canon 200-400

<p>interesting link:</p>

<p>http://vimeo.com/58774795</p>

<p>Yes indeed. I'm surprised at how compact that it looks compared to a 500mm/f4.</p>

<p>Interesting that he mentions a selling price of $11,000 to $13,000. I'll be surprised if it's that high, for a couple reasons.</p>

<p>First, it's in direct competition with the Nikon 200-400mm f/4, which is about $6,500.</p>

<p>Second, it has a 100mm inlet aperture, basically the same as the 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8 II, and 400 f/4 DO lenses, which are priced at $6,000, $6,800, and $6,000.</p>

<p>I can't see them pricing it at twice the price of more or less equivalent lenses. The switch-in 1.4x converter is cool, but it's not $6,000 worth of cool.</p>

<p>I've seen the 200-400 at Focus on Imaging and although it should be ideal for the kind of equestrian sport I photograph, being that bit more chunky than the 100-400 and that bit more expensive too, I'm not going to be changing lenses.<br>

It may be one stop faster than the 100-400, but the chances are that camera body technology will soon mean it's going to be less expensive to upgrade the body and rely on better noise reduction, than to buy the 200-400.<br>

I'm sure lots of people will buy one, but not me in the near future.<br>

My 2p</p>

<p>Nikon's 200-400mm is a generation or two old and both marques have substantially increased their prices for the latestest generation. With the Series II Canon 500mm and 600mm primes with street prices of $10,500 and $13,000, a zoom with allegedly competitive MTF and speed is not going to sell for less. That's simply a dream.</p>

<p>I suspect that the MTF performance of the new 200-400mm is going to blow away the two generations old 100-400mm. Most of us are not going to consider them competitors with each other.</p>

<p>I can easily see a price over $10,000. The objective size is only a rough indicator of price. If they ever actually get around to selling them of course. They've been around for a couple of years now in the hands of "testers".</p>

<p>It's not in direct competition with the Nikon lens for anyone with a bag full or Canon gear!</p>

<p>I'l probably wait for the MkII version...if I live that long...</p>

<p>Depends what you call "a generation or two old", the current Nikon 200-400 VR II was announced May 2010, and started shipping that year.</p>

<p>For comparison, the Canon 200-400mm was announced Feb 2011 - less than a year later than the Nikon. Though I'll concede it still isn't shipping.</p>

<p>I have foreseen this. That is why I only recently bought my copy of the old 100-400mm.<br>

It was a great deal less than $10,000 and it really does have nice IQ, I think. I have no idea if it will continue in the lineup for long, it is a pretty old design, after all. There is often a great deal of comfort, practically and financially, in being on the "trailing edge" rather than the bleeding edge.</p>

<p><em>> but the chances are that camera body technology will soon mean it's going to be less expensive to upgrade the body and rely on better noise reduction, than to buy the 200-400</em></p>

<p>When you move to a higher ISO you are losing dynamic range, a lot of dynamic range. So, regardless of the advances in NR, I'd rather shoot with a faster lens and lower ISO than jack up the ISO setting. Say, 1Dx nears 12 stops of DR at ISO 100-200, almost 11 stops at ISO 1000 and just 9 stops at ISO 10000. (DxO data.) <br>

Hopefully future sensors will change that but I'm not holding my breath.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Depends what you call "a generation or two old", the current Nikon 200-400 VR II was announced May 2010, and started shipping that year.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We wrote a preview when Nikon announced that 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR in April, 2010: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/200-400-vr2/preview/<br>

There are actually only minor differences from version 1, namely:</p>

<ul>

<li>A newer version of Nikon vibration reduction, VR II</li>

<li>Nano crystal coating</li>

<li>An A/M AF mode</li>

</ul>

<p>Otherwise, version 2 is perhaps 95% the same as version 1, introduced back in July, 2003. In particular, the optical formula has not changed. In other words, for all practical purposes, Nikon's 200-400mm/f4 AF-S is a 10-year-old design. It is still an excellent lens today, though. I have version 1 and am using it with the latest 24MP Nikon D7100 on a daily basis in the last week or two. I am also glad that I "only" paid $5100 for it back in 2006.</p>

<p>I'll admit to never having quite "got" the 200-400/4 lenses.</p>

<p>200/4 is pretty boring, 300/4 is OK, but small and cheap in a prime lens version, 400/4 is OK but not really long enough for a lot of wildlife work and only a stop faster than a smaller, cheaper 400/5.6 (or 100-400/5.6L IS).</p>

<p>Yes, it's a zoom, but usually when I'm using a telephoto zoom I'm zoomed out all the way. It's rare that when I'm shooting with a 500mm lens I'm rummaging about in my bag for something shorter too.</p>

<p>I guess I can see such a lens being useful for sports, where action can take place at various distances and distances can quickly change. But I don't shoot sports.</p>

<p>Actually, to me something like the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS for $2800 makes more sense. I tested one for photo.net last year and I was pretty impressed with it (and the price).</p>

<p>The built in extender in the 200-400/4L IS USM Extender should do more than just speed up the addition of a 1.4x. I presume it's an integral part of the lens design rather than the "one size fits all" add-on that most TCs are. In that case it should be possible to make the lens with extender into a 280-560/5.6 which can rival a 560 prime in terms of sharpness. Now that would be very interesting. If the lens at 560/5.6 was close in sharpness to the 500/4 you'd really have something that's unique and might be worth a hefty price permium,</p>

<p>The delay on releasing the Canon 200-400 is baffling. How can a lens be around for two years, get tested by reviewers, show up in the flesh (multiple copies) at numerous trade shows and still not be available for purchase (by those with deep pockets). I wonder if Canon are too embarrassed by the price to tell anyone...let's hope not.</p>

