Canon 200-400 F4 1.4x extender anounced!

Mk1Racer wrote in post #11800226
Interesting theory Ken. But isn't mounting a TC on the back the same thing as "adding a group or groups that are swapped in and out to change the final focal length"? It's just that one is done externally and one is done internally. I do agree that since it's an integral TC, the optics can be tweaked for what they're mated to, so you should see less IQ degradation than you would if you swapped in a generic TC. And to an earlier comment in this thread, I'm sure that will be a test that we will see shortly after this lens is released. Shots w/ the integral TC "in place", vs. those same shots w/ a 1.4x III attached and the integral TC "disabled". I am genuinely curious as to what the results will be. Should be interesting.

They're not exactly the same.

What you may have here isn't necessarily a set of elements that's either there or not - it may be two separate set of optical elements, one giving a 200-400mm focal length and another, slightly different set, giving a 280-560mm focal length. If this is the case, the elements would be an integral part of the lens design, and there would be no IQ compromise in using the lens as a 280-560mm f/5.6.

Why would you want to have to add your own TC? To do so, you'd have to dismount the lens, add the TC and re-mount it; in the meantime, you may have missed the shot. The way they've designed it, you can keep it at 200-400mm to take full advantage of the f/4 maximum aperture; whenever you need to go longer, just flip the switch and you can get to 560mm f/5.6, take a few shots, then quickly flip back as the animal/bird/plane/what​ever comes closer. Or, with a 1D-series body (or a nonreporting TC), add another 1.4x TC to the back and use it as a 280-560mm f/5.6, with the option of switching it to 400-800mm f/8 on occasions, should the need arise. (If you're shooting in the 700-800mm range consistently, you should probably be using a 500L with 1.4x TC, or 800L anyway).

I would have thought the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS would be the ultimate field sports lens. If you wanted anything much longer, while retaining f/2.8, you'd be looking at the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8...

My wife and I have been testing out the long zooms for a Safari trip in the near future.
And we have been shooting with the 100-400mm + 1.4x TC (the 1.4x TC can still AF on our 1D bodies, but not the 2.0x TC).
Right now I am using the 300mm f/2.8 + 2.0x TC.
But this, this 200-400mm is exactly what we are looking for.
For the following reasons:

1. The built-in 1.4x TC is so convenient. Save us the trouble of having to dismount and mount the lens with the TC under dusty sandy conditions.
   
2. In the same line of thought, the flexibility of having a TC on or off according to how close the game is to us - this is wonderful.
   
3. The range from 200-560mm at an aperture of f/5.6 is certainly better than the 400mm end of the 100-400mm + 1.4x TC (f/8.0).
   

My thoughts:
-Only $400 to make? I think adding another "0" would be closer; R&D and materials will help keep the smaller market lens expensive
-If this lens only costs you $3,500, it's probably broken; more like $8,000+
-I suppose I'd buy it if I had the funds (along with every other lens I'd want), but this is kind of a "meh" lens to me

This is my personal assessment of the lens.

Current BHPhoto street price is $6,799 for the AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II Lens (3.4kg) and it does not have a built-in teleconverter.

MSRP would be above $7,000 and after the London 2012 Olympic Games around $6,000+. Another indicator for price is that lenses that have a related aperture diameter of 100-107mm tend to sell for $4,500 to $7,000.

Now about this lens.

For whom is this lens for? Sports & Wildlife shooters.

- If you do not have a focal length of 200mm or longer this is a very tempting lens to acquire.

- If you do have a focal length of 200mm or longer but is slower than f/4 this is a very tempting lens to acquire.

- If you only want one super telephoto that fits mostly outdoors application then this is a very tempting lens to acquire.

Extender 1.4x not engaged
- FF crop camera would be 200-400 @ f/4
- 1.3x crop camera would be 260-520 @ f/4
- 1.6x crop camera would be 320-640 @ f/4

Extender 1.4x engaged
- FF crop camera would be 280-560 @ f/5.6
- 1.3x crop camera would be 364-728 @ f/5.6
- 1.6x crop camera would be 448-896 @ f/5.6

Drozz119 wrote in post #11798948
IMO ... This lens was made for 1 reason.. Nikon!

