EF 200-400mm f4L IS

[james_turner6]

<p>Two years on (<a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00YAkJ">link</a>), it now exists ... in prototype (<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon_200_400_view_review.shtml">link</a>). Looks impressive, if likely to be eye-wateringly expensive.</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>I've watched and waited. I'm thinking it is going to come out at around 14 to 16K. </p>

[ljwest]

<p>It has existed since at least the Olympics last summer. I'm most impressed by its ability to also take Canon's extenders, on top of the built-in 1.4x. Up to 1120mm, though at f/11... It'll be a fantastic pro sports lens.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>It doesn't appeal to me. For that amount of money I'd opt for a 500 or 600 f/4. Too much money for "only" 400mm.</p>

[phule]

<p>I'd never have a need to buy one, but I sure hope my local Calumet Photo puts it on their rental list when it becomes available. :)</p>

[ljwest]

<blockquote>

<p>It doesn't appeal to me. For that amount of money I'd opt for a 500 or 600 f/4. Too much money for "only" 400mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I tend to agree. I'd rather have a 500mm or 600mm at f/4... And if I need 700 or 840, it's only a 1.4xIII away....</p>

<p>I still think there will be a lot of them on the sidelines of various sporting events...</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>It's great to be able to zoom though, Larry - I've got a "poor man's 200-400mm f/4" (the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS + 1.4x and 2x TCs): with the 1.4x on I've got 168mm-420mm f/4, and I'm up and down the focal length range <em>all</em> the time, whether I'm shooting birds, motor sports, rugby, whatever.</p>

<p><em>That's</em> the 200-400mm f/4's real (if hugely expensive!) trump card over the primes.</p>

[ljwest]

<blockquote>

<p><em>That's</em> the 200-400mm f/4's real (if hugely expensive!) trump card over the primes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use a 100-400, so I'm well aware of the versatility of the zoom! I think the point Nathan and I are agreeing on is the rumored price - around $11,000 - is a bit extreme for folks who don't need that 200-400 @ f/4 performance. I photograph birds mostly, and for the same price, I'd rather have the reach of a 500 or 600. I can always carry the 100-400 for close-in subjects that present themselves...</p>

<p>I <em><strong>do</strong> </em>think, though that this is very nearly the ultimate sports photography lens (the ultimate might be an f/2.8 version!), for all the reasons you state. And maybe, the best lens for that African Safari where you can take only one big lens...</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>At 11K it would be a bargain... especially when compared to the cost of a new 300 2.8 IS II and say a 500 or 600mm. Let's face it.. these are made and will be marketed for only a subsection of pro's and a small slice of high wealth amateurs. Extrapolating current prices on the rental market for high dollar items it will rent for about 100 dollar a day.<br>

Richard</p>

[james_turner6]

<blockquote>

<p>And maybe, the best lens for that African Safari where you can take only one big lens ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh yes ...</p>

<center><img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6205/6144261799_1894a08d76_b.jpg" alt="" width="681" height="1024" /></center>

<p> </p>

<center><strong>Big Lens Inspector</strong></center>

[bobatkins]

<p>I've played with the 200-400/4L briefly, but not had the chance to actually shoot with it. It's a nice lens, heavy, but light enough to handhold and the TC switches in and out easily.</p>

<p>At $5000 it would be tempting, but I suspect the price will be closer to $15000 than $5000 and to me (and I suspect a lot of other people), it's just not worth it. Doctors, dentists and professionals might buy one, but it's not going to be a big seller.</p>

<p>If I wanted a lens of this type, I'd probably go for the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS zoom, which retails for $3000 and which I was pretty impressed with when I tested it. It's a stop faster than the Canon lens at 200mm and 300mm and the same speed at 420mm with a 1.4xTC. The one I tested was impressively sharp. The Canon may be better, but not 4x or 5x better.</p>

[geoffm]

<blockquote>

<p>Doctors, dentists and professionals might buy one...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a mental image of a dentist taking close-ups of his patients' teeth from the other side of the street!<br>

:-)</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Gee, the Nikon is only $7000 USD, the built in converter can't be worth that again, I hope.</p>

[zml]

