I see Canon Rumours has announced the fact that Nikon have a new 200-400 f/4 lens. Maybe that will kick Canon into redesigning the 100-400 warhorse?
I'm not knocking the 100-400L, I'm very happy with mine but it is a pretty ancient design now.
Lowner "I'm the original idiot"  12,924 posts Likes: 18 Joined Jul 2007 Location: Salisbury, UK. More info | Apr 27, 2010 05:51 | #1 I see Canon Rumours has announced the fact that Nikon have a new 200-400 f/4 lens. Maybe that will kick Canon into redesigning the 100-400 warhorse? Richard
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Shadowblade Cream of the Crop More info | Apr 27, 2010 06:05 | #2 Here's hoping for a makeover in the style of the 70-200 2.8L IS II USM, with 4-stop IS, internal zoom, full weather sealing, prime-like sharpness and very fast AF.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
egordon99 Cream of the Crop 10,247 posts Likes: 3 Joined Feb 2008 Location: Philly 'burbs More info | Apr 27, 2010 08:05 | #3 Lowner wrote in post #10074066  I see Canon Rumours has announced the fact that Nikon have a new 200-400 f/4 lens. Maybe that will kick Canon into redesigning the 100-400 warhorse? I'm not knocking the 100-400L, I'm very happy with mine but it is a pretty ancient design now. It would make more sense for Nikon to update the 80-400 as that doesn't even have AF-S (their version of USM)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
District_History_Fan Goldmember 2,286 posts Likes: 1 Joined Dec 2008 More info | The problem with a "makeover" is that Canon will want $2500 for the damn thing.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
muusers Goldmember  1,024 posts Joined Sep 2009 Location: Haarlem, Netherlands More info | Apr 27, 2010 08:09 | #5 pricegap between the 100-400 and 200-400 is huge... I think canon has the advantage there. 50D + 17-55 | s100 | flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
zincozinco -Followers of Fidget-  4,420 posts Likes: 1 Joined Oct 2007 Location: Andalucía More info | Apr 27, 2010 08:10 | #6 District_History_Fan wrote in post #10074467 The problem with a "makeover" is that Canon will want $2500 for the damn thing.  Have you seen what the Nikon cost? Might have to rethink that.... Living the life, overexposing...
LOG IN TO REPLY |
egordon99 Cream of the Crop 10,247 posts Likes: 3 Joined Feb 2008 Location: Philly 'burbs More info | Apr 27, 2010 08:17 | #7 muusers wrote in post #10074469 pricegap between the 100-400 and 200-400 is huge... I think canon has the advantage there. The lenses really aren't comparable anyway. The 200-400 f/4 is in the same "league" as the 500/4, 600/4, etc....The 100-400L is a "budget" telephoto zoom
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 27, 2010 08:18 | #8 I would be very tempted if Canon had a version of the 200-400 f/4 that performed well, especially if it took the 1.4 converter nearly as well as my 300 f/2.8 Canon G1X II, 1D MKIV, 5DSR, 5DIV, 5D MKII, 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, IS, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II, 500/4 L IS II, 24-105/4 IS, 50/2.5 macro, 1.4x MKII, 1.4X MKIII, 2X MKIII,580EX II, 550EXs(2), ST-E2.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Shadowblade Cream of the Crop More info | Apr 27, 2010 08:20 | #9 District_History_Fan wrote in post #10074467 The problem with a "makeover" is that Canon will want $2500 for the damn thing. If the quality is there, I don't see the problem.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
phreeky Goldmember 3,515 posts Likes: 15 Joined Oct 2007 Location: Australia More info | Apr 27, 2010 08:43 | #10 If you think the 200-400 is expensive it's worth checking what the cheapest way to go to 400mm @ F/4 is with Canon gear. The one-stop advantage of it over the 100-400 is significant and I think a lot of people overlook that.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
plasticmotif Goldmember  3,174 posts Likes: 2 Joined Sep 2008 Location: Tennessee More info | Apr 27, 2010 10:10 | #11 A woman in my camera club had the original 200-400, it was a pretty amazing lens...why'd they update it? Mac P.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
edrader "I am not the final word"  More info | Apr 27, 2010 12:52 | #12 Lowner wrote in post #10074066 I see Canon Rumours has announced the fact that Nikon have a new 200-400 f/4 lens. Maybe that will kick Canon into redesigning the 100-400 warhorse? I'm not knocking the 100-400L, I'm very happy with mine but it is a pretty ancient design now. the nikon weighs 7 lbs and costs $6k. the rest of the story..... http://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 27, 2010 13:11 | #13 Not to mention that the nikon is just a so-so lens. "I work from awkwardness. By that I mean I don't arrange things. If I stand in front of something, instead of arranging it, I arrange myself" -Diane Arbus
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cheerio Member  110 posts Joined Jul 2009 More info | Apr 27, 2010 16:15 | #14 zincozinco wrote in post #10074471 Have you seen what the Nikon cost? Might have to rethink that.... Edit: the Nikon has dropped 800 dollars on amazon, maybe its time to switch the system... 
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TomW Canon Fanosapien  12,749 posts Likes: 30 Joined Feb 2003 Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee More info | Apr 27, 2010 16:39 | #15 phreeky wrote in post #10074628 If you think the 200-400 is expensive it's worth checking what the cheapest way to go to 400mm @ F/4 is with Canon gear. The one-stop advantage of it over the 100-400 is significant and I think a lot of people overlook that. A Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 with a 1.4xTC is probably a good example of the price Sigma would charge I would think. P.S. I want one, but for Canon Well, you can go with the 300/2.8 + 1.4X teleconverter and be about $1000 cheaper than the Nikon zoom. Or, you can get the 400/2.8 IS for a little over $1000 more than the Nikon zoom. I think that the 400 f/4 DO is a few hundred cheaper than the Nikon zoom. Tom
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is semonsters 1099 guests, 120 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
