200-400mm F4!

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #11793786
they? they who?

because i been hearing $7,000

I don't think you can put a $7,000 MSRP on this lens as a zoom with a 4.0 aperture. Even with IS, it won't be of use for indoor concerts and sports so Canon won't be cutting into their own market for the 70-200 2.8L II and 300 2.8L. If you have the 200-400 for wildlife and birding, you're still going to need faster glass for these other applications. I also can't see the price point for a zoom exceeding the 400 4.0 DO and the 500 prime, especially when the 500 takes a TC so well and gives you a 700 5.6 with IS.

I'm guessing the MSRP comes in between $3,999 and $4,499.

JPBones73 wrote in post #11793985
I don't think you can put a $7,000 MSRP on this lens as a zoom with a 4.0 aperture.

I'd hope that the price will be low but the Nikon equivalent has an MSRP of $7,000 and that is without an integrated TC.

Looking at Canon's recent L lenses, they're all stellar performers but they all came with big price jumps compared to their predecessors.

As an owner of a 200-400 Nikkor it's nice to see that Canon closes the gap I always saw in their line up

sth_ wrote in post #11794082
I'd hope that the price will be low but the Nikon equivalent has an MSRP of $7,000 and that is without an integrated TC.

Looking at Canon's recent L lenses, they're all stellar performers but they all came with big price jumps compared to their predecessors.

Canon's prices have been increasing but the Nikkor equivalents are still usually $1,000 - $1,500 higher than Canon.

JPBones73 wrote in post #11794384
Canon's prices have been increasing but the Nikkor equivalents are still usually $1,000 - $1,500 higher than Canon.

Canon price settles after 6-9 months after they start shipping.

What happened to the previous thread?

EDIT: Got merged with the one in the lens section...

Does anyone wise in the ways of lens design feel like filling clueless ol' me in on how exactly an integrated teleconverter would work?

I imagine it would involve sliding one or two lens elements backward or forward...but surely that extra glass must degrade the IQ?

If you take a loom at the photo on dpreview, you may notice that there is a locking mechanism on the cylindrical area near the mount of the lens. There markings and a switch indicating the two modes: 1.4x and 1.0x

I don't get why they didn't just make it a 200-560mm f4-5.6. That's what it is anyway, only you slide a switch to lock in a certain zoom range and max aperture.

tkbslc wrote in post #11794752
I don't get why they didn't just make it a 200-560mm f4-5.6. That's what it is anyway, only you slide a switch to lock in a certain zoom range and max aperture.

because then it would be simplier design and cost less

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #11794869
because then it would be simplier design and cost less

The body construction would be much cheaper but I wouldn't be so sure about the optical construction. Higher zoom ranges usually result in more complex (yet lower quality) lens designs.

sth_ wrote in post #11794919
Higher zoom ranges usually result in more complex (yet lower quality) lens designs.

But remember we are comparing a lens with a TC here. So I don't know which would be more compromised, a 2.8x zoom vs 2x zoom with 1.4x TC.

We're talking about a purpose-built TC here though, right? If it's matched to this particular lens, shouldn't it perform better than a generic TC, in theory?

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=996763