World Cup started - no sign of 100-400L Mk2
- Thread starter Plainsman
- Start date
You are both wrong. A new 100-400 with a built-in TC would be an excellent upgrade. The present 100-400 works well with a TC and a newer model with a built-in one would work even better. A built-in TC gives better results, is faster to implement, and does not require exposing inside the camera to as much dust.
Myself and many others would not mind paying the extra cost for such a feature.
Myself and many others would not mind paying the extra cost for such a feature.
Upvote
0
canonrumorstony said:
How could I be wrong when I offered pros and cons for both sides of the suggestion?
As for not minding paying the extra, what if it was $3,999?
Upvote
0
eml58 said:
Oh, dear me, I guess you have posting seniority.
If you are worried about my number of postings:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1300265/0#12403599
:
Upvote
0
canonrumorstony said:
What if we could all come to your house and smoke what you are smoking? A regular 1.4 TC is $499, the benchmark the 200-400 set for a built in one is for a substantial premium over that, for instance the Nikon 200-400 f4 costs $6,599, the Canon version with built in TC costs $11,799.
So bearing in mind the current 100-400 costs $1,699, and all MkII's have added at least a $1,000 to MkI prices, now put in a TC and you could easily be looking at $3,500-$4,500. The Nikon 80-400 sells for $2,695 with no TC.
I strongly suspect the only thing people will have to moan about any MkII 100-400 will be the price, oh, and that is is still a push pull design, or that it isn't a push pull design anymore!
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
canonrumorstony said:
If by 'works well' you mean it's physically compatible, then I agree. But if you mean 'delivers good optical performance,' then we obviously have different standards.
It's almost certainly moot, anyway. Unless Canon puts f/8 AF into all of their subsequent dSLRs, they've not going to release a lens where the AF stops working when you flip in the TC.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
You seem to make pretty inane assumptions without smoking anything. You are pretty good at exaggerating and comparing apples to oranges also. The 1.4x III is $449, and the 100-400 is $1500 right now at B&H. So there you are exaggerating by $250. You have no idea what the Canon 200-400 would have listed for without the built-in TC. Comparing to the Nikon is hardly relevant. More assumptions by you.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Could be:
with 1.4x TC: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/90/979990.jpg
with 2x TC: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1276029/0?keyword=x#12158635
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
canonrumorstony said:
Yes, if web-sized images are your goal, it's ok. Not sure how much you've used the combo personally, but I don't find it better than cropping an image from the bare lens. I have tried it on several occasions, and never been happy with the results. Granted, comparing it to my 600/4 may be a factor there...
Upvote
0
canonrumorstony said:
I still think it's the AF at f/8 thing. Most people who purchase such a lens probably won't own a 5D3 or 1Dx. Personally I'd love to see an upgraded 100-400, but also the current version is still selling really well.
Upvote
0
canonrumorstony said:
Haha yes, Canon will design and manufacture a lens that will not function on 90% of their bodies. They will do this because ~*reasons*~
This is why I keep coming back to this site: baseless, nonsensical, ludicrous speculation. Very entertaining!
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Then you obviously have something wrong with your TC/lens combo. It has been shown many times that the lens + TC will produce better results than cropping, even with your 600mm.
Upvote
0
Steve said:
Yeah, and you just happen to miss the point that such a lens would function on 100% of their bodies when the TC is not engaged. Just like the present 100-400 will work with 100% of their bodies when using a non-reporting TC.
You also happen to miss that the 5D3 would not AF with f8 lenses until Canon brought out newer firmware. Do you not think that Canon can't do that with other bodies?
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
canonrumorstony said:
Nope, nothing 'wrong'. The 100-400L just doesn't take a TC well. My 600 II and 70-200 II do just fine with TCs, and the bare 100-400 is quite sharp. Those conclusions are based on both real-world shooting and ISO 12233-type chart testing.
'Wrong' is thinking Canon will come out with a built-in TC in an update to a popular f/5.6 zoom. Sorry, that's incredibly unlikely.
canonrumorstony said:
Doesn't matter that it's f/5.6 without the TC - if the TC is built in, people will expect full functionality including AF.
I'm sure Canon can implement f/8 AF on any body with the AF sensor in the 1D X and 5DIII. Oh, wait...they already have. The f/8 AF on my 1D X is reliable. I've tried taped pins and non-reporting TCs on non-f/8 bodies, and if I'd paid what Canon would charge for a 100-400+1.4x to get that level performance, I'd be downright pissed.
Upvote
0
canonrumorstony said:
Right yes good point. The lens will not work with the TC engaged on almost every body Canon makes. Therefore, they should spend time and money developing it...because...
Do you think that canon engineers are literally wizards that just need to invoke the correct incantations to allow the tiny daemons that live in the mirror box to focus at f/8? You do understand that AF systems are hardware, right? And that the limitations are physical? Neuroanatomist wrote a pretty good breakdown of how AF systems actually work which I'm sure he'd be happy to link you to.
Upvote
0