Canon 200-400 F4 1.4x extender anounced!

I've seen price rumors between 7 and 10K.

scubthebub wrote in post #11804777
holy crap! have you see the MTF charts for the other new telephoto lenses (400, 500, 600)?
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ts/cameras/ef_l​ens_lineup

Simply amazing if the real lenses resolve this well, even with the TC

Yep... I was amazed... months ago

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=922504

Jan-Jasinski wrote in post #11804932
Thanks for posting, I was looking for something like that. I am thinking about this but it'll surely be too expensive for me and looking at the size and length of it I won't be able to handhold that! I might be strong but that's like trying to take a clear shot while holding heavy wood! Airport security sure would look at me with weird looks if I would be using it there haha. Man, and I thought it would be a tad bigger than the 100-400L. Why make it so big? I mean it's got a TC included and F/4 but should that make it that much bigger? A 400f/2.8L is prob that big!

By definition a lens that is 400mm/f4 is 100mm in diameter, so they can't make it smaller in radius. And as for the length, it is optimsed for best IQ.

hqqns wrote in post #11805183
By definition a lens that is 400mm/f4 is 100mm in diameter, so they can't make it smaller in radius. And as for the length, it is optimsed for best IQ.

Also the constant f4 places greater demands on diameter than f4-f5.6.

Jan-Jasinski wrote in post #11804932
Thanks for posting, I was looking for something like that. I am thinking about this but it'll surely be too expensive for me and looking at the size and length of it I won't be able to handhold that! I might be strong but that's like trying to take a clear shot while holding heavy wood!

Heh heh - he said "wood"....

The diameter of the lens is primarily based on the fact that it's f/4. A 400 mm lens that is f/4 requires an opening at least 400/4 or 100 mm. I suspect that has some role in the length as well, since all that light gathered by that big front element needs to be gathered and re-focused on the camera's sensor both with and without the teleconverter in the light path.

Side note - the 100-400 shown in that picture is in the 100 mm position. It is roughly 3 inches longer when zoomed to 400 mm. Which is still small compared to the f/4 lens, but it is a more appropriate comparison.

george m w wrote in post #11803873
Yep....and it will be carbon fibre and it will be worth $500 by itself.


So have you called your dealer yet Julian and got your name on the waiting list ?

It's definitely not my priority sir since I'm waiting for the 1Ds IV but, this definitely eliminates buying a 200 f/2.

An HOUR since the last post...that must be a record for this thread! Are we all waiting for a word from Canon? (Or is everyone up there in the North asleep?)

Ricardo222 wrote in post #11805945
An HOUR since the last post...that must be a record for this thread! Are we all waiting for a word from Canon? (Or is everyone up there in the North asleep?)

I think every possible permutation of WAG has been achieved.

Now we sit back and wait for further official info.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11805963
I think every possible permutation of WAG has been achieved.:

the 70-300L thread did the same thing. What happens next is new people will enter and the same discussions will happen over and over again

There's really no mystery with this lens...

It will cost cubic dollars, weigh more than a battleship, excite some, disappoint many and confuse others just like any other new piece of (pro) gear.

(Letting my inner geek out: Given that the graphs for the new primes are nearly dead nutz flatline all the way across the chart, I'm really looking forward to seeing the MTF for this.)

I'm looking forward to seeing the size of the final product.

The Sigma 120-300 has an even larger aperture (105mm), yet they managed to keep it to 2.6kg and around 25cm in length. If the 200-400L is in the same ballpark, it'll be a winner for sure.

If it turns out to be 3.5kg and 35-40cm long, though, maybe not (since you'd likely be carrying a 500L and 70-200 as well, plus a few bodies, filters, tripod, etc.).

Shadowblade wrote in post #11806684
I'm looking forward to seeing the size of the final product.

The Sigma 120-300 has an even larger aperture (105mm), yet they managed to keep it to 2.6kg and around 25cm in length. If the 200-400L is in the same ballpark, it'll be a winner for sure.

If it turns out to be 3.5kg and 35-40cm long, though, maybe not (since you'd likely be carrying a 500L and 70-200 as well, plus a few bodies, filters, tripod, etc.).

I can't see why you would carry a 500L with this lens? And anyway, 3.5kg would be fine, you'd save heaps on gym membership. Bargain!

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11806525
...
(Letting my inner geek out: Given that the graphs for the new primes are nearly dead nutz flatline all the way across the chart, I'm really looking forward to seeing the MTF for this.)

Yes, well, when I looked at the graphs for the new 500 f4, that little voice of reason that occasionally appears quietened the geek in me and asked if I would really honestly ever be able to utilise that quality...or would a good 2nd hand 500 mk1 version do all I ever needed?

I really hate that voice of reason!

hqqns wrote in post #11806863
I can't see why you would carry a 500L with this lens? And anyway, 3.5kg would be fine, you'd save heaps on gym membership. Bargain!

When shooting wildlife, you'd normally carry a long supertele for the long-distance shots (often with the expectation of having to crop a bit as well), as well as a shorter zoom for larger animals or things which come closer. You'd probably use them at around the same frequency.

This lens fits the 'shorter zoom' function really well, but the 500L works better for the long-distance shots.

At the moment, you're pretty much stuck with the 100-400L, which really isn't adequate on a dedicated wildlife shoot if 50% of your shots are coming from it...

Shadowblade wrote in post #11806882
When shooting wildlife, you'd normally carry a long supertele for the long-distance shots (often with the expectation of having to crop a bit as well), as well as a shorter zoom for larger animals or things which come closer. You'd probably use them at around the same frequency.

This lens fits the 'shorter zoom' function really well, but the 500L works better for the long-distance shots.

At the moment, you're pretty much stuck with the 100-400L, which really isn't adequate on a dedicated wildlife shoot if 50% of your shots are coming from it...

If someone is really serious about this type of photography, wouldn't they be more likley to want a 600mm/4 ? If this new lens is good for 560mm/5.6 (we won't know for a while). I just don't whink someone with a 500mm/4 would bother buying this lens at all or vice versa.