Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 19 Aug 2012 (Sunday) 01:31
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

200-400 with x1.4 - why the crazy price?

 
light_pilgrim
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
light_pilgrim's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
Aug 20, 2012 05:06 |  #31

1Tanker wrote in post #14881116external link
Well, many people have voiced their arguments for it's pricing. You aren't changing your mind. That IS your prerogative, but it does sound like you're just sore, that you can't get one. This is a Koennigseg/Veyron of the lens world.. or a Zonda/Aventador/ Maclaren SLR, whatever. Yes, you can go buy a Vette or Viper, and get 3/4+ the performance of the machines, for under a 10th the price.. but, that extra 25% does make a difference.

**** Since you seem to want to make this about cars, i had to use your analogies, in order for you to have a glimpse of hope, of understanding.****

I perfectly understand with and without cars. No, I am not getting this lens and I was not even thinking about it. I was browsing for something else, saw the rumor, saw the price and was simply surprised what makes this lens so expensive.

For this lens to be Zonda, it has to be at least F/2.8.....at F/4 it is still an Audi A8 at best.


www.lightpilgrim.comexternal link ||1x.comexternal link ||500px.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
lancebroad
Senior Member
lancebroad's Avatar
396 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Brisbane, AU
Aug 20, 2012 05:49 |  #32

I think your missing the fact you can replace about 15K+ worth of lenses into one.

This lens to me is worth EVERY penny canon are charging for it.


Canon 6D | Canon 7D | Canon 5D mkII | 14L MK II | 24-70L | 70-200 f/2.8L | 100-400L | 400L f/2.8 | Zenitor 15mm | 580EX II |
http://facebook.com/la​nceb.avgeekexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
light_pilgrim
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
light_pilgrim's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
Aug 20, 2012 06:01 |  #33

lancebroad wrote in post #14881187external link
I think your missing the fact you can replace about 15K+ worth of lenses into one.

This lens to me is worth EVERY penny canon are charging for it.

Which lenses is this zoom replacing? You are not talking F/2.8 Teles, right?


www.lightpilgrim.comexternal link ||1x.comexternal link ||500px.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
lancebroad
Senior Member
lancebroad's Avatar
396 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Brisbane, AU
Aug 20, 2012 06:13 |  #34

100-400, 300 f2.8, 500 f/4.

Only one is f2.8. If you want to throw in the 400 f/2.8, go ahead, but round up the dollars from 15k to 22-25k. Go ask how many pros will shoot at f/2.8, rather than bump their ISO up? With the ISO developments these days really, who needs f/2.8?


Canon 6D | Canon 7D | Canon 5D mkII | 14L MK II | 24-70L | 70-200 f/2.8L | 100-400L | 400L f/2.8 | Zenitor 15mm | 580EX II |
http://facebook.com/la​nceb.avgeekexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
lancebroad
Senior Member
lancebroad's Avatar
396 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Brisbane, AU
Aug 20, 2012 06:16 |  #35

I dont even use my 400 f2.8 at max aperture.


Canon 6D | Canon 7D | Canon 5D mkII | 14L MK II | 24-70L | 70-200 f/2.8L | 100-400L | 400L f/2.8 | Zenitor 15mm | 580EX II |
http://facebook.com/la​nceb.avgeekexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
light_pilgrim
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
light_pilgrim's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
Aug 20, 2012 06:18 |  #36

lancebroad wrote in post #14881234external link
100-400, 300 f2.8, 500 f/4.

Only one is f2.8. If you want to throw in the 400 f/2.8, go ahead, but round up the dollars from 15k to 22-25k. Go ask how many pros will shoot at f/2.8, rather than bump their ISO up? With the ISO developments these days really, who needs f/2.8?

I use f/2.8 and also f/1.4 or F/1.2 for very-very different reasons. ISO has nothing to do with this.


www.lightpilgrim.comexternal link ||1x.comexternal link ||500px.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
lancebroad
Senior Member
lancebroad's Avatar
396 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Brisbane, AU
Aug 20, 2012 06:24 |  #37

Using f/1.2 for creative reasons at 50mm is completely different to a sports reporter for example, shooting a game of footy. They are not the something. Try shooting a moving sport at f/2.8 and posts some shots up.

I am not saying that max apertures are redundant. I am saying with a lens like this its of little relevance when you can bump your ISO. Try shooting AFL at night here in Australia... You need the ISo to get some shutter speed.


Canon 6D | Canon 7D | Canon 5D mkII | 14L MK II | 24-70L | 70-200 f/2.8L | 100-400L | 400L f/2.8 | Zenitor 15mm | 580EX II |
http://facebook.com/la​nceb.avgeekexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
light_pilgrim
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
light_pilgrim's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
Aug 20, 2012 06:30 |  #38

lancebroad wrote in post #14881251external link
Using f/1.2 for creative reasons at 50mm is completely different to a sports reporter for example, shooting a game of footy. They are not the something. Try shooting a moving sport at f/2.8 and posts some shots up.

I am not saying that max apertures are redundant. I am saying with a lens like this its of little relevance when you can bump your ISO. Try shooting AFL at night here in Australia... You need the ISo to get some shutter speed.

