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

[Xenedis]

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.

[Art Vandelay]

That sounds like a good proposition. interesting with a built in 1.4 converter. Look forward to seeing it in action.

[Xenedis]

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.

[wolffman]

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.

[fabian628]

very interesting lens indeed!
Once again canon surprises us

[mrDooba]

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?

[etherial]

I'm looking forward to this one, might be just what I'm after.

[carrg1954]

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.

[conscuba]

$6999.99 . my guess

[Xenedis]

$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.

[strictfunctor]

I'd be astonished if it was anywhere near $7K, if they actually expected to sell any.

[Xenedis]

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.

[Roosta]

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.

With you on pricing, except, the price of the 300mm F4 is rapidily dropping, given the F2.8 is, as you mentioned not cheap, the F4 is around $1600, check out Quality Camera Sales.

The 200-400 is mouth watering, but I feel it is going to be in the as you say Xenedes speciality market price range, they'll shell shed loads of em, me thinks.

[kiwi]

Canon long lens prices are typically 20% less than nikon

Looks interesting design

Maybe next out will be a canon d3 ?

[Analog6]

Looks very tempting - the price will be the big factor.

[Gollum]

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

[DNA]

It will most likely be over the 10k mark. Way too new technology and Canon will surely charge a mint!

[Xenedis]

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...

[Xenedis]

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.

[Gollum]

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).