believed they had engaged the extender, that it did engage and was perfectly aligned and couldn't move on its own even when the lens was bumped around.

 

[AprilForever]

Maybe they could just make the poor man's version, a 200-400 f4 without a TC...

 

[wwnwong4829]

This lens and 6D will show up in HK at the end of Nov , to celebrate the 40th year anniversary of Canon HK.
Here is the link, sorry, only Chinese version is available. ;D
http://www.canon.com.hk/imaginenation/

 

[PackLight]

Maybe they could just make the poor man's version, a 200-400 f4 without a TC...

Best idea of the day.

 

[K-amps]

A few people had the chance to test the lens.

Most of them are not very happy with the build quality of the build in TC and the image quality if you add the TC.

I have both TC´s, why should I pay extra money for a build in TC?

My personal opinion: The lens is too big and havy as a walkaround lens compared to the EF 100-400 IS. The solution with the build in TC is not amazing. For the mentioned price I prefer the normal big whites.

Why is someone paying $10k on this f4 and not getting the 400 f2.8 mk.ii ? (Unless they can afford both... )

 

[bchernicoff]

Why is someone paying $10k on this f4 and not getting the 400 f2.8 mk.ii ? (Unless they can afford both... )

200-400 would be a very useful zoom range to have on the sidelines of a basketball, football, soccer, baseball, etc game. That being said, 168-420mm f/4 is better (Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 + 1.4x) and a helluva lot cheaper. Will it be as sharp? No. Good enough for the online and print media who buy such images? For sure. Will it focus fast or accurately enough? That's the question.

 

[RLPhoto]

Lets hope that canon doesn't derp like nikon did with PC-E & the D800.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I can imagine the AF/MF and AF range limiter switches are a little hard to get to in a hurry, esp on a pro body?

 

[Loswr]

I can imagine the AF/MF and AF range limiter switches are a little hard to get to in a hurry, esp on a pro body?

That...or you go to flip the AF/PF/MF switch and hit the lens mount release instead?

 

[bchernicoff]

I can imagine the AF/MF and AF range limiter switches are a little hard to get to in a hurry, esp on a pro body?

I think you nailed it.

 

[bdunbar79]

Even though I shoot a lot of sports, I won't get the lens either. Admittedly I already own the 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8, but I shoot wider than f/4 a ton and this isn't very useful for me. In fact, for indoor volleyball and basketball I set aperture range from f/2 to f/4 with ISO safety shift on (or if I'm using the 70-200 lens, f/2.8 to f/4). I prefer the faster shutter speed in exchange for opening up wider.

However, I can definitely see the utility in this lens, and if I didn't already have the 300 and 400, I probably would use it for football and soccer, as long as they were day games or well-lit venues. My problem is that my night stuff is NOT well-lit, so to keep a fast shutter I need wider than f/4 probably.

I think this lens would be great for well-lit sports, and wildlife photography, and it'll add a ton of convenience over the longer primes.

 

[kirispupis]

Canon should just look at the practical and business sense here and get rid of the idea of a built in 1.4 extender. Most photographers will be perfectly happy adding their own extenders to a 200-400/4 IS as necessary. This will simplify the lens and reduce its price.

IMHO it is nice that someone at Canon took a risk and tried to come up with something new. What is not nice is trying to stick with that plan when all indicators show it is not working.

If they can release a 200-400/4 IS at $8k I think a lot of people will buy it.