Any 200-400 f/4 IS II predictions?

Wouldn't mind having a 200-400 f/4 in my bag (or more likely in the trunk of the car) but even the used ones are pricey. Of course if a 200-400 f/4 IS II were to be released the first versions should come down in price. Any predictions?

StanNJ1 wrote in post #18315264
Any 200-400 f/4 IS II predictions?
Wouldn't mind having a 200-400 f/4 in my bag (or more likely in the trunk of the car) but even the used ones are pricey. Of course if a 200-400 f/4 IS II were to be released the first versions should come down in price. Any predictions?

My prediction is that a Canon 200-400 version 2 will not be released for at least 12 years. It is among the least likely lenses to be replaced, of all the Canon lenses. Thinking about a version two makes no sense whatsoever at this point.

What is it about the version one that you think so desperately needs improving?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18315441
My prediction is that a Canon 200-400 version 2 will not be released for at least 12 years. It is among the least likely lenses to be replaced, of all the Canon lenses. Thinking about a version two makes no sense whatsoever at this point.

What is it about the version one that you think so desperately needs improving?

Sounds like price

It's an $11,000 lens released 4 years ago. There's no way it's getting replaced before 2020, if it does at all. The first big white lens to be replaced will be one of the oldest two(both from '08 I think), the 200f2IS. Maybe, maybe the 800f5.6. 300,400,500,600, and the 200-400 are all pups.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18315441
What is it about the version one that you think so desperately needs improving?

Not sure what thread you are reading

.

StanNJ1 wrote in post #18316302
Not sure what thread you are reading

I am reading this thread that you created about a replacement for the Canon 200-400mm f4 zoom lens. It should have been obvious that I was reading this very thread, as I quoted not only your original post, but also your thread title.

A lens is replaced with a new version when they come up with something that addresses inherent weaknesses in the existing version. They don't invest hundreds of millions of dollars to create an updated lens for no actual reason.

Therefore, if you think that a replacement may be on the near horizon, logic would assume that you feel that there is some inherent weakness in the existing 200-400mm. So I am asking you what it is about the existing 200-400mm that you think necessitates a replacement?

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18316386
.

Therefore, if you think that a replacement may be on the near horizon, logic would assume that you feel that there is some inherent weakness in the existing 200-400mm. So I am asking you what it is about the existing 200-400mm that you think necessitates a replacement?

.

Please read my original post again and tell me where I say anything close to what you are assuming.

StanNJ1 wrote in post #18315264
Wouldn't mind having a 200-400 f/4 in my bag (or more likely in the trunk of the car) but even the used ones are pricey. Of course if a 200-400 f/4 IS II were to be released the first versions should come down in price. Any predictions?

When the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII came out the original versions of that lens ROSE in secondhand price. When a new top end lens hits the market its original version can climb in secondhand price because they instantly become of limited quantity; still have top rate optics and the newer versions are often priced MUCH higher.

I sold my 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MI for about the same price I bought it for new when upgraded to the MKII

StanNJ1 wrote in post #18316508
Please read my original post again and tell me where I say anything close to what you are assuming.

I've read the thread and I thought Tom's response was on point and probably what most people were thinking.

I'll have what the two of you are drinking. Must be a wild trip

I'm thinking Tom was spot on. Isn't the question you posed, "Any predictions when a replacement for the 200-400 coming?" or am I seriously misreading the title and OP. If so, I think Tom was pretty spot on. The 200-400 is a very new and very expensive lens. A replacement is probably a decade away. It's one of Canon's best right now and there are many other lenses that need a refresh before getting to the 200-400.

Boy this thread is a load of fun. So let's recap for those playing at home.

Me: I would like to add this lens to my bag. Any predictions for a new version? ( was asking those wiser than me if they had any predictions which may have caused me to hold off looking for a used one)

Tom: What is it about version one that you so desperately think needs improving?

Huh??? When did I say that? I don't know the first thing about this lens other than what I read about its features. So not only did I not understand where he was coming from but I didn't appreciate the snarkiness that he apparently intended So I responded in like.

Tom: If you think that a replacement may be on the near horizon, logic would assume that you feel that there is some inherent weakness in the existing 200-400mm. So I am asking you what it is about the existing 200-400mm that you think necessitates a replacement?

Again....huh?

Others: Yeah what Tom said

Me: Internetting can sure be fun.

I think Tom was basically saying that the lens is so good now, why are they going to do a re-spin and was asking what you perceive needs to be fixed. I mean heck, if you look at the MTF50 results the 200-400 does as good as the 400 f/2.8 prime when at f/4. That's just crazy sharp. I'd love to see the price drop in half, then in half again, but I'm just not seeing Canon messing with this one for quite some time.