Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 200-400  
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 768 posts, RR: 16
Posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5729 times:

Well its announced that the new 200-400 with built in 1.4 convertor will be available from the end of May at £12,000.

I assume the price is to pay for the crack these guys must be smoking   I mean, come on, at the end of the day its just a decent zoom - is it really 10x better than the current 100-400?

I'm all for good glass, but just how good does glass need to be? - given that output from the 100-400 has been good enough for all manner of top-end publications. Are these suddenly going to find output from the old lens unacceptable. I think not.

I make part of my living from photography - every piece of equipment I buy has to have a reasonable prospect of paying for itself, or it doesn't get a place in my camera bag. There is no way this one makes the cut - especially when I think of what I could buy instead - eg. Canon's uber-telephoto 800mm with enough change left over for another 5D3 body.

Canon needs to get its act together and get on with a sensibly priced (ie sub 3K) update to the 100-400. Rather than producing an item of lust (that's Leica's job), how about giving us the best they can do for say, £2500?

Anyone thinking of buying this thing?


Cheers,

Colin


Colin K. Work, Pixstel
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1066 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5720 times:

Hey Colin i was in the thinking but not for that price.
I figured it would be less than the 600II which you can pick up for around 10K in Japan.
How wrong i was like you i will wait for the 100-400 replacement and until then use my stellar trustworthy first ever Canon zoom now 9 years old...oh and the big primes! lol.
Seriously that price is almost as ridiculous as the stupidity Nikon exhibited with the Nikon 800/5.6.



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineeksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1317 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5658 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

In US.

B& H pre-order price = : $11,799.00

400mm=$10,999
600mm= $12,799
800mm= $13,249

My only reason for getting it would be to cut out having to carry an additional lens out in the field. It would be nice to go from 200 to 400 without having to switch cameras.

I will await the reviews.



World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlineMcG1967 From UK - Scotland, joined Apr 2006, 517 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5653 times:

Here's a review from Andy Rouse:

http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/?page_id=174

I would have thought pricing would have been in the £6-£8k range for this lens, but that may well have cannibalised sales of the 500 & 600 F4s.


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6456 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5595 times:

I think I can afford the case at USD650 right now.. Not much more than that though!

Quoting eksath (Reply 2):
600mm= $12,799

It would be interesting to compare the 200-400 @ 560mm to the 600mm. Though there's still a factor of one f stop though, right? And I'd assume that it's important to some people? Or could someone like you get by without the need for f/2.8 on the 400mm and/or f/4 on the 600mm?



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1066 posts, RR: 33
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5564 times:

Andy's photos are beautiful.
I think it shows the capability of the 200-400 pretty well.
I'm interested he talks of it as a 200-560 which looking at the graphs it is being sharper with the converter at some lengths.
Looks like you get the quality of a big prime throughout the entire range and the flexibility of a zoom.
What a lens..



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5564 times:

Not sure why this lens is so much more than the Nikon version, even given the built-in TC. How absurd. It would be nice to see people boycott it until the price dropped, but that won't happen.

User currently offlinecomairguycvg From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 337 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5555 times:

I absolutely can't wait to get one. I might rent one first and also wait until at least the first price drop. But it looks like it has awesome performance and should go with my 1D X very well.

[Edited 2013-05-14 19:00:53]

User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 768 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5488 times:

No question its a stunning lens and Andy Rouse's reviews certainly show its strengths. I agree with him that for wildlife photography it offers many advantages (though I do wonder if he would fork out 12k of his onw money for one!).

But, looking at his aviation pics, I don't see anything which I haven't seen before taken with 'lesser' lenses. Would a 'good' copy of the traditional 100-400 have been significantly worse?

Don't get me wrong - I would dearly love one of these beauties, and if my numbers come up in the lottery tonight, I'll be straight down to the camera shop - but given the ridiculous price of this (and for that matter, other recent L lenses), I think we need to think long and hard if these lenses will in practice result in us getting better pictures (or getting better pics often enough). Would a lesser lens do the job? Or a 3rd party (the new Sigma Art range looks very interesting).

The manufacturers are very good at making you feel that old lenses and bodies are simply not good enough - but I figure gear that was good enough for the world's top photographers 5 years ago will probably do for me  . Even if I were a serious wildlife photographer I think my money would be better spent getting to the locations where Andy's spectacular pics are possible.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6456 posts, RR: 38
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5417 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 8):
The manufacturers are very good at making you feel that old lenses and bodies are simply not good enough

Though I believe the 70-200 2.8 IS II was a decent step up to the mk I.. Without the extortionate difference in price.

Quoting ckw (Reply 8):
Even if I were a serious wildlife photographer I think my money would be better spent getting to the locations where Andy's spectacular pics are possible.

Indeed, good point. Goes for just about any travel, let alone to some safari. Right now, I'd much rather have a holiday and my current kit than just buying a new lens with nowhere to go because it has all been spent on the new lens!