Who knows, I am not an expert...I was just assuming that Wild life photographers appreciate F/2.8


www.lightpilgrim.comexternal link ||1x.comexternal link ||500px.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
lancebroad
Senior Member
lancebroad's Avatar
396 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Brisbane, AU
Aug 20, 2012 06:38 |  #39

Well, if they dont like the option of the 200-400 then they can feel free to buy a 300/400 f2.8 500 f4 600 f4.


Canon 6D | Canon 7D | Canon 5D mkII | 14L MK II | 24-70L | 70-200 f/2.8L | 100-400L | 400L f/2.8 | Zenitor 15mm | 580EX II |
http://facebook.com/la​nceb.avgeekexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Neilyb
Cream of the Crop
Neilyb's Avatar
Joined Sep 2005
Munich
Aug 20, 2012 06:41 |  #40

All I am saying is this. Canon teles are now top of their game, they are sharper, lighter and last longer than Nikon equivs (go on a nature forum anywhere and find out how often the VR breaks or the apperture blades stick). So Canon rightly or wrongly charge for their new super cars. Then along comes a super car that can do all that and can get longer and shorter, plus it can get even longer at the flick of a switch. This super car might well mean alot of other super cars will not get sold, so they price it accordingly. No it is not f2.8, but then Sigma tried the f2.8 tele zoom option and came up with a tank, not a Ferrari. F4 is the perfect mix of fast and not too heavy, good enough for OOF backgrounds. My only beef is the fact that the built in TC would be way more useful on a prime tele, cos a zoom can ...er...zoom.


http://natureimmortal.​blogspot.comexternal link

http://www.natureimmor​tal.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
andrikos
Goldmember
andrikos's Avatar
1,905 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Stuttgart, Germany
Aug 20, 2012 06:58 |  #41

this thread = grapes with a certain lack of ripeness.

It's an $11k lens and I'm pretty sure they'll sell every one they make. And the people who'll buy them and use them will probably moist their pants in excitement and happiness.

Yeah man, it's way too expensive for 99% of us.
Guess what, we are NOT the intended market, what's so hard to understand?


Think new Canon lenses are overpriced? Lots (and lots) of data will set you free!

LOG IN TO REPLY
mtimber
Cream of the Crop
mtimber's Avatar
5,011 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Cambs, UK
Aug 20, 2012 07:08 |  #42

This is where companies like Sigma can step in.

Canon do often take a very liberal approach to their pricing in my view...

Just purchased a Canon xf100.

Price for spare Canon batteries?

£220.00.

Price for third party batteries?

£25.00.

With that in mind, I find it hard to justify Canons pricing strategy as little more than gouging at times...

And for all we know, this lens could have a production cost of £2000.00...

But either way, in this arena it is the third party lens suppliers that are many of our potential saviours.

This sounds like a lovely lens, but at that price, I would rather buy the siggy 120-300 OS and a couple of decent converters, whose real value begins to shine when you compare it to the pricing of this lens.

But then again, I do not have a specific need for this lens. :-)


"I have applied for jobs at National Geographic, Sports Illustrated and Playboy. The phone should start ringing any minute now" (Curtis N)

LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,566 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Utah, USA
Aug 20, 2012 17:00 |  #43

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14881212external link
Which lenses is this zoom replacing? You are not talking F/2.8 Teles, right?

Canon 400mm f4 = $6000 (The 200-400 is probably sharper)
Canon 300mm f4 IS = $1400
Canon 70-200mm F4 IS (for the 200mm f4) = $1200
1.4x III = $450
Ability to use all these in one lens = $2000


Taylor
Galleries: Flickrexternal link
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,566 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Utah, USA
Aug 20, 2012 17:04 |  #44

mtimber wrote in post #14881344external link
This is where companies like Sigma can step in.

Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS with a 1.4x and a 2x TC can essentially be considered a cheap replacement for the 200-400.

You'd get 120-300 f2.8, 170-420 f4 with the 1.4x, and 240-600mm f5.6 with the 2x. For about $3700 total.

Canon's gotta be sharper, though, since Canon's built in TC is perfectly matched for virtually no loss in IQ.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickrexternal link
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

LOG IN TO REPLY
MT ­ Stringer
Goldmember
MT Stringer's Avatar
4,650 posts
Joined May 2006
Channelview, Tx
Aug 20, 2012 17:16 |  #45

It is pretty easy to see that lens would take the place of several other lenses such as the 70-200, 300 f/2.8 and the 400. For a sports photographer, it would definitely be a break for their poor aching back. :-)

I met a photog that has been using his Nikon 200-400 for the past couple of years shooting high school LAX and he loves it. I can see why. Shoot em up close are out in the field. Makes it hard for me to get some of those shots when I was shooting with the 300.

I think you would definitely have to have a specific need...or more money than good sense! :-)


MaxPreps Profileexternal link

My Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

13,338 views & 0 likes for this thread
200-400 with x1.4 - why the crazy price?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.0022 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.06s
Latest registered member is cjp1997
896 guests, 477 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017