<p><em>200/4 is pretty boring, 300/4 is OK, but small and cheap in a prime lens version, 400/4 is OK but not really long enough for a lot of wildlife work and only a stop faster than a smaller, cheaper 400/5.6 (or 100-400/5.6L IS).</em></p>

<p>A similar argument can be made against just about any zoom, including the 70-200/2.8. At 70mm I'd like to be at f/1.4 or at least f/1.8; at 135mm the 70-200 is a ho-hum f/2.8 and ridiculously large compared to a 135/2.8 prime, and it's still very big and heavy for a 200/2.8 which is just okay for maximum aperture at 200mm. The 70-200/2.8 is however, one of the most popular lenses at least in the Nikon world, and not just among professional lenses, so people mostly ignore the arguments against and welcome the flexibility. Personally I would like to see more focus on the intermediate aperture primes for their portability and small size, but most people choose the zooms (and I too use the 70-200/2.8 a lot).</p>

<p><em>Yes, it's a zoom, but usually when I'm using a telephoto zoom I'm zoomed out all the way. It's rare that when I'm shooting with a 500mm lens I'm rummaging about in my bag for something shorter too.</em></p>

<p>I guess that's just a matter of subject matter. I photograph concerts quite often and for outdoor use just about everything from 70mm to 400mm can be required to shoot the stage (overall view at 70mm, tight close-up at 400mm). There is often no or very restricted possibilities of changing vantage point at larger arenas, and so a zoom is helpful if a variety of shots are required within the allowed 2-3 songs. A slow zoom such as 100-400/80-400 does not give the same ability to blur distractions such as microphones, amplifiers, stands etc. especially if it has to be stopped down to f/8. A 200-400/4 is not uncommon at these events, though 70-200's with TCs are the most popular among media photographers. I shoot 200/2 + TCs but would like to avoid using TCs alltogether.</p>

<p><em>Actually, to me something like the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS for $2800 makes more sense.</em></p>

<p>To me that lens is not attractive, as it does not appear to be sharp at f/2.8, yet it is just as heavy as a Nikon 300/2.8 (and much heavier than the Canon 300/2.8 IS II). The Nikon 200-400/4 give close to its best sharpness at f/4, so there is no excess baggage.</p>

<p><em>In that case it should be possible to make the lens with extender into a 280-560/5.6 which can rival a 560 prime in terms of sharpness.</em></p>

<p>I think that's unlikely. A custom TC designed for a long zoom is likely to be better than using a generic TC on the same lens, but not in the same class as a top quality prime lens.</p>

<p><em>The delay on releasing the Canon 200-400 is baffling.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

A lot of infrastructure was destroyed in the earthquake in 2011. The new generation supertele primes are attractive due to their elevated MTF and reduced weight, so demand must be high. I think it's plausible that Canon is delaying the production of the 200-400 because their capacity to make large lenses is already being used 100%, and they use this time to make refinements to the 200-400's design, while demand for the primes gradually settles down. It has also been suggested that the extender blocks easy access to the switch panel and Canon are working on solving the problem.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>To me that lens is not attractive, as it does not appear to be sharp at f/2.8</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I own it - it most assuredly <em>is</em> sharp at f/2.8.</p>

<p>Never read a review where the Sigma 120-300mm is not considered sharp at f2.8. Some grumbling about QC issues from LensRentals, but all the reviews I have read praise it highly.</p>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=23754">Robin Smith</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Never read a review where the Sigma 120-300mm is not considered sharp at f2.8. Some grumbling about QC issues from LensRentals, but all the reviews I have read praise it highly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Comparing images on The-digital-picture.com at f/8 and 300mm, the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM is considerably sharper than the Sigma 120-300mm.</p>

 

<p><em>I own it - it most assuredly is sharp at f/2.8.</em><br /> <br /> Well, if you call it sharp (at f/2.8, 300mm), then what do you call Canon's offering?</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=803&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</p>

<p>I wish not to suffer a weight penalty if I'm not getting top performance at f/2.8 (defined by one of the better 300mm lenses, which in this case is considerably lighter).</p>

<p>Ilkka. Well go ahead but you will be $3000 worse off. I would hope for that extra cash and a single focal length that it would have some advantage over Sigma!</p>

<p>David. I wouldn't say that the 70-300L has significantly better performance than the 120-300. The 70-300L has greater contrast at the edges, but the densities of the images are different, maybe due to vignetting from the 70-300. The images would need to be of equal density to tell better. In terms of what is actually resolved they are pretty well the same. Did you read what actually said about the lens?</p>

<p>Robin said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>David. I wouldn't say that the 70-300L has significantly better performance than the 120-300. The 70-300L has greater contrast at the edges, but the densities of the images are different, maybe due to vignetting from the 70-300. The images would need to be of equal density to tell better. In terms of what is actually resolved they are pretty well the same. Did you read what actually said about the lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I read the review. Did you look at the test images? By definition, the test images had the same "density". The Sigma wasn't close in performance at the same aperture and focal lengths.</p>

<p>If you need f/2.8, then the Sigma is a great value, but I'd rather have the Canon's s IQ. IQ costs money, there seems to be no way around it. Two of my friends used Sigma and bemoaned the fact that they couldn't match my EF 500/f4's IQ. One just bought the Nikon 300/f2.8 and the other is seriously considering Canon's 300/f2.8. The Nikon guy's IQ move forward dramatically.</p>

 

<p>Yes. That is still my analysis. Not sure why the comparison between a f2.8 at 300mm zoom and a f5.6 at 300mm zoom. They seem different beasts to me. Of course, the Canon 300 f2.8 is better: it should be, but it's not a zoom costing about half as much. A lot will depend on whether you need top performance at 300mm or you want good overall performance over the zoom range</p>