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1066 posts, RR: 33
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5311 times:

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 6):
Not sure why this lens is so much more than the Nikon version,

Well firstly its sharp even the second Nikon 200-400 is softish at the long end.
Its prime sharp..something the Nikon although good for a zoom doesnt match.
Built in TC with no performance falloff on the MTF's..never been done before.
Its in a different league to the Nikon version weight and size included but whether those benefits are worth 11K is a big question.



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5267 times:

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 10):
Well firstly its sharp even the second Nikon 200-400 is softish at the long end.
Its prime sharp..something the Nikon although good for a zoom doesnt match.
Built in TC with no performance falloff on the MTF's..never been done before.
Its in a different league to the Nikon version weight and size included but whether those benefits are worth 11K is a big question.

I'll have to look those curves up, that sounds insane that there's no falloff with the TC.


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 768 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5238 times:

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 11):
that sounds insane that there's no falloff with the TC

Well that's what Canon were aiming for - I for one don't find taking a convertor on and off a big deal, and the added bulk and weight of a built in convertor is a bit of a draw back, so its all down to the image quality. I guess the whole concept of a dedicated convertor is about getting the optimum light path.

But it makes me wonder, why don't Canon produce dedicated convertors for some of their serious primes? I would image that a convertor for any of their L telephotos would sell pretty well, and while perhaps not as good as a built in convertor (since your restricted to where you put it), should be better than a one size fits all model.

I would happily pay say, double, the price of a standard 1.4 for one tailored to the 500 f4.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineMcG1967 From UK - Scotland, joined Apr 2006, 517 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5165 times:

Colin,

You raise an interesting point about the converters.
Personally, I would like to see Canon release a 1.7x TC that would lose you 1 stop when used & give you the same IQ as the 1.4x does.


User currently offlinespencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5061 times:

Why did they go from 200 and not 100mm? A 100-560 would have been more suitably priced at those stated figures! 12 grand! That's just crazy...
Spence



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10332 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5055 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 12):

I would happily pay say, double, the price of a standard 1.4 for one tailored to the 500 f4.

I would too, being less than happy with my 1.4's performance on my 70-200 and 300 F4 IS. On the 300, so far I've been able to get superior quality cropping in using just the lens than when using lens + 1.4 at 420mm.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 995 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4614 times:

Given how spoiled I am by the sharpness and speed of my 70-200 f4L IS, the 200-400 does seem exactly like the kind of lens I would totally dig, extending reach out to 400mm+ but definitely not at that price. The numbers are bonkers though, and so are the reviews. Maybe someday.

User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 768 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4564 times:

Quoting spencer (Reply 14):
Why did they go from 200 and not 100mm?

I would image its to do with going for optimum quality - with a 2x zoom its much easier to control various optical issues than it is with a 4x. And of course introducing the convertor would only multiply the problems. I'm guessing that a 2x zoom with a convertor is the limit of whats possible without optical compromises.

But it is strongly rumoured that a replacment for the 100-400 is on the way - hopefully at a more realistic price!

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1066 posts, RR: 33
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4311 times:

Wow it looks incredible.
With the test numbers shiwing the same sharoness and resolution ability as a 400/2.8II!!
Even that has blown me away a zoom as sharp as the sharpest long prime ever released.
Guess thats why its a 200-560 they went for quality at the long end.
Simply awesome..



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6456 posts, RR: 38
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4232 times:

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 18):

So when are you getting your hands on one?  



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4019 times:

I ve never thought about the idea to add an external TC to the 200-400 ....

http://thephotosociety.org/blog/test...n-ef-200-400-f4l-with-2x-extender/

And another test by lensrentals.com : http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013...n-200-400mm-f4-is-quick-comparison

I have to admit that I really want to have one.



ABC
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon: 100-400 LIS Vesus 70-200 F2.8 LIS + 2x posted Thu Feb 19 2004 14:51:18 by Glennstewart
Canon 100-400 Or 70-200 + 2X TC? posted Sun Jul 20 2003 14:59:20 by Mirage
Soft Images From Canon 100-400 posted Mon May 21 2012 12:33:45 by DLX737200
Canon's New 400/2.8II..simply Staggering. posted Tue Feb 7 2012 00:47:02 by Dehowie
Canon 200-400mm F/4 L Is posted Tue Sep 6 2011 05:31:10 by LGW340
Rumor: Canon 100-400 Will Be Replaced Next Year posted Fri Oct 29 2010 09:27:38 by SNATH
Nikon 200-400 F4 VR For Sale posted Thu Mar 18 2010 02:10:57 by soon7x7
Canon 100-400 L Is USM Lens posted Wed Jul 22 2009 04:01:06 by Snecma
Canon 100-400 Fell Off In Quality After 2 Years posted Tue Jan 6 2009 10:40:07 by Whisperjet
Rumor: Canon 100-400 L MkII Specs posted Mon Dec 29 2008 05:46:19 by SNATH