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

1Tanker wrote in post #14881116
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.

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.

lancebroad wrote in post #14881187
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?

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 dont even use my 400 f2.8 at max aperture.

lancebroad wrote in post #14881234
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.

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.

lancebroad wrote in post #14881251
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

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.

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.

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?

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.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14881212
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

mtimber wrote in post #14881344
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.

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!