User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  2
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Canon announces development of a 200-400/4 with in-built extender

  1. #1
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Canon announces development of a 200-400/4 with in-built extender

    Yes, you read it right.

    Canon has announced it is developing the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x lens.

    More here:

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11...on200400mm.asp
    http://www.canon.com/news/2011/feb07e.html

    The in-built extender turns the lens into a 280-560/5.6. I can see this lens being enormously popular for sports and wildlife photographers.
    Last edited by Xenedis; 07-02-2011 at 3:34pm.

  2. #2
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    03 Mar 2010
    Location
    Townsville
    Posts
    889
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That sounds like a good proposition. interesting with a built in 1.4 converter. Look forward to seeing it in action.

  3. #3
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nikon has had a 200-400/4 for years. It's interesting to see that Canon has finally responded to that. :-)

    Canon's closest equivalent is the 100-400/4.5-5.6, which, while 100mm wider at the wide end, is slower and has a variable aperture.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Sep 2010
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    490
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Interesting lens design. It looks like the tc slides into the bulge at the back of the lens to clear the optic path to sensor. It must have a little motor to move it in and out.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    19 Aug 2010
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    very interesting lens indeed!
    Once again canon surprises us
    1DIII, 5DII, 15mm fish, 24mm ts-e, 35L,135L,200L,400L,mpe-65mm
    Film: eos 300, pentax 6x7

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Nov 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,363
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Cool! That could be a nice BIF lens! It's due out this year too!!!

    I wonder if it has internal zoom like the 70-200s?
    Chris

  7. #7
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    08 May 2009
    Location
    Buninyong
    Posts
    1,235
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm looking forward to this one, might be just what I'm after.
    Mic

    Photography is the art of telling stories with light.

    www.michaelgoulding.com

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    04 May 2008
    Location
    Temora
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Due later in 2011 may also mean sometime 2012, manufacturers are tending to announce early and have a lengthy delay before real deliveries begin.
    Price wise with a 200-400 nikon abount 7k, who wants to guess what the target pricing for canon will be.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2009
    Location
    rockingham
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    $6999.99 . my guess

  10. #10
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by conscuba View Post
    $6999.99 . my guess
    Nikon's 200-400/4 is considerably more expensive, and given the Canon version will include a 1.4x extender in the design, I'd expect the RRP to be higher than $7K.
    Last edited by Xenedis; 07-02-2011 at 9:57pm.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    18 Oct 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    194
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd be astonished if it was anywhere near $7K, if they actually expected to sell any.

  12. #12
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by strictfunctor View Post
    I'd be astonished if it was anywhere near $7K, if they actually expected to sell any.
    Check out the price of the Nikkor 200-400/4 some time.

    Don't make the mistake of assuming that because a lens like this is well outside the budget of many people, that it won't sell well within its intended market segment.

    We're talking about a fairly specialised lens here.

    Having the 400mm focal length a speed faster than f/5.6 is a seriously expensive exercise.

    Currently, the only way to do that with Canon's current offerings is to buy a 300/2.8L IS and 1.4x TC, or a 400/4 DO IS, or a 400/2.8L IS, with all of those options being very expensive.

    Even the price difference between a 300/4 and 300/2.8 is staggering.
    Last edited by Xenedis; 08-02-2011 at 4:40am.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Canon long lens prices are typically 20% less than nikon

    Looks interesting design

    Maybe next out will be a canon d3 ?
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  14. #14
    Fuji Fanatic
    Join Date
    20 Mar 2008
    Location
    Glenorchy
    Posts
    4,040
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Looks very tempting - the price will be the big factor.
    Odille

    “Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky”

    My Blog | Canon 1DsMkII | 60D | Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 AF AT-X PRO | EF50mm f/1.8| Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM | Fujifilm X-T1 & X-M1 | Fujinon XC 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OIS | Fujinon XC 50-230mm F3.5-5.6 OIS | Fujinon XF 18-55mm F2.8-4R LM OIS | tripods, flashes, filters etc ||

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    113
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think that there is an important principle to note here. The TC function is part of the lens design, it is not an add on. This should mean that there is improved performance from the lens.

