Canon 200-400mm Page

wayne.robbins wrote in post #14810537
Yes! Absolutely. If more pro's use Canon gear at large events like the Olympics, why do they choose Canon ? What is it about Canon cameras that attract the pros ?

It's generally been the AF

wayne.robbins wrote in post #14810537
Yes! Absolutely. If more pro's use Canon gear at large events like the Olympics, why do they choose Canon ? What is it about Canon cameras that attract the pros ?

I would say that its the overall "System" that Canon offers.
AF, Lens array, ergonomics of menu, resale value of glass, cutting r&d, quality.
... the list is a long one.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14807926
$12K according to a couple of CPS guys I talked to at Oshkosh...

Word from London: It's a stunning performer!

Well that's good news about the performance. The spec I'm most interested in is the weight. How heavy it will be compared to the new 500 f4.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14809517
Building a 200-400 constant f/4 with a built-in TC that doesn't screw much with the IQ (if at all) isn't the same as cranking out 50mm f/1.8 "Plastic Fantastics"

It's an economy of scale.

If they could sell a million of them, they'd be sub-two thousand dollar lenses but they won't so they aren't.

Nah, I'm pretty sure that if they really were sub-two thousand dollars, they probably WOULD sell a million of them in a 10 year period. lol

I'd bet that the prices are set due to Canon not being able to produce large flourite elements fast enough if they were to, say, sell millions of these. Same with the MK2 tele lenses, which have more flourite (don't they?) than the older ones--and those large crystals take a long time to grow.

I'm hoping Sigma will pull something out of the bag. The range has generally been well received with things like the 30/50 1.4, 85 1.4, 70-200 OS and the 120-300 OS. Their quality is improving all the time and warranties and extras are better than the Canon's.
Unfortunately, Canon is pricing me out of their market with the new big whites. ( and things like the 5d3 and 24-70 ) As a person who generally funds his hobbies well, I can't possibly justify dropping that much cash, that would get me a pretty good second hand car.
Failing that, I've got my eye on the Sony range. I can get a staff discount, they just need to develope lens now to meet the A99

It would be nice to get a first impression from a Canon 200-400 shooter at the Olympics, similar to this Nikon user report...

http://www.dpreview.co​m …n-800mm-first-impressions

I saw the kayak photo and in my opinion, it is sharp, but not sharper than the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS. I hope I am wrong, because at that price it has to be absolutely perfect.

freddyronny wrote in post #14816864
I saw the kayak photo and in my opinion, it is sharp, but not sharper than the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS. I hope I am wrong, because at that price it has to be absolutely perfect.

If you click to get the full size version, it's actually front focused, so not really definitive.

Man i am so sad to see that this lens is going to be so expensive. I am a new brofessional brotographer and for my job the 100-400mm is my all time favorite lens, and the lens my nikon boss is jealous of. To see the price go up $10,000 is brutal. And this could not even be the update to the 100-400, which may never come, sadly.

I mean it's great that they are producing another high end lens with zoom capabilities but i wonder how many people are actually going to buy this, because i certainly will not for a very long time. I can just stick with my 100-400mm, buy a 300mm f2.8 and use my 1.4x and 2x extender with similar or better results, for so much less money.

I mean seriously.. the 300mm f2.8 is $7000. If this 200-400mm f4 is over $8000, it seems to be a no brainer to go with the 300mm and extenders. But i guess it all comes down to image quality.

Anyways i just so disappointed because i love the 100-400mm and wish there were a proper upgrade sometime soon.

I see this lens in the hands of pro sport togs, and high end birders. I think canon is trying to cater to the upper class shooters. With that in mind I don't see them selling it on the cheap. Hopefully I am completely wrong and it's the replacement to the 70-300 usm....

my 70-200 is better then this lens!

The 200-400 would fit very nicely in my world, that's for sure...

Birds of the steel.

mesodan wrote in post #14809567
How come Nikon sells a 200-400 for $6k then? A built-in TC can't really justify $12k.

...and gives you a four year warranty.

Selling $10k lenses with a one year warranty is laughable. I would never spend more than $3000 on any piece of Canon gear. Their cheap warranties and crap quality control just isn't worth it.

Mike55 wrote in post #14818822
Their cheap warranties and crap quality control just isn't worth it.

huh? What crap quality control. I am using a Canon super-tele over 20 years old right now, and it does great.