EF 400 f/4 L IS USM

[EdN]

+2!


I would second that Tony! I would also consider the 500 f/5.6 IS L that people mention. Just keep it light and <=$2,000.

[Jon Ruyle]

I would second that Tony! I would also consider the 500 f/5.6 IS L that people mention. Just keep it light and <=$2,000.

I want that, too

[ShutterbugJohan]

FWIW, I'd prefer to see a 200-400/4L IS USM ($3,000?) and a 70-300/4L IS USM (under $1500?). But, I wouldn't complain if Canon did introduce a non-DO 400/4L IS USM.

[Bob]

<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 6pt;"]


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]ShutterbugJohan<o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]Good choice! <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]200 - 400 f4 IS.


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]A 400 fixed is too limiting for general outdoor photography. <o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]As far as price, IS cost about $500 more than non-IS, so the lens should go for $1700 to $2000 max to be a fair value. Considering that you can buy the current 100-400 IS zoom new for $1379.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The proposed 200 &ndash; 400 should be a lot better than the current 100 - 400 lens.<o></o>

[Mark Elberson]

<span style="font-size: 6pt; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black;"]


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]ShutterbugJohan


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]Good choice! <span>200 - 400 f4 IS.


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]A 400 fixed is too limiting for general outdoor photography.


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]As far as price, IS cost about $500 more than non-IS, so the lens should go for $1700 to $2000 max to be a fair value. Considering that you can buy the current 100-400 IS zoom new for $1379.<span> The proposed 200 &ndash; 400 should be a lot better than the current 100 - 400 lens.

Nikon makes a 200-400mm f/4 and it goes for $6,299.95 at B&amp;H. The problem is the f/4. To get a zoom with that range at f/4 is going to take a lot of glass which means it's going to be VERY expensive...and heavy! The Nikon weighs in at 7.2 lbs!!

[alexniedra]

Good choice! <span>200 - 400 f4 IS

From a versitality standpoint, this lens would be awesome. But...



Let's take a look at the Nikon counterpart, the 200-400 f/4 G-AFS ED-IF VR. Wow, quite the tongue twister[].


Weight: 7.2 lbs


Price: 6,279.00 (ouch!)


So, this lens fiits in neither the light or inexpensive category. Even if optical quality is at least decent, I can't see myself buying this sort of lens. At $6,300, over double the predicted price by many here, I'm better off financially and optically with primes covering the zoom range of this lens.


Think about it:


I can get:

• Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS (~$4100)
• 1.4 extender (~300)
• Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS (~$1500)

And $300 to spare!


Okay, obviously I am comparing apples to oranges here... But I just wanted to put the price of Nikon's 200-400 f/4 zoom in perspective[].


So, after seeing the specs and price of Nikon's offering of a 200-400 f/4 zoom, the price, IMO, of a similiar Canon lens will be very substantial, and much higher than the predicted $2000-$3000 of many in the forum.

[Alan]

I want a 12-1200 f/4 L IS, and I want it for $500.


Isn't science fiction great??

[alexniedra]

How about f/2.8?


Let's call it the EF 12-1200 f/2.8 L IS USM.


MSRP: $500


Weight: 3 lbs


[]

[ShutterbugJohan]

OK, I admit that my 200-400/4L IS USM proposed MSRP of $3000 was very low.

Let's take a look at the Nikon counterpart, the 200-400 f/4 G-AFS ED-IF VR. Wow, quite the tongue twister[img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img].


Weight: 7.2 lbs


Price: 6,279.00 (ouch!)

I can get:

• Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS (~$4100)
• 1.4 extender (~300)
• Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS (~$1500)

And $300 to spare!

This would give you more range, but it would weigh nearly the same (or more), and, as you pointed out, it is nearly as expensive.

Even if optical quality is at least decent, I can't see myself buying this sort of lens. At $6,300, over double the predicted price by many here, I'm better off financially and optically with primes covering the zoom range of this lens.

So, after seeing the specs and price of Nikon's offering of a 200-400 f/4 zoom, the price, IMO, of a similiar Canon lens will be very substantial, and much higher than the predicted $2000-$3000 of many in the forum.

I do not believe that a 400/4L IS USM could be sold in the $2000-$3000 price range. Although it would have an effective aperture of f4, f4 on a 400mm lens is 100mm (400/4=100). In comparison, the 300/2.8L IS USM ($4100 at B&amp;H) has an effective aperture of f2.8, which works out to an aperture of 107.14mm (300/2.8=107.14). Thus, I would expect a non-DO 400/4L IS USM to retail for close to what the 300/2.8L IS USM does; somewhere between $3500-$4500, bringing it (somewhat) closer to the price of a 200-400/4L.


Also, if the 400/4 were to weigh as much as the 300/2.8, the Nikon 200-400/4 is only 2-3lbs. heavier.

[Tony Printezis]

(a bit of an old thread, but I hope it's OK that I try to resurrect it)

I do not believe that a 400/4L IS USM could be sold in the $2000-$3000 price range.

I admit that my initial &lt; $2,000 estimation was a bit optimistic. However, I recently found out that Minolta has a 400m f/4.5 prime (non-IS, they have IS in the body) for around $1,700. So, is it unreasonable for a potential Canon 400m f4 IS to be under $3,000?


Tony