Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
light_pilgrim
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
922 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 143
Joined Jan 2012
     
Aug 20, 2012 05:06 |  #31

1Tanker wrote in post #14881116 (external 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.com (external link) ||1x.com (external link) ||500px.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
lancebroad
Senior Member
Avatar
396 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
Location: 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.avgeek (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
light_pilgrim
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
922 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 143
Joined Jan 2012
     
Aug 20, 2012 06:01 |  #33

lancebroad wrote in post #14881187 (external 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.com (external link) ||1x.com (external link) ||500px.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lancebroad
Senior Member
Avatar
396 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
Location: 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.avgeek (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lancebroad
Senior Member
Avatar
396 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
Location: 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.avgeek (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
light_pilgrim
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
922 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 143
Joined Jan 2012
     
Aug 20, 2012 06:18 |  #36

lancebroad wrote in post #14881234 (external 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.com (external link) ||1x.com (external link) ||500px.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lancebroad
Senior Member
Avatar
396 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
Location: 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.avgeek (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
light_pilgrim
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
922 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 143
Joined Jan 2012
     
Aug 20, 2012 06:30 |  #38

lancebroad wrote in post #14881251 (external 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.com (external link) ||1x.com (external link) ||500px.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lancebroad
Senior Member
Avatar
396 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
Location: 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.avgeek (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Neilyb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,189 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 431
Joined Sep 2005
Location: 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.com (external link)

http://www.natureimmor​tal.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
andrikos
Goldmember
Avatar
1,905 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Sep 2008
Location: 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
Avatar
5,011 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: 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. :-)


"Owning lots of expensive gear is very important. I helps those of us without talent appear as if we really know what we're doing" (Belmondo)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Aug 20, 2012 17:00 |  #43

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14881212 (external 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: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Aug 20, 2012 17:04 |  #44

mtimber wrote in post #14881344 (external 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: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MT ­ Stringer
Goldmember
Avatar
4,650 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2006
Location: 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 Profile (external link)

My Gear List

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

14,262 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 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is buycbdoil1
358 guests, 287 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.