Canon has always prided themselves in being the king of the super telephotos. This is the one telephoto that Nikon had the upper hand, that potentially took their customers away. And we're not talking about the rebel and kit lens customers... We're talking the pros and wealthy amateurs who spend tens of thousands on lenses and buy 5k bodies as backups. They want that market and title back.

I expect them to match the nikon 200-400's price and market the converter as FREE!

makes sense. i dont follow what nikon offers as i am happy with canon. it would take more than a lens or two to switch for me.

now that i think about it... it does seem that nikon targets hobby market more than canon for advertising. even their P&S market will likely have customers that upgrade to DSLR's.

i would be aggrivated if i spent 10's of thousands of dollars with a company and they released a less than stellar product to target more hobbyist instead of pros. but as a hobbyist it would also be nice for more lenses, like the 17-55 IS, that are more affordable with great performance.

i would be interested to see what the gross and/or net sales of canon and nikon are compared in each product market, hobbyist and pro equipment.

dolina wrote in post #11801163
This is my personal assessment of the lens.

Current BHPhoto street price is $6,799 for the AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II Lens (3.4kg) and it does not have a built-in teleconverter.

MSRP would be above $7,000 and after the London 2012 Olympic Games around $6,000+. Another indicator for price is that lenses that have a related aperture diameter of 100-107mm tend to sell for $4,500 to $7,000.

Now about this lens.

For whom is this lens for? Sports & Wildlife shooters.

- If you do not have a focal length of 200mm or longer this is a very tempting lens to acquire.

- If you do have a focal length of 200mm or longer but is slower than f/4 this is a very tempting lens to acquire.

- If you only want one super telephoto that fits mostly outdoors application then this is a very tempting lens to acquire.

Extender 1.4x not engaged
- FF crop camera would be 200-400 @ f/4
- 1.3x crop camera would be 260-520 @ f/4
- 1.6x crop camera would be 320-640 @ f/4

Extender 1.4x engaged
- FF crop camera would be 280-560 @ f/5.6
- 1.3x crop camera would be 364-728 @ f/5.6
- 1.6x crop camera would be 448-896 @ f/5.6

great outline of lens use and FL.

i searched this thread for 1.4 extender and it resulted in every post showing up. didnt read all posts.

so what will the optics be like with an additional 1.4 extender? would this be like having two 1.4 extenders on, or since one is built into the lens will it not suffer twice the IQ loss?

c-bass wrote in post #11801381
great outline of lens use and FL.

i searched this thread for 1.4 extender and it resulted in every post showing up. didnt read all posts.

so what will the optics be like with an additional 1.4 extender? would this be like having two 1.4 extenders on, or since one is built into the lens will it not suffer twice the IQ loss?

Thank you. I've been seeing a lot of excited questions about this lens and a lot of good answers too.

Officially Canon does not recommend the stacking of extenders. This policy may carry over to this lens.

Unlike your traditional extender the built-in one is designed as part of the lens. So IQ should better than that of a 200-400mm + a separate 1-size-fits-all extender.

Do note that this is based on an educated guess as Canon is still developing the lens.

I really don't see any reason to not be excited about this lens. I guess many people are annoyed that it will cost a lot of money. This is an expensive hobby and one must pay for the best. This will put a major dent in my wallet but like anything else that I allocate disposable income towards, I have the option of not acquiring one. We would all like what we perceive as the perfect lens at a low price point. Unfortunately I think that only exists in our dreams. Let's happy for the innovation that this lens presents.

col4bin wrote in post #11801698
I really don't see any reason to not be excited about this lens. I guess many people are annoyed that it will cost a lot of money. This is an expensive hobby and one must pay for the best. This will put a major dent in my wallet but like anything else that I allocate disposable income towards, I have the option of not acquiring one. We would all like what we perceive as the perfect lens at a low price point. Unfortunately I think that only exists in our dreams. Let's happy for the innovation that this lens presents.

This is one of the lenses Nikon has that a lot of Canon users wished to have on the EF mount for the past 3 years.

