What If: EF 200mm f/1.4L IS

No one has patented, prototyped or made production copies of a f/1.4 200mm lens.

Now assuming canon were to make one with 2011 technology would you be willing to spend around $8,500-8,900?

The price was arrived at using this formula (400mm is II / 800mm is) * 400mm is II. These two lenses share the same front pupil diameter so production cost should be somewhat similar.

The weight would be between 3.5-3.9kg

dolina wrote in post #12543737
No one has patented, prototyped or made production copies of a f/1.4 200mm lens.

Now assuming canon were to make one with 2011 technology would you be willing to spend around $8,500-8,900?

The price was arrived at using this formula (400mm is II / 800mm is) * 400mm is II. These two lenses share the same front pupil diameter so production cost should be somewhat similar.

The weight would be between 3.5-3.9kg

I think you have a limited grasp of lens technology. I don't exactly have a qualification in the subject, but have grasped enough to realise what might seem feasible in your head; quickly gets quite ridiculous: Check out this completely pointless Sigma: http://www.dpreview.co​m …1/08013101sigma​250500.asp

I think one needs to understand that lens element weight increases exponentially with increasing aperture, thus the whole weight and cost increase similarly as well. For instance, compare the canon 200 f/2.8 to the 200 f/2.0.

Jahled wrote in post #12547846
Check out this completely pointless Sigma: http://www.dpreview.co​m …1/08013101sigma​250500.asp

Question: why do you think the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 is pointless?

It is beyond my price range, but it is still a lot cheaper than the Canon 1200 f/5.6 and more flexible (200-500 f/2.8, 400-1000 f/5.6, and zoom). It would be a perfect lens for football games, soccer, and wildlife.

If it were truly "perfect" for such shoots, the largest agencies would be using them and AFAIK, they are not...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #12566879
If it were truly "perfect" for such shoots, the largest agencies would be using them and AFAIK, they are not...

^In a nutshell that. In fact I have never seen one at a sports event, as I have never seen one on a press photoshoot where distance could be a factor here or up at Whipsnade. The fact it is the size of a rocket launcher might be some reason as to why. Just my two cents though

Poe wrote in post #12566625
I think one needs to understand that lens element weight increases exponentially with increasing aperture, thus the whole weight and cost increase similarly as well. For instance, compare the canon 200 f/2.8 to the 200 f/2.0.

He took that into consideration by comparing to the other huge lenses. 200/1.4 would have a 142mm aperture, just like a 400mm f2.8 and a 800mm f5.6/ So the elements would be roughly that size, but on a shorter lens.

It seems possible to me just based on the fact that the 200mm f1.8 was very good and that is a 23 year old design. Adding 2/3 a stop with 23 years worth of technology doesn't sound like too great a stretch. I do wonder if it would end up like the 50mm f1.0, though, where it was just one step too far and the optical quality suffered greatly.

i think the real question is what's the purpose of it? the 200mm f/2L IS's DOF is already extremely thin. also, with high ISO noise being so manageable now, who actually needs that extra stop of light and is willing to carry around such a behemoth at 200mm to get it?

f/1.4 telephoto + 4-stop image stabilization + cameras with ISO25600 = overkill

200mm is a moderately long focal length. a lens of this size would probably have to live on a monopod and that defeats the purpose of a 200mm for most applications. as for teleconverters.. if you want a 400mm f/2.8, buy a 400mm f/2.8.

I sort of agree, but then you'd have to ask some of the same questions about the need for the f1.4 and f1.2 lenses in your own kit.

tkbslc wrote in post #12570018
I sort of agree, but then you'd have to ask some of the same questions about the need for the f1.4 and f1.2 lenses in your own kit.

it's a fair question i suppose. i think it comes down to having viable alternatives.

the 200mm f/2L IS exists as one of canon's highest performing lenses. in terms of it's optical formula, build quality, AF performance, IS performance.. there's very little to improve. therefore, the massive size, weight, and cost of a 200mm f/1.4L IS is only good for one thing: that one extra stop of light.

this is not the case for my lenses. the alternatives to my current set would be the 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8, and 135mm f/2.8SF. their sharpness, contrast, lack of USM (except the 85mm), and questionable build quality for rigorous use.. they're not good substitutes for their corresponding f/1.2 and f/1.4 cousins for the type of work that i do.

it comes down to two main things:

1. is there a purpose? does a previous model or alternative lack qualities which are useful? having used the 35mm f/2 before, i can assure you that the answer is yes.

2. is it practical? granted my current set is heavier than their smaller aperture model versions, they're still very small and easy to handle. a 200mm f/1.4L IS would be monopod or tripod-ridden because it's simply too heavy for anyone to hand-hold for any appreciable amount of time. i think for 99% of 200mm f/2L IS users, a f/1.4 version would actually be a worse tool for the job than the f/2 because the current version is already the upper limit for most people when it comes to mobility.

the only time i ever needed 1.4 is in a dimly lit bar. even then I just crank up the ISO.

I can agree with your logic there.

If Canon was going to do some crazy and expensive, I'd rather see them make some f2 L zooms, anyway, even though the practicality arguments would still apply.

Once thing for sure is that this lens will be VERY expensive: more expensive than 400mm f/2.8 and 800mm f/5.6.

Canon will also need to make more teleconverters: 4x, 2.8x to teleconvert this lens to f/4 and f/5.6 lenses. Built-in teleconverter (like the announced design of 200-400 f/4 with built in 1.4x) would be good. If that happens, then, I can see that those who would normally buy 800mm f/5.6 would consider 200mm f/1.4.

Key words.. "what if" "would you" "assuming" . You guys are a bit harsh lol

Several posts, no one answered the simple question. Lol

If Canon makes one and there spare cash, why the hell not!

We already have a 200 2.8, 200 f/2, and a 200 f 1.8 do we need a another 200?