Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
They'd have to redesign the optics of the current 1.4x extender to make a disengagable version for the other tele lenses. Consider the current separate 1.4x has a protruding front element, so it couldn't swing out of the way. In the 200-400 however it could be the same optical design as the separate 1.4xbecause it is built into the lens, sothey can build the lens body to accomodate swinging the entire optical unit in/out of the light path.
Paul.
been waiting for this kind of focal length for a long time, but screw that price, can get 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 for alot less. Unless im shooting for pro sports lol
Steven23, i am with you on that! You could also go abroad for at least a couple of weeks with your suggest gear and still come out ahead financially.
So i take it that in addition to me, you didn
For some reason, this thing doesn
Bob
I have been trying to figure out all day how this lens would make sense. The price's thrown out were speculation, however looking at how its made I bet they are not far off.
I agree, the internal 1.4 seems a little cheezy to me.
I haven't seen any specs, so I am curious how big and heavy it is. But just looking at the tripod foot the smallest lens that uses that foot now would be the new 500mm at just over 7 pounds. And it appears to take the huge lens hood of the supertele's.
I suppose it will have its place, but for me I probably couldn't see one. The only think I could think of is I do like having a 300mm and the 500mm. Maybe it could take the place of my 300mm.
Canon's website posted info on the new 500mm and if the IQ is as good as the charts indicate it will be an awesome lens. If the new Zoom lens is like all the other Zoom's in Canon's lineup the IQ of the Zoom < Prime. For wildlife and birds most likely the Prime will be the way to go still.
Rick
Amen Bob. The pricing on certain items of camera gear is insane and unreal. The only positive thing that I can think of if you could call it that is that the high prices on the speciality stuff keeps everybody from having it. Only the top dollar professionals have access or can justify having this gear which also helps define them from the wannabes. The funny thing is this lens will most likely not be used for any heavy sport shooting because f/4 just won't do it for many sporting events. IS in addition to f2.8 helps with sports but not with f/4. Might be a better wildlife lens for still objects. I for one see a huge market for this lens if it was to be priced in between the 2,000 to 3,000 dollar range. I never considered the 100-400 lens because of the sliding portion of the zoom. Like the EFS 17-55mm IS lens the potential to suck in dirt is and has been the deal breaker for me. I cannot justify spending 1,000 plus dollars on anything that can't be 100 percent sealed from the elements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Williams
I had the same question. My guess is even a 200-400 f4 would be in the $6k range.
Mark
I was planning on picking up the 300mm f/2.8 IS II later this year, but this lens has me wondering... I planned on using the lens for wildlife on my 7D (plus 1.4x and 2x extenders when needed). I'm sure the 300mm would be a lot easier to haul out into the woods and handhold. The new 300mm is about 10" long and 5.2 lbs and I'm guessing the 200-400mm will be 15" long and 8 lbs.
I would love to see some MTF charts and more size specs. I wonder if the versatility of the 200-400mm f/4 will trump the image quality of the 300mm f/2.8 IS II or the pure awesomeness of f/2.8 @ 300mm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Williams
I think a lot of the people this lens is targeted at commonly use extenders anyway. The convenience of being able to add and remove the extender at the flick of a switch is amazing. Plus the extender can be optimized for the lens, so it's probably superior to just adding the normal 1.4x extender. It also looks as though the extender portion may not be the last element in the lens, so it's possibly very different from the traditional extender. A 200-560mm f/4-5.6 might have been significantly longer heaver than a 200-400mm f/4 with the option of becoming a 280-560mm f/5.6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freelanceshots
I can only dream about it being that cheap... but alas, I'm sure it will be $7000+ (maybe close to $8000 at release). Look at the Nikon version with no 1.4x extender. It is currently $6799 on B&H. I'm sure the Canon version will be similarly priced. Even at this price, I see a huge market for it. As I understand the Nikon version is a popular lens. I doubt many hobbyists have the lens though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Williams
Honestly I think a 280-560mm f/5.6 would be similarly priced to this lens... probably part of the reason they added a 1.4x extender. The lens elements would need to be about the same size (400mm/4 = 100mm and 560mm/5.6 = 100mm) and the zoom range would still be 2x. I like the versatility potential that this lens has over a 280-560mm f/5.6.
It's interesting that it appears the zoom ring is in front of the focus ring like on the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L. Wonder if this is going to be a new policy on their zooms or if the design just required that placement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul McSweeney
I was thinking of a redesigned extender, essentially slicing off the portion of the 200-400L that is the built-in extender that can slide in an out of place, and making optional extenders that could be used on any compatible lens. But, as I sometimes do, I typed before I thought, and thinking about it more the biggest problem if Canon ever created a product like that (extenders that can be disengaged) is that if the lens isn't designed for this option, when the extender is disengaged it would essentially be an extension tube. So I am not expecting to see that product anytime soon. Another million dollar idea that isn't worth 2 cents.
Here is a link to the ISO 12233 charts comparing the Nikon 200-400 to the Canon 300mm f/2.8L both at 300 mm f/4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=704&Camera=614&Sample=0&am p;FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=249&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
If the Canon is optically equivalent or better, I can see it as a very flexible lens for high end users. If it is optically less, but still very good, then hopefully the price is much lower and this may be a flexible lens for someone like....me.
A lens like this at f/4 with the newest generation IS without the extender for under 3,000. I would swing at that for sure. I can add the extender myself.