Why did Canon make the 400mm f/4 so expensive?

I don't know how long this lens has been out. I just started looking at options for a super telephoto. I just can't see the logic in this lens. I'm assuming this lens could have been made much more affordable had they not made it a DO. They have the 2.8 for the high end, deep pocket shooters so, would it not have made more sense to produce something that caters to the serious amateur. They can't be selling very many of these.

Bob

The "entry level" niche at 400mm is covered by the 400/5.6L at $1340.

I've often wondered why Canon hasen't come up with an IS version of the 400/5.6, which would add some cost... sure... but still might be under $2000 or just a little more.

The 400/4 DO is a big jump up in price at $6400 or so.

But the 400/2.8 IS II is an even higher price at $11,500! (The "Mark I" was cheaper, but not by all that much.)

The 400/4 DO is probably pretty expensive to make... It's unusually compact for a 400mm, has IS and is considerably more handholdable than either of the other two 400mm lenses. It might be a great choice, for example, for an assignment/travel photographer who needs 400mm. I haven't used it (I opted for 300mm and 500mm lenses instead), but have heard that the DO optics aren't all that great with teleconverters.

i think it's because the DO optics cost a lot to research, and develop...they probably cost too much to research and develop, as it seems like that line is just a big failure in my opinion....that's why there aren't any new DO lenses coming out now...

amfoto1 wrote in post #14253779
The "entry level" niche at 400mm is covered by the 400/5.6L.

That doesn't seem smart to me. Especially since they don't have this in IS. An entry level shooter would do well to go with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a 2x converter over the 400 f/5.6L. It seems a 400 f/4L IS would be more enticing at the right price point because you can't get there with a converter. I think for $2500 these would fly off the shelf.

Bob

DreDaze wrote in post #14253797
i think it's because the DO optics cost a lot to research, and develop...they probably cost too much to research and develop, as it seems like that line is just a big failure in my opinion....that's why there aren't any new DO lenses coming out now...

That's true... R&D. It was the first DO lens. I guess the 70-300 DO is the only other one developed since. I know one photographer who uses it and it appears to work well. I don't know anyone shooting with the 400/4 DO, but have seen some really good images out of it.

It's interesting that none of the recent/current super tele "Mark II"s use DO, but still manage to be more compact and lighter than their predecessors.

Hot Bob wrote in post #14253874
...An entry level shooter would do well to go with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a 2x converter over the 400 f/5.6L...

This really wasn't a very good option with the original 70-200/2.8 IS and the Mark II 2X.... the image quality just wasn't there (the zoom worked pretty well with the 1.4X II though).

It's only since the 2XIII and Mark II lens have become available that the combo is fairly competitive with the prime in terms of image quality. On the other hand, the zoom plus the teleconverter will set you back about $3000... more than double the price of the prime without IS, but probably still slightly better image quality.

Hot Bob wrote in post #14253874
That doesn't seem smart to me. Especially since they don't have this in IS. An entry level shooter would do well to go with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a 2x converter over the 400 f/5.6L. It seems a 400 f/4L IS would be more enticing at the right price point because you can't get there with a converter. I think for $2500 these would fly off the shelf.

Bob

No, the 400 5.6 is the *perfect* example of a great first long prime.

It's small and lightweight and easy to handhold. It's one of Canon's FASTEST focusing lenses, and the image quality easily exceeds any 70-200 with a 2X, including the 2.8 IS II, and for less money to boot.

Hot Bob wrote in post #14253874
That doesn't seem smart to me. Especially since they don't have this in IS. An entry level shooter would do well to go with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a 2x converter over the 400 f/5.6L. It seems a 400 f/4L IS would be more enticing at the right price point because you can't get there with a converter. I think for $2500 these would fly off the shelf.

Bob

it depends what the entry level shooter is using it for...if they're using it for action shots, then the IS isn't really needed as much, and would be a better option than the zoom with a 2X(which would cost more) they could get a monopod or tripod as well..

at $2,500 for a 400f4IS it would definitely fly off the self...because it'd be priced ridiculously low compared to canon's other offerings...

the new 200-400f4IS is supposed to be $11,000
the 500f4IS is $10,000
the 600f4IS is $9,000

a 300f2.8 IS with a 1.4 TC is setting you back nearly $8,000

so yeah...for $2,500 it'll never happen...

The 400mm 5.6 is one Canon's best bang for the buck lenses. The 400mm 4.0 DO is one of the worst. I've seen many photos taken with the DO and very few have nice sharpness or pop. The fact the the DO costs 4 or 5 times what the excellent 400mm 5.6 costs is insane. For me the DO is a DON'T.

Canon has never sold "DO" lenses in anything approaching "mass quantity" so the cost per unit is a little out of whack with the norm.

Because they can. /thread.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14255377
Canon has never sold "DO" lenses in anything approaching "mass quantity" so the cost per unit is a little out of whack with the norm.

At the same time, the cost per unit is one of the main reasons they sell so few.

P.S. A lot of you guys are forgetting the 300mm f4 IS + 1.4x option. That's a great inexpensive 300mm and 420mm IS solution.

tkbslc wrote in post #14255401
At the same time, the cost per unit is one of the main reasons they sell so few.

P.S. A lot of you guys are forgetting the 300mm f4 IS + 1.4x option. That's a great inexpensive 300mm and 420mm IS solution.

Great point. Especially with the newest teleconverters.

nightcat wrote in post #14255357
The 400mm 5.6 is one Canon's best bang for the buck lenses. The 400mm 4.0 DO is one of the worst. I've seen many photos taken with the DO and very few have nice sharpness or pop. The fact the the DO costs 4 or 5 times what the excellent 400mm 5.6 costs is insane. For me the DO is a DON'T.

Hmm, I've found the photos with the 400DO to be extremely nice.

I'd get it if it was cheaper, but oh well...

I think the 400mm DO is probably a $2500 lens based on specs and image quality, but the DO tech made it very expensive. However, it is a lot more compact than the other supertele primes. It's a cool lens for the right photographer (with the right finances).

It's a very small 400mm lens, though. Check it out compared to the 400mm f2.8 (to scale). And It's and inch shorter than the 400mm f5.6

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'binary/octet-stream'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'binary/octet-stream'

DreDaze wrote in post #14253951
at $2,500 for a 400f4IS it would definitely fly off the self...because it'd be priced ridiculously low compared to canon's other offerings...

the new 200-400f4IS is supposed to be $11,000
the 500f4IS is $10,000
the 600f4IS is $9,000

a 300f2.8 IS with a 1.4 TC is setting you back nearly $8,000

so yeah...for $2,500 it'll never happen...

But..the 300 f/4L IS sells for around $1500. It may be improbable considering what Canon has been doing lately but I think it is possible for them to sell at that price. I think the sales volume would make it quite feasable.

Bob