Is the EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM Extender 1.4x Lens the new Black?

[neuroanatomist]

Good point, but in the case of this lens there is no Corvette in between. It is either the Accord or the Lamborghini.

Sure there is - Sigma's 120-300mm f/2.8 OS 'Sport', optionally with a 1.4x TC for a 168-420mm f/4.

[Mark Elberson]

Sure there is - Sigma's 120-300mm f/2.8 OS 'Sport', optionally with a 1.4x TC for a 168-420mm f/4.

I may have unreasonably high hopes for this lens but Sigma "seems" to be bringing the heat lately. And $3,600 sounds "cheap" ;-)

[Steve U]

This lens sounds incredible. I have been waiting for something around the 500mm with good IS, and f5.6, this definitely covers those specs, but the price just wrecks it for me. I didn't expect it to be cheaper than that and for what it offers and compared to recent big white releases it will be worth the investment.

But as an amateur that's too much for me, I think I will have to live in hope that Sigma release something special around the 500mm mark with good OS.

[eldarhau]

I currently use the 70-200 f2.8L IS II and 400 f2.8L IS II lenses, with or without the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders, on 5DIII and 1DX bodies. It requires 2 body/lens combos and more parts, but I can´t say I´ve been bothered with that. If I got the 200-400 1.4TC I would probably still carry the 70-200. The IQ on the lens/body combos I have is so good that I can crop significantly and still maintain excellent results, so I am not sure I would feel closing the zoom gap would feel like that much of an improvement. If I were to add anything to my current long lens alternatives, it would most likely be the 600mm f4.0L IS II, since the 5DIII and 1DX bodies support AF at f8.0.

The Nikon alternative cost 5k$ less, which makes the 1.4x extender a very expensive one. Looking at Bryan´s test charts for the Nikon, I believe the Canon lens will show better performance, but still.

The areas I think I would be happy to have the new lens is in bad weather, high dust environments etc., where I don´t like to change lenses and on safaris, where I would normally carry just one body and the maximum zoom range would come in handy. The rest of my shooting would most likely be either 200-400 or 280-560. Flipping between them would probably not be of significant importance to me. But I know for sure that I would miss the f2.8 apertures and the use of my bodies full AF performance.

I know myself well enough to know that I cave in sooner or later for the temptation, but I can´t see that it will add anything or replace the lenses I currently use to be worth the price.

/Eldar

[HDNitehawk]

Sure there is - Sigma's 120-300mm f/2.8 OS 'Sport', optionally with a 1.4x TC for a 168-420mm f/4.

Wrong color and no red ring. It wouldn't look good parked in my garage.
I guess we should count Nikon's offerings as well if white isn't our color.

[ZoeEnPhos]

If 560mm was enough for me, I'd be interested in this lens. As it is, I'm usually using at least the 1.4xIII on my 600 II for 840mm f/5.6, and sometimes I go to 1200mm f/8 with the 2xIII.

I'm not sure f/4 (much less f/5.6) is optimal for sports, even with the high ISO performance of current FF bodies, in the 200-400mm range one often wants the additional subject isolation that an f/2.8 lens delivers.

I can see the 200-400/1.4x as the ideal single tele lens solution on a safari, for example. But then, it's also worth considering that a package consisting of a 1D X, 300/2.8 II and 2xIII is not too far off in cost from this new lens...

Good points as always from you Neuro! Thanks! +++1!
The Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM with extenders version III are just phenomenal! Surely an excellent choice!
All the Best!
/C