Inclusion of the built-in extender 1.4x is a great innovation for SLR lenses.

If this lens was on sale back in 2007 I would have bought this. It complements the f/2.8 or f/4 zoom trinity without overlapping.

Shadowblade wrote in post #11800767
They're not exactly the same.

What you may have here isn't necessarily a set of elements that's either there or not - it may be two separate set of optical elements, one giving a 200-400mm focal length and another, slightly different set, giving a 280-560mm focal length. If this is the case, the elements would be an integral part of the lens design, and there would be no IQ compromise in using the lens as a 280-560mm f/5.6.

If that's the way it's designed, I agree. However, if you look at the proposed schematic, I don't think that's they way it's built. If it was indeed two separate sets of elements, I think you would need 'growths' on both sides of the lens, one to 'store' the 200-400 element in, and one to 'store' the 280-560 element in.

To use an electrical example, the proposed schematic (which seems consistant w/ one 'growth) is like a single-pole, single-throw switch. It's either on or off. What you've described is like a single-pole, double-throw switch. Either one is on or the other is on. The analogy falls down in that w/ a s-p, d-t switch, you can have both sides open. This would not be the case w/ the two-element design of the lens. You would never have the case where neither element would be in the light path.

It really depends on the situation. If I knew I was going to use the extra reach, I'd leave the 1.4x TC on and have a 140-560 f/5.6. If I really needed f/4, I'd leave it off and deal w/ the reduced reach. For what I shoot, and the way I shoot, I would prefer to have a 4x range rather than a 2x range. I guess that's what it really comes down to.

I'm not really all that familiar w/ the Sigma (or any 3rd party) lineup, so those didn't occur to me. I also said that a 100-400 f/4 would be great, provided that there was no f/2.8 version.

I am quite confident that Canon has the technical wherewithal to produce a 4x zoom that has stunning IQ. They've shown what they can do w/ an almost 3x zoom w/ their 70-200 series.

Again, this is what I would like to see. I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there that are drooling over this new lens, and it will be a perfect fit for them. Sure wish they'd do both!

This thing looks tempting. I predict MSRP will be approx $7,500 and that price will eventually settle in the $5,800-$6,300 area in approx 1yr after release. If I can procure one from Canon for under $2000 I'll probably get one at some point, otherwise 100-400L it is!

woos wrote in post #11801778
This thing looks tempting. I predict MSRP will be approx $7,500 and that price will eventually settle in the $5,800-$6,300 area in approx 1yr after release. If I can procure one from Canon for under $2000 I'll probably get one at some point, otherwise 100-400L it is!

you must be missing that prices don't really drop after a year on lenses...especially not that significantly...


with the expected price of this lens...as well as the MK II super telephotos...all of a sudden the 500f4IS MK I doesn't seem as unobtainable to me as it used to...i can still dream...

Grrrrrrr........ costs even more than my 400 f/4 DO........ Let's see what kind of IQ it produces.

I think Canon may drop the 100-400 for this, since this one must be far, far more profitable.

S.Horton wrote in post #11801893
I think Canon may drop the 100-400 for this, since this one must be far, far more profitable.

If anything, I think the new 70-300L IS, not this new 200-400L, could signal the end of the 100-400L. After all, it competes in the same price bracket, while the 200-400L is in a completely different category.

I am feeling very good about my decision to buy a 100-400L last summer. I am really beginning to doubt that Canon will ever offer a revised version of this lens with a similar price to the current 100-400L.

Mk1Racer wrote in post #11800226
Interesting theory Ken. But isn't mounting a TC on the back the same thing as "adding a group or groups that are swapped in and out to change the final focal length"? It's just that one is done externally and one is done internally.

The main difference is that when adding an external TC you are always adding it to the rear of a lens that is intended to be focused on a sensor. With an internal design it can be placed in a location that is better suited for this.

Also when I said "swapped" out I didn't mean that the TC is swapped in and out the way an external unit is but that there could be a 1.0x group and a 1.4x group that are moved in and out.

And if nothing else, having the TC farther forward means that it will not be magnifying any dust or scratches on the filter or the rear lens element