Canon 200-400 F4 1.4x extender anounced!

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11795698
That too is handy...

Like you though, I don't ever see a need for 280mm @ f/5.6 on the short end with the TC in place. I realize you can simply flip the TC out and reframe, but that's going to be a lot of TC flipping...

I wonder how much flipping someone would do though. I'm sure that I will (how's that for positive thinking - "will") flip a lot more often then I'd swap a teleconverter on and off, but I think a lot less often than I will zoom. I mean, even with the 100-400, I almost exclusively use the 300-400 focal length range. I don't see why it would be any different with this lens - flip the teleconverter into service and shoot 280-560. I think I'd have it in service more than out.

tkbslc wrote in post #11795702
Wait, where are the prime guys? I though zooms had worse image quality?

In general, they do. But look at the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - very "prime-like" in quality. I will bet (probably the price of the lens after it settles a few months) that this lens will be much closer to prime performance than many zooms as well.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11795726
I'm sure the results will be very acceptable (superior to the 100-400) but I don't think this new lens (at 500mm f/5.6) will match the current 500 f/4 and I'll bet the rent that it won't be able to touch the 500mm f/4 MkII.

Likely true, but on the other hand, the 500/4 won't match this lens at 200/4 either!

Tom W wrote in post #11795962
Likely true, but on the other hand, the 500/4 won't match this lens at 200/4 either!

Don't make me come over there...

TooManyShots wrote in post #11795814
I think is better this way because you can shoot at F4 at all focal range or enabling the converter you can shoot at 5.6 at all focal length. Making this lens with a variable aperture would mean that somewhere along at 300mm you max aperture becomes 5.6. No high performance lens like all the Canon supertelephotos would have a variable aperture range.

Only if they designed it that way. I don't see why it couldn't hold f4 until at or near 400mm if Canon wanted to make it so.

Tom W wrote in post #11795962
Likely true, but on the other hand, the 500/4 won't match this lens at 200/4 either!

I can get a white 200/4 for $650.

Anders Östberg wrote in post #11795826
You'll see a lot of sports photographers with a 70-200 on one camera and the 200-400 on a second camera to replace the 300 or 400 which is on the second camera today.

Yes! Photographers like this...

bobbyz wrote in post #11795776
They use prime as there aren't any 100-400mm f2.8 zooms available. That's why you see supertele with one body and 70-200mm f2.8 on your 2nd body.

That's what I'm planning on, 300 f/2.8 on the 7D and 70-200 f/2.8 on the 40D. I still say a 100-400 f/4 (hold the 1.4x TC) would have been a better way to go. I'd probably still keep the 40D w/ the 70-200 f/2.8 though. As others have said, sometimes you just need f/2.8. Shooting ISO 3200 or 6400 w/ f/2.8 will still give reasonable shutter speeds, even under very low light.

I really would like to know what the key decision points were behind why Canon selected 200-400 for the focal range for this lens. Is it because Nikon has a 200-400? Is it because they already have the 70-200 f/2.8 II? And did they throw the 1.4x TC in because they'll never build a zoom longer than 400mm?

If I were king? 100-400 f/4 and 300-600 f/5.6 (or maybe f/4-5.6).

tkbslc wrote in post #11795994
I can get a white 200/4 for $650.

How fast can you change lenses?

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11795979
Don't make me come over there...

If you do, bring some lenses and we'll go shootin'. Although, things aren't very picturesque at this time of the year.

Tom W wrote in post #11795911
Finally got to use a ruler to measure something besides focus accuracy.

The 100-400 is about 10.5 inches long fully extended to 400 mm, not including the hood.

Yes, it is!

So they're roughly the same. The 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x TC will always be ~9.75" and the 100-400 will go between 7.5" and 10.5". I'd call that a wash.

My friend just told me about his and thought meh, but with a 1.4 in it changed everything :P
I''m sure it will be better than 100-400L for IS, weather sealed and the TC. It will surely cost a ****load so i'm sticking with 100-400.

tkbslc wrote in post #11795994
I can get a white 200/4 for $650.

Perhaps a drawing :P"?
Don't those go for 4K and up?

Jan-Jasinski wrote in post #11796136
Perhaps a drawing :P"?
Don't those go for 4K and up?

No, they go for about $600-700 and zoom out to 70mm if you like.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Mk1Racer wrote in post #11796119
So they're roughly the same. The 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x TC will always be ~9.75" and the 100-400 will go between 7.5" and 10.5". I'd call that a wash.

What I like about the 100-400 is that it is pretty doggone compact for bag storage, making it a great travel companion. It's a nice package, even if it gives up a notch of sharpness and bokeh smoothness to similar focal-length primes. It's a pretty versatile lens for the price IMHO.

Now, if I had the 70-200 Mk II, I'd probably consider using the 2X with it, but with the Mk I version of that lens along with the 2X, it can't touch the 100-400.