Canon 200-400 F4 1.4x extender anounced!

muusers wrote in post #11793629
I dont understand why the 1.4x has to be build in... The quality of the third mark 1.4 should be at least acceptable. This is like forcing people to buy an extender they cant use with another lens. And due to this, the lens must be enormous. So you're hauling around an extender even if you're not using it.

I cant think of any advatages of this. Other than sheer moneymaking on canons side.

It probably uses the same or similar optics to the Mk III teleconverter (which I would guess could also be used with this lens, at least on a 1-series, in effect "stacking" two 1.4X telecons for nearly 800 mm at f/8).

Personally, and this is just me, I would find the built in 1.4X VERY useful. This should be a great walkabout birding/nature lens. Yes, for long sessions, you'd want to carry a tripod as well but I think that one could hike this lens into the woods and use it for nature-type shots with the flexibility of a zoom.

Guys in the market for this lens, really do not worry to much about the price. It is a impress spec lens.

How does the built in extender work without degrading the quality of the lense during normal use?

Wow, I want

themadman wrote in post #11792201
High school sports, lol

Yeah, that's where the big money is.....

I could totally justify it from a usage standpoint but it would make my 500mm f/4 somewhat redundant.

I guess this 200-400 could be considered an aviation shooters "walking around lens"

dolina wrote in post #11794313
For the new technologies in the 200-400mm IS refer to http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ArticleAct&arti​cleID=3508

Excellent article.

After seeing the picture I am sad...that don't look like a sub $2k lens..

This is a perfect photojournalist lens cause journalists love them fast zooms. It's f/4 but it's faster than a 100-400mm IS! It's a 1 size fits all wildlife lens.

TooManyShots wrote in post #11794442
True, it is not a replacement for the 100-400L. It is a completely new lens that will replace 100-400L. If you have this lens, why would you need the 100-400L other than the 100-400L would be a lot cheaper and lighter.

FTFY

I do agree that these lenses would be somewhat redundant, but I would bet that the 100-400 is going to weigh < 1/2 of what this new lens will. Could be a consideration if you're going to be doing a lot of walking around.

TijmenDal wrote in post #11792754
My first thought was WOW! Incredible, but when everyone more or less agreed on the fact it will cost 7k+ I'm sort of thinking: really? Does it really need to be that expensive?

The 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 (both with IS) have about a 1500$ (or something like that) price difference. One full stop is the difference.
Now, the difference between the 100-400 and 200-400, it's also a full stop difference, and at lower ranges even less. Of course it's a different thing because of the higher focal lengths, but still. Reaching out for your 2x TC isn't too much work right?

I'm NOT stating anything because I'm probably overlooking a lot of things and I don't know a hefty lot about photography (as you can tell by my sig), but I'm just really curious. Would it be worth paying the 5000$ difference between a 100-400+2x TC and this beauty. Don't get me wrong, I think it's an amazingly cool lens!

It will cost that much because if you study the lens layout, you will realize that it has all the features similar to all the super white lenses. Drop in filter. Big tripod foot. AF stop buttons near the front element. One thing is missing the hood, bet it is long and big and made with carbon fiber and costing $500 to replace. This isn't your typical 70-200 or 100-400 lenses. It belongs to the super white lenses.

camera dude wrote in post #11794457
How does the built in extender work without degrading the quality of the lense during normal use?

If you look at the picture posted earlier, you can just about see how the 1.4X teleconverter can be "switched" into and out of the light path, much like an optometrist would switch lenses into and out of the path when checking your vision for glasses. When you're not using it, it is stowed out of the way in that lump on the side of the lens barrel. Flip it into service and it is locked into the light path. Simple and clever.

Mk1Racer wrote in post #11794510
FTFY

I do agree that these lenses would be somewhat redundant, but I would bet that the 100-400 is going to weigh < 1/2 of what this new lens will. Could be a consideration if you're going to be doing a lot of walking around.

In terms of weight, I will put the 200-400 near the 500L and 300L category. Whoever is buying this lens they aren't too concern with weight. They know what they are getting. Believe me, you won't forgo this lens for a 100-400L if you know the image quality it can produce is probably similar or better than the 500L or 300L.

If this lens was offered back in 2007 I would probably get it but now... it ranks with the 50mm f/1.2L. But I bet a lot of photojournalists are creaming in their pants for this fast super tele zoom.

Oh bugger.

If i mention this to the missus im gonna be sleeping on the couch for a month.


*Grabs pillow and blanket*