ckw
Topic Author
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

Canon 200-400

Tue May 14, 2013 12:50 pm

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
 
Dehowie
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: Canon 200-400

Tue May 14, 2013 1:09 pm

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 avatar
eksath
Crew
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Canon 200-400

Tue May 14, 2013 4:55 pm

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
 
McG1967
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:36 am

RE: Canon 200-400

Tue May 14, 2013 5:20 pm

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 avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Canon 200-400

Tue May 14, 2013 10:07 pm

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.
 
Dehowie
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: Canon 200-400

Wed May 15, 2013 1:18 am

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
 
megatop412
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Canon 200-400

Wed May 15, 2013 1:19 am

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.
 
comairguycvg
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:01 pm

RE: Canon 200-400

Wed May 15, 2013 1:59 am

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]
Worked at: CV62, RJTA, KNLC, CV63, KNFL, OKAJ, KTRI, CV67, KMGE, KNQX, KVPS, KPIT, KCVG, KTYS, KATL
 
ckw
Topic Author
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Canon 200-400

Wed May 15, 2013 11:56 am

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 avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Canon 200-400

Wed May 15, 2013 9:21 pm

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.
 
Dehowie
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: Canon 200-400

Fri May 17, 2013 7:10 am

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
 
megatop412
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Canon 200-400

Fri May 17, 2013 4:58 pm

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.
 
ckw
Topic Author
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Canon 200-400

Fri May 17, 2013 8:09 pm

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
 
McG1967
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:36 am

RE: Canon 200-400

Sat May 18, 2013 9:49 pm

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.
 
spencer
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:30 pm

RE: Canon 200-400

Mon May 20, 2013 8:46 pm

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
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11851
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Canon 200-400

Mon May 20, 2013 9:18 pm

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.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
angad84
Posts: 1843
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Canon 200-400

Mon Jun 03, 2013 6:29 pm

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.
 
ckw
Topic Author
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Canon 200-400

Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:34 am

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
 
Dehowie
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: Canon 200-400

Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:05 pm

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 avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Canon 200-400

Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:45 pm

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 18):

So when are you getting your hands on one?  
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
Rotate
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 5:52 pm

RE: Canon 200-400

Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:28 pm

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bombayduck and 2 guests