<p><em>> but it's not going to be a big seller</em></p>

<p>Considering that a lot of black lenses you see at "events" are Nikon's 200-400 zooms, there is a considerable chance that you might be wrong. Besides, define "big seller": I use a recent 400/2.8 with a low four-digit serial #...</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>A teleconverter that drops in and out sounds useful. I wonder whether a smoothly variable teleconverter is physically possible - so you could 'zoom' between say 1.1x and 1.6x. This would be a bit like using a zoom lens where the maximum aperture darkens as the focal length increases.</p>

<p>Do the optical properties of teleconverters allow such a thing to be built? Obviously, a variable extension tube is possible, but that affects focus.</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<blockquote>

<p>And maybe, the best lens for that African Safari where you can take only one big lens...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe. But most of us would have to decide: Either go for the safari <strong>or</strong> buy the lens.</p>

[pjmeade]

I saw the lens at Focus on Imaging last year, it looked good. But I'm not sure I could justify getting one, even though it's

probably the perfect polo lens. Twice the price of the 100-400 perhaps, but not more than both of our last 2 cars.

But I may change my mind.

[JDMvW]

<p>My "cheap" version was simply to get the EF 100-400mm L lens variable aperture which works just fine for me. Bought it now for fear that rumored "replacements" would come along and raise the price.</p>

<p>Instead of getting a TC for it, I just bought a used, recent APS-C body to get the 1.6X when I needed it. Not the slightest bit of trouble with AF on that. Actually, ironically, the 50D I got wasn't so terribly more expensive than the teleconverter, now that I think on it.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Crop sensors do not increase focal length, they merely use a smaller area, thus the angle of view is narrower. OTOH, if you move from a pixel-pitch of 6 to a pixel-pitch of 4, then you've increased the pixels on the subject and you did increase "reach." Hopefully the high-ISO noise trade off will not totally negate your increased reach.</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>Doctors, dentists and professionals might buy one, but it's not going to be a big seller.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think there is this myth that rich amatuers buy this stuff. I probably make more $ than the average doctor or dentist and I won't be buying one. If you buy a toy it it a question of fun per $ and I reckon I could get a lot more fun spending $15k in another way as could most doctors and dentists who tend to be rational IMO.<br>

If you actually have that much money that you don't care about dropping $15k on a toy, you are probably more likely to have a more entertaining/less demanding hobby than photography. I see the super rich surrounded by women,yachts, and fast cars, not Canikon super teles.</p>

[james_turner6]

<blockquote>

<p>most of us would have to decide: Either go for the safari <strong>or</strong> buy the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's a middle way, surely: go for the safari and <strong>rent</strong> the lens. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think there is this myth that rich amatuers buy this stuff. ... it is a question of fun per $ ... </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite. </p>

[zml]

<p><em>> I think there is this myth that rich amatuers buy this stuff</em></p>

<p>Both rich and not-so-rich amateurs buy this stuff, it ain't no myth. If one is inclined to achieve the highest levels of "professionalizm" in specialized photography (say, birds) as a hobby, not a money-making profession, one needs specialized equipment, such as the lens we've been talking about, which tends to be very expensive. OTOH some people have (or are willing to spend) more money than sense :-)</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I've spent a lot of money on Canon super-telephoto lenses and can report that they've actually been relatively good investments. My 500/f4 is worth what I paid for it three-years ago. In general, people are able to buy these, use them for a while and sell them for 80% to 90% of what they paid new. People that buy used lenses tend to have even better investment recovery experience.</p>

<p>Many people have boats, sports cars, vacation homes, etc. that can be far poorer investments.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>Re: amatuers and gear like this... it's a question of priorities. I'm not rich; certainly not in the 1%, though I could afford a nice car. But I'd rather drive a used Civic and own good camera gear.</p>

<p>This lens, while intriguing, will probably not be one I'll own. I shoot a lot of theater, and f/4 is a little slow. But I think wildlife and outdoor sports people are going to love this thing.</p>

[vivid_earth_photographics]

<p>I think the speculated price point is interesting. The Nikon 200-400 f/4 which is one of their gold-standard lenses used by tons of professionals sells for about $6700. Add the $500 1.4x TC and you have a $7200 combo. Add another $350 if you like for the absurdly priced drop in polarizer for this lens are you are still at "only" $7700. I'm curious to see what makes the Canon worth twice as much if that is where it comes in. For the pros who need the flexibility of the zoom in this range, I suppose it doesn't much matter what the price is, though.</p>