JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2956 times:
I don't think it will affect sales or price of the 100-400 too much as the lens is clearly being marketed in a different sector by the look of it. 200mm at the short end isn't ideal for us aviation photog's, but the constant f/4 does sound excellent.
In my opinion it's only like the 70-200 f/4 and the f/2.8 - which don't really affect sales of each other enough for one's price to drop. Could this be Canon trying to muscle in on similar products offered by Sigma and Tamron perhaps? Or even Nikon?
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1051 posts, RR: 36 Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2955 times:
Sure will Flo!
Imagine tack sharpness from 70 all the way to 400 or 560 with the built in converter.
Really like the converter deal in not having to swap body off converter on body on all the time.
Also the new weights on these lenses is amazing...i think you should remember how heavy the 600 is!
The 400/2.8 is losing over 30% weight and the 600F4 27%...Canon are doing an insane job in getting the weights down on the big pipes.
The new 600F4 will be the same weight as the old 500F4..a great achievement in lens technology..new IS mode 3 to.
cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 40 Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2934 times:
Noooo! There goes our one advantage over Canon!
I'll be there will be a lot of people rushing to get those lenses. The switch-in converter is a brilliant idea, I often swap the converter off and on the camera. On in moderate light for extra range, and off when it gets dark for the maximum aperture of F/4.0 on my 200-400. Good on Canon for realising this.
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6079 posts, RR: 40 Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2923 times:
A pretty wicked lens! Looks huge though.. Especially seeing what looks like a strap holder on the side of the lens? Any idea what the third 'zoom/focus' ring could be, if it has any practical function?
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2910 times:
I'm wondering what the IS 'mode 3' entails? I imagine it'll be an advanced panning mode, which will be sensitive to both horizontal and vertical movements?
As for the built-in teleconverter, it really is a superb idea. Has anyone offered anything like this before?
Looking like an awesome piece of glass, but I'm guessing it will be more suitable for sports and wildlife photog's. I often struggle with atmospheric conditions at 300-400mm so I can only imagine the effects at 560mm!
Still, I'm sure there will be no end of takers who'll find such a range and flexibility useful. I'll go with an initial R.R.P. of around GB£3,000/US$4,800 (just a pure guess).
JRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4616 posts, RR: 51 Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2902 times:
Finally, I don't have to switch to Nikon anymore .
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 7): Still, I'm sure there will be no end of takers who'll find such a range and flexibility useful. I'll go with an initial R.R.P. of around GB£3,000/US$4,800 (just a pure guess).
The Nikon variant (without the built in extender) currently retails for $6800 at B&H, so I expect the price for the Canon to be higher!
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 40 Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2842 times:
And for those in Australia, expect very little change from AUD$10,000.
Never mind that our currency is equal to US$... We get ripped off because we are a small market!
Jaxtrax: to my knowledge, nobody has done a built in TC before. Though Sigma offered one (2x) as standard with the stupidly large 200-500mm F/2.8 lens (so large it has it's own battery for autofocus)! But you still had to connect it.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 24 Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2786 times:
Quoting dvincent (Reply 11): I recall predicting this a while back... Funny how a non-Canon user gets it right.
Dan, my hat's off to you sir. You did predict it indeed. So, 100-400 users that want a replacement they can either get the less capable (in terms of range) 70-300 L or the 4x the price 200-400. Great choice!
Quoting dvincent (Reply 11): I bet it'll cost somewhere around $8,000-9,000 USD.
Nikon's 200-400 is around $6,300. And Canon have been pricing their lenses higher than Nikon. So you can do the math!
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2760 times:
Wow! Looks like the price will be astronomical! As I said then, definitely NOT a 100-400 replacement, so there's little to no chance of Canon dropping the price of the 100-400, or the 400 prime for that matter.
It's an impressive lens no doubt; however will it be good enough compared with what already exists to justify the high price? For most people I doubt it - I certainly won't be adding it to my collection in a hurry!
I can't help but feel one of the reasons they've done this is because it's a niche where they currently can't compete with Nikon and Sigma. I guess we'll just have to wait for its release for the lowdown.
McG1967 From UK - Scotland, joined Apr 2006, 499 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2655 times:
I think the 100-400 may well end up being dropped from the Canon line up. The introduction of the 70-300L now makes more sense, in that they are bringing out the 200-400 F4 and instead of a revamped 100-400 that could impinge on sales of this, offer the 70-300L instead. That's why I think the 100-400 may have a short time left in the Canon lens range.
The 800 F5.6 is cheaper in the UK than what the new 600F4 will be.
codeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2652 times:
This TC concept is quite interesting. I wonder how it will work in the converter mode with an additional converter ?
Nikon will need to step up the work on trhe 80-400 replacement, but still the recently updated, although mainly with Nano coat and VR, 200-400 is the main competitor here.
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
waketurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1291 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2630 times:
Quoting McG1967 (Reply 18): I really can't see there being space in the line up now for a MkII 100-400
While it is impossible to say for sure, I agree with Mark. I think the 70-300L is the new version of the 100-400. I am thrilled Canon innovated to come up with the 200-400 with 1.4 included, however, I am not happy to carry another lens in my bag (if the 200-400 fits) to cover the range I currently have. The price point will probably further my dislike.
I currently own 10-22, 24-105, 100-400, and 500 (which I can't really carry in a backpack)
I could own 10-22, 24-105, 70-300, 200-400
That would cover essentially the same range, but I'd need to carry all lenses with me all the time. I like the 100-400 because it is portable, has great range, and I can leave the 500 at home unless I have a specific application where I need it.
I could swap the 100-400 for the 70-300, and the 500 f/4 for 200-400 with 1.4, but the price difference is probably over $1500 when all is said and done. Plus I just don't see myself parting with the 500. Do I sound conflicted???
cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 40 Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2519 times:
Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 20): What? How else is the poor Canon shooter going to achieve 400mm without spending $8k?
Think of it differently, if you have one - you'll have a very desirable lens.
You can still buy the Sigma/Tokina/Tamron super-zooms. Still - I very much doubt the 100-400mm Canon lens will be retired. It's easily one of the most popular Canon lenses I see. Just about every spotter using Canon equipment has one of those.
Quoting McG1967 (Reply 18): It would impinge on sales of the 70-300L and the new 200-400L.
The 100-400 and 200-400 are very different beasts. The 100-400 is a more consumer orientated lens, the 200-400mm is a top-end professional lens, most like with a frightening price-tag to match. If anything, the 200-400 1.4xTC lens might infringe on the 500mm sales. Apart from it's huge size - it'd be the ultimate airshow lens too. I can tell you from my experience with the Nikon equivalent lens, using the 1.4x TC on it gives superb results - if only we could just flick a switch to swap in the TC when needed so you have effectively a 200-560mm with little effort.
Really convenient and I hope Nikon will take notice. But then, they only just recently upgraded the 200-400 - and we know how fast Nikon upgrades things (not).
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1051 posts, RR: 36 Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2479 times:
Personally i dont think the 100-400 will become extinct anytime soon.
The 200-400 is aimed at the media and high end pro's not the same market as the 100-400.
As one of Canon's best ever selling Lens's the 100-400 is a golden egg that they would be insane to remove from the line up.
The great thing is the 200-400 will come in i think way lighter than everyone expect.
Given the new 600F4 and 400/2.8 have shed almost a third of their(now weighing within 50 Grams of the old 500F4)I think weight by going to Titanium construction etc it will weigh quite a bit less than expected.
These new lens's are amazing with weights and performance never seen before and even with astronomical prices will be walking out of shops all over the world.
If you have ever hand held a 600 or 400/2.8 all day at an airshow you will know why....