    I was originally going to buy a 70-200 f2.8 and a 400 f5.6 so I had everything covered. The only problem was the 400mm had no IS. Then I changed my mind and decided to get a 70-300L, and hope that they would introduce a TC for it. Now what do I buy, do I wait and see how good the 200-400 will be?

    There are times when I can hate Canon for doing things like this.

    I look forward to seeing a price.

    PS: I think this means the end of the 100-400
    Last edited by Gollum; 08-02-2011 at 7:17am.
    "We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!"

  16. #16
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    08 Feb 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It will most likely be over the 10k mark. Way too new technology and Canon will surely charge a mint!

  17. #17
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
    PS: I think this means the end of the 100-400
    Not necessarily.

    The focal range is somewhat similar, but that's where the similarities end.

    The 200-400/4 is bigger and heavier, will be far more expensive, has a constant aperture, and a faster (for 400mm) aperture of f/4.

    The 100-400 is slower, lighter, a lot smaller, far less expensive, and has a variable aperture.

    By dropping the 100-400, Canon would effectively isolate the type of customer who wants 400mm of reach at a more affordable price.

    In as much as Canon is catering for different markets by offering 70-200s with f/4 and f/2.8 (and an IS version of each), I suspect Canon will continue to serve with the 100-400 a market which cannot afford the 200-400.

  18. #18
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DNA View Post
    It will most likely be over the 10k mark. Way too new technology and Canon will surely charge a mint!
    It will be interesting to see if the new technology pushes the price up.

    Years ago, Canon invested in diffractive optics (DO) technology and released only two lenses which featured it:

    1. a 400/4 IS; and
    2. yet another slow, variable-aperture 70-300.

    Both were and are over-priced for what they are, and it seems that Canon hasn't bothered with DO since.

    I wonder how much R&D went into the in-built tele-converter...

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    113
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Xenedis

    The 100-400 is still priced around the $2,000 mark, although I understand that it’s now being discounted overseas (sourced from CR). The new 70-300L f4-5.6 is around $1,900 and is smaller (by 40mm) and lighter (by 0.2Kgs). This lens is even lighter than the 300 f4 IS prime. The 70-300 is also a much better lens in both speed and optics when compared to the 100-400. So the only reasons to pick the 100-400 are the extra 100 and TC compatibility.

    When Canon recently updated their prime lens, much to everybody’s surprise, they were all lighter (some by Kgs). I wouldn’t assume that this lens would be as heavy as many are suggesting. My guess is a certainly <3kgs

    If you think carefully about the integrated 1.4TC, you will realise the huge change this will make. A 1.4TC adds 7 lens in 3 groups, that’s a lot of extra optics. My guess would be that this functionality was added by moving lens elements. This should mean that the lens will be lighter and cheaper.

    I don’t know how much it cost Canon develop IS, but I feel it was money well spent.

    DNA

    As for the $10,000 price tag, this wound place it in the 600 IS prime market, that’s not going to happen. If I were to guess, it would be around $3,000 mark (This may be wishful thinking because the Nikon is $6,000).
    Last edited by Gollum; 08-02-2011 at 4:33pm.

  20. #20
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
    When Canon recently updated their prime lens, much to everybody’s surprise, they were all lighter (some by Kgs). I wouldn’t assume that this lens would be as heavy as many are suggesting. My guess is a certainly <2kgs
    I seriously doubt that. Consider the physics. A 400mm f/4 lens will have an objective element of 10cm in diameter. The objective element is similar in size to that of a 300/2.8. Even the new 300/2.8L IS II weighs 2.4kg, only a very marginal decrease from the 300/2.8L IS (I have that one, and know its weight well).

    Zooms tend to have more elements than primes, so that's going to add weight too. You've got a large, thick objective element, a fair amount of other glass, plus the optics of the tele-extender. Sub-2kg doesn't seem plausible to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
    If you think carefully about the integrated 1.4TC, you will realise the huge change this will make. A 1.4TC adds 7 lens in 3 groups, that’s a lot of extra optics.
    And weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
    As for the $10,000 price tag, this wound place it in the 600 IS prime market, that’s not going to happen. If I were to guess, it would be around $3,000 mark.
    That's not going to happen either. Was that '3' a typo?

    An L-series 200-400/4 is just not going to be that cheap no matter how much you wish, and it's certainly not going to be offered at an RRP lower than that of the 70-200/2.8L IS II.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •