New 200-400L - Canon 100-400 replacement?

[bob_king2]

<p>Canon has just announced a new 100-400 L zoom with a built-in 1.4 extender. Could this be the replacement for the 100-400 L zoom, considering Canon has recently released the 70-300L? And what cost - certainly more than the current 100-400 price. And yes, its a constant f/4 - it would have to be consideing the use of an extender.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Haha, oops, I just posted the same thing 2 minutes too late. Moderators, perhaps delete my thread...?</p>

<p>Interesting idea about replacing the 100-400 zoom. This 200-400 *looks* (any specs up yet?) significantly larger than the 100-400 (due to the constant f/4 and the built-in 1.4X extender, no doubt); I don’t really think it is intended as a true “replacement.” Then again, I’d rather own it than the 100-400, so you may be on to something.</p>

[michaelrussell]

<p>I too would rather own this than the 100-400 (as I already own a 70-200)... but I wonder about having the TC permanently attached. Yes, you can switch it off but having it attached means you will always have that weight as well.</p>

[fridrik_skulason]

<p>What I don't quite get: Why not just call it a 280-560 lens, as that is what you get? There is no option to remove the extender, so why should people care that internally it is built like a lens with a (standard) extender.</p>

<p> </p>

[jim_j2]

<p>I see that with the Extender engaged, it becomes an f/5.6 280-560mm.<br>

I dunno, . . . I guess marketing for the masses.</p>

[fridrik_skulason]

<p>Ah...is it possible to enable/disable the extender? In that case this makes sense. OK, ignore my earlier comment.</p>

[bob_king2]

<p>Sorry, the link is here</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11020708canon200400mm.asp</p>

<p>cheers, Bob</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>so will the extender have an effect on IQ? What about when it's not engaged?</p>

[antonio_carvalho2]

<p>It is possible to engage/disengage the extender. There is a bump on the lens barrel and a switch (it looks like a mechanical switch) between the IS switches and the autofocus switch. </p>

<p>Look at the enlarged image:</p>

<p><a href="http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/1102/canon/lenses/EF-200-400mm-f4L-IS-USM-EXTENDER-1.4.jpg">http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/1102/canon/lenses/EF-200-400mm-f4L-IS-USM-EXTENDER-1.4.jpg</a></p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>There's no way this lens will be anywhere near the price of the 100-400: it's a full stop faster, has a built-in switchable 1.4x, and is new and shiny, all of which cost more than the 100-400. Even once the new-and-shiny premium wears off, it can't help but remain substantially more expensive than the 100-400. So the only way it will replace the 100-400 is if people stop buying the 100-400 despite what will surely be a large price difference (and, in that case, the 70-300L is likely to be part of the reason as well, each of the two lenses siphoning off different bits of the 100-400's market).</p>

 

<cite>so will the extender have an effect on IQ? What about when it's not engaged?</cite>

 

<p>All extenders/teleconverters have an effect on IQ, and this will be no different. Presumably, Canon will have put a high-quality 1.4x in this thing, so it should still offer the sort of IQ you'd expect from a pro lens with a pro TC; it just won't be quite as good with the TC as it is without it. As for when it's not engaged, my guess is that since the switch to engage it looks like a substantial lever, and the bump on the side of the barrel is right near it, the extender probably physically swings out of the image path, and therefore will have no effect on IQ when disengaged. But that's just a guess.</p>

[massimo_foti]

<blockquote>

<p>There's no way this lens will be anywhere near the price of the 100-400: it's<br />a full stop faster, has a built-in switchable 1.4x, and is new and shiny, all<br />of which cost more than the 100-400. Even once the new-and-shiny premium wears<br />off, it can't help but remain substantially more expensive than the 100-400</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said. I would add that checking Nikon's 200-400 price could give us an additional hint</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>This lens is not a replacement for the venerable 100-400 (which is surely due for a MkII version). It will probably cost somewhere between 4 to 5 times as much and has to be quite a bit larger. If it performs well (the main criteria), I will most likely purchase this lens as it hits a lot of marks for me (it adds a huge amount of much needed redundancy to my current lenses and offers a wide range of focal lengths, all at wide apertures, with IS in one lens).</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>Looking at the price of Nikon's 200-400 f/4, this is going to be a $6500 lens...definitely not a replacement for the 100-400, for which a Mk II at double the $1250 Mk I price tag would seem logical.</p>

<p>Too bad, I was pretty excited until I checked the Nikon price. This will never make it into my price range, alas.</p>

[geoffm]

<blockquote>

<p>This will never make it into my price range, alas.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Me, too. I'm not even sure I'd upgrade to a 100-400 Mk II, but that would depend on how much better it was (and if they ever build one!)</p>

[avijitsett]

<p>This would surely beyond the reach of mere mortals :-(</p>

[photographicsafaris]

<p>The Nikon 200-400 was a big draw card for me to switch back to Nikon from Canon, however now Canon have the the equivalent, its only the 1.7 extender that separates these two brands, and that's not worth switching for<br>

However given the likely cost, a 300 f2.8L with my 1.4x and a 2x extender would be a higher quality less versatile (probably cheeper) solution, also keeping my 100-400. But the 200-400 is a better safari lens.</p>

<p>Hats off to Canon for making this much needed lens - and the internal extender is a fantastic idea, particularly considering the lens is weather resistant and you can add an extender without exposing the sensor to dust - awesome versatility for practical use in the field <br>

As anyone who uses an extender will tell you, this integration is a brilliant (though expensive) idea</p>