Why dont I see more 200-400mm lenses?

It just seems to me that 200-400 would be a great focal length. I already have, like most people, a 24-70 and a 70-200 so a 200-400 would be the next step. I believe canon does have one but is quite expensive. So what is it that I dont know that makes camera companies not want to build this lens?

Great lens and used extensively by sports photographers. It's also $13,000 and out of reach and not practical for the average hobbyist.

seriously! why is it so much? and wheres sigma or tamron?

The Canon 200-400 has a built-in 1.4x TC and is a constant f4 aperure throughout the zoom range. It's also very sharp and comparable with Canon's big white primes. Tamron and others don't make a comparable lens.

Well, for canon, there are lenses like the 70-300L (forget the DO), and the 100-400L, that are as good as your 70-200.
They are much less expensive, then the 200-400.

Other than that, Canon had a 100-300 lens, that is (for its prise) quite good, but not even close tho the top L lenses.

NemethR wrote in post #17281126
Well, for canon, there are lenses like the 70-300L (forget the DO), and the 100-400L, that are as good as your 70-200.
They are much less expensive, then the 200-400.

Other than that, Canon had a 100-300 lens, that is (for its prise) quite good, but not even close tho the top L lenses.

The 70-300L is a very capable lens(I own one). However, it and the 100-400 v1 are not comparable to the Canon 70-200 II for sharpness, color rendition and contrast. The 200-400 is in a different category.

notastockpikr wrote in post #17281104
The Canon 200-400 has a built-in 1.4x TC and is a constant f4 aperure throughout the zoom range. It's also very sharp and comparable with Canon's big white primes. Tamron and others don't make a comparable lens.

this.

3rd party brands will have a tough time building an affordable version of that with a f4 throughout the range and built in tele. mucho expensive and totally worth it. a super workhorse lens for sports and wildlife

sigma could have something comparable with a 120-300mm f2.8 OS....add a 1.4X and you've got a 168-420mm f4 lens

and it's relatively cheap...even if you get the sports version...but yeah, i doubt it can really stack up against the 200-400mm

notastockpikr wrote in post #17281134
The 70-300L is a very capable lens(I own one). However, it and the 100-400 v1 are not comparable to the Canon 70-200 II for sharpness, color rendition and contrast. The 200-400 is in a different category.

i'll bet the new 100-400 is very close to the 200-400

elitejp wrote in post #17281069
It just seems to me that 200-400 would be a great focal length. I already have, like most people, a 24-70 and a 70-200 so a 200-400 would be the next step. I believe canon does have one but is quite expensive. So what is it that I dont know that makes camera companies not want to build this lens?

its also a heavy lens that for most requires a monopod or tripod. that's one reason I have not bought one of the big whites other than the 300L f2.8. the new 100-400L will be 95% as good and much lighter.

notastockpikr wrote in post #17281104
The Canon 200-400 has a built-in 1.4x TC and is a constant f4 aperure throughout the zoom range. It's also very sharp and comparable with Canon's big white primes. Tamron and others don't make a comparable lens.

I would love to have that lens, only if i had 12 grand laying around :P

A little overlap isn't really a bad thing- I think most would rather have 100-400mm, than 200-400

There are plenty of lenses covering at least that range, just only the one at f4. But you don't need a wheel barrell to lug around the f5.6 and f6/3 options or sell a Honda Civic to buy them.

Too heavy, too expensive and too short.
Whilst it is an excellent lens, wildlife shooters, in my neck of the woods, are looking for more mobility (400 F5.6/300 F2.8 etc) or more reach. The 500 F4 (Mk1 or Mk2 is considerably cheaper and significantly lighter (Mk2) as well as offering more reach. For about the same weight and price one can get a 600 F4 Mk2 - a far more useful lens.
For larger wildlife the 200-400 is great but on smaller birds it is just too short. I have given one a try and was very impressed it is just that it is not a very useful lens for me.

elitejp wrote in post #17281069
It just seems to me that 200-400 would be a great focal length. I already have, like most people, a 24-70 and a 70-200 so a 200-400 would be the next step. I believe canon does have one but is quite expensive. So what is it that I dont know that makes camera companies not want to build this lens?

Both Canon and Nikon offer a 200-400/4, and both are huge and very expensive. It isn't simply that 200-400 = expensive. It's the 400mm and f/4 that is really why both of these lenses are so big, heavy and expensive. And that's also why there are not a lot of other offerings.

There are a bunch of lenses that at least include the range of 200mm to 400mm in lenses that are a lot smaller and lighter. These lenses (like the Canon 100-400, the Tamron 120-400, the Nikon 80-400 and the newer Sigma and Tamron 150-600) are able to be lighter, smaller and cheaper because they are all at least one stop slower than f/4.

It isn't the range, it's the fast aperture.