Aha, either this is an early April fool's joke, or the answer as to whether the 70-300L is the replacement for the 100-400L: http://dpreview.com/news/1102/11020708canon200400mm.asp
Ciao, Colin
Printable View
Aha, either this is an early April fool's joke, or the answer as to whether the 70-300L is the replacement for the 100-400L: http://dpreview.com/news/1102/11020708canon200400mm.asp
Ciao, Colin
It
It will be great for those, who have 70-200 series lenses and want more, but do not plan to buy 100-400 [:)]
Just interesting, how it will work with and without and extender? How it will be detatched / reatatched?
Did you see the first guestimate on price..... $7500 USD.[:(]
@Steve U, well, it can
<span org_alt="?????????" org_height="600" org_width="800" org_url="/img/dcw/docs/425/556/003.jpg" id="main_image_wrapper"]<span org_alt="?????????" org_height="600" org_width="800" org_url="/img/dcw/docs/425/556/003.jpg" id="main_image_wrapper"]Here is a shot from the Japanese Canon exhibit coming up, I think ?
<span org_alt="?????????" org_height="600" org_width="800" org_url="/img/dcw/docs/425/556/003.jpg"]<span org_alt="?????????" org_height="600" org_width="800" org_url="/img/dcw/docs/425/556/003.jpg"][img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/4048.003_5B00_1_5D00_.jpg[/img]
<span org_alt="?????????" org_height="600" org_width="800" org_url="/img/dcw/docs/425/556/003.jpg"]<span org_alt="?????????" org_height="600" org_width="800" org_url="/img/dcw/docs/425/556/003.jpg"]Extender is built into the lens and you turn it on or off.
<span org_alt="?????????" org_height="600" org_width="800" org_url="/img/dcw/docs/425/556/003.jpg"]<span org_alt="?????????" org_height="600" org_width="800" org_url="/img/dcw/docs/425/556/003.jpg"]Apparantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve U
Yup, so it sais in the announcement [:D]
Oh boy, this is really the ultimate tele-zoom lens!! 200-400mm F4L IS with optional extender capabilities....wow!!And with full internal zoom if it looks like....wow. With the idea in mind that it has image quality equal to the latest Canon lenses....sigh....say no more [:#]
I think prices are going to be astronomical for my budget unfortunately[;)]
By the way, have you also seen the T3i and Rebel T3??
Jan
Hmm look what I stumbled upon while reading the T3i/600D preview:
"Alongside the camera, Canon is also launching the 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS II"
Some great announcements today [A]
Wow that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieter
Much more... I'm going to guess $8500, and even that might be on the low side. Consider the pricing on the new 300/2.8 II and 400/2.8 II. If Canon follows suit, I'd expect this to be a couple of thousand more than the Nikon counterpart, especially since the extender is built-in.
I'm afraid you're right. I'd say this lens is going to be just as good or better than the 400mm F4L IS DO(when looking at the quality of the newest Canon lenses). Add that it's more versatile being a zoom. It has the build-in extender. All those things will make it a very versatile, yet fast lens for a lot of different photographers. Think about journalists, bird-photographers, wild-life, sports. It fits in almost every photographers wishlist if you ask me [;)] It doesn't fit in every bag or budget I'm afraid [:#]
They are calling it a Super Telephoto. Its not going to be a compact easy to carry around lens. If you look at the tripod foot, the smallest lens with that type of foot is the 500mm and it weighs 8.5 lbs.
It is going to have that big bulky lens cap that is a pain in the rear and cost a fortune itself.
I think Neuro has it priced very close, $8500 maybe.
What about the IQ? If it is comparable to the big primes it might have some possibilities. How about the AF system on a huge telephoto zoom like that. Will it get close to the primes. I will want to see some reviews before I would consider this one. I would hate to drop that much money on it and then the IQ or AF system not live up to the hype.
So it looks interesting, but to me the 500mm or the 600mm if they loose 3 or 4 pounds (or even 1 or 2) is more interesting in that price range. With the big prime I would be more comfortable thinking I was getting the best IQ possible.
Ok...my initial excitement is easing a little, especially with the price tags being discussed. But, assuming great IQ, I am glad that Canon will have a lens like this in their lineup. Even if I will never afford one. It has the potential to be a flagship lens, along with the other new big whites. Flagships whose technology will eventually filter down into something I can afford.
So for me....still holding onto my 100-400L. A tank of "old
With that price, I would have to save for decades to get one. Too bad, for this is something I have longed for since my 70-300 got some beating turning it into a super-soft lens at >200.
On the plus side, this will perhaps lower the price of 100-400L when people start to sell of to get the latest Canon telelens.
Lars
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars
How low can it go? I've seen 100-400's for sale on my local Craigslist for $1100.
Neuro, didn
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsiegel5151
Good luck! [:D]
But nah, I think you're right. Prices of the 100-400 will not drop because of this lens I think. This lens is in a whole different category.
One thing I'm wondering about is what this lens' minimum focus distance would be. With the build in extender, it might give a very nice magnification...
How would this extender work by the way? Any idea? A movable rear-element/group? Since this "extender" will not add anymore glass than it already has, chances are high that it will remain a very high quality 560mm lens, right? Perhaps even similar than at 400mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Paalman
It does 'add glass' just not to the back end. If you look at a larger image of the lens, you can see a 'bump' behind the lug for the lens carrying strap, right under the switch for the internal extender. That switch appears to be a small lever, which I presume swings the lens elements for the internal 1.4x extender out of the optical path and into that 'bump' when the extender is 'off'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Paalman
This lens certainly raises a lot of questions. I've been wondering a couple of things myself (besides what I already posted):
- AF speed. Will having the extender internal to the lens somehow allow for the lens to focus faster than with an external extender?
- Dis-engagable extenders. Why don't they make external extenders that, with a push of a button, can be engaged or dis-engaged similar to the internal extender on this lens? That way this feature could be used for all compatable lenses. Right now I am thinking size, looking at the back of the 200-400 picture, the unit housing the 1.4x extender appears a littlelonger than the actual 1.4x extender. This makes me think that, in addition to an extender swinging into and out of place, there may be some other moving elements to make this work.. But, of course, that is just uneducated speculation on my behalf.
Hmm John, you might be right. I hadn't seen such a large photo of it yet, but it does seem ike some sort of lever to me as well. It also seems to be out of balance in that way [:-*]
And indeed good questions Kayaker. However your second question and remark about why they can't make extenders like this for every lens. I just have to say, that I'm not always willing to pay extra for an extender, which I might not even use. In the tele-range it makes sense though. Still the 1.4x II extender remains on my wishlist [;)]
I guess we'll be getting more details soon. Or wait, maybe not. I'm still hoping that it's available in the same budget of the 100-400 [A] (perhaps the coffee-mug[;)])
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.
This lens has about the same aperture size as the 300mm f/2.8, to ask Canon to build the new version of the 300mm f/2.8 for 3 grand is kinda unlrealistic. So is trying to say they should make a lens like this for the 3 grand. It
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
Agreed. At 3 grand, I"d buy it in a flash. But there is a big price jump between 77-80mm aperture and 100+ mm aperture. I think the 300 f/2.8 is the cheapest canon lens in that aperture range, and zooms tend to cost more than primes. I'd love a 200-400 f/4, but the fact that it costs more than I would spend for it does not surprise me in the slightest.
After reading all these posts, my $1500 (new), lighter, high quality 100-400 IS zoom is looking better and better all the time.
200-400 with 1.4x, and the convenience of not having to mount/unmount the lens PLUS the extender on the fly, will surely hold a ton of appeal for bird/wildlife and sports shooters. Still, I wonder if this built-in extender technology will start appearing on other lenses.
hrm, I
Did anyone notice that there are 3 modes for image stabilisation? I wonder what the third mode is...
3rd mode is stabilized only during exposure. They describe it somewhere in the blurb, albeit briefly.
Paul
Ah thanks. I don't see a huge benefit to that then. I like having IS working while focusing and composing, especially at longer focal lengths.
Oh by the way, I just unboxed my new 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.... it's slightly sexy.[:D]