Canon 200-400 F4 1.4x extender anounced!

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 think someone with a 500mm/4 would bother buying this lens at all or vice versa.

hqqns wrote in post #11806996
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 think someone with a 500mm/4 would bother buying this lens at all or vice versa.

500L is a lot more portable than 600L,and gives you 700mm f/5.6 with a 1.4x TC.

The 800L is another option, but is, again, larger and heavier.

The 600L is heavier than both.

Darts wrote in post #11793733
Canon Prices. Does anyone understand how canon will determine the pricing of this lens. The price of the lens is NOT determined by the cost of building the lens. The price of this lens is figured by several factors and the cost of making it is not one. One factor for pricing is what are the competitors charging for similar lens. Sometimes manufactures will sell below there cost to take market share away from their competitors.
One of the other factors of pricing is "What the market will bear". Manufactures read major forums to see what our customers are expecting to pay for an announced item. Remember when Ford announced the remake of the Ford Thunderbird. People went nuts. When the Thunderbird hit the showroom floors you couldn't buy one for less than 5k over sticker.
After reading this thread, Canon's cost to manufacture this glass could be $300. but they could easily charge 5k.
Darts

VERY oversimplified explanation of product pricing I'd expect Canon is similar to any other hard goods manufacturer when it comes to product costing and pricing. So many factors in play and they likely have a well honed process to establish MRSP for launch. Manufacturing cost likely doesn't have much, if any part as you mention; pricing versus competitor and what market will bear are others. They'll also consider where this lens fits within the current & future Canon lens lineup, which lenses it might displace for sales, who their target market it, how many units they expect to sell projected over time, lost projected sales of other lenses in the lineup, and the variables go on.

There's a chance for Canon to steal some Nikon business in the sports/wildlife world also. Even though Canon is already very strong in the pro sports category positioning and pricing of this very versatile lens could offer Canon the opportunity to scoop up remaining Nikon pro sports shooters, if they choose to get aggressive. It's a lens that fits a niche with a defined need for broad focal range, with reasonably fast aperture (for the focal range), and the integrated TC sets the bar above Nikon.

I don't believe the 100-400 will be discontinued, unless a replacement focal length/similar priced lens is introduced. The 100-400 is an affordable way for most amateurs to get into a longer focal length and the price difference between it and the to-be-introduced 200-400 will be so great Canon would be shooting themselves in the foot to nix the 100-400. The 100-400 might still get a work over, or it might get replaced by a similar new lens, but Canon needs to maintain an entry-level 400mm zoom.

That's my analysis & pure speculation for now

Rubi Jane wrote in post #11807411
VERY oversimplified explanation of product pricing I'd expect Canon is similar to any other hard goods manufacturer when it comes to product costing and pricing. So many factors in play and they likely have a well honed process to establish MRSP for launch. Manufacturing cost likely doesn't have much, if any part as you mention; pricing versus competitor and what market will bear are others. They'll also consider where this lens fits within the current & future Canon lens lineup, which lenses it might displace for sales, who their target market it, how many units they expect to sell projected over time, lost projected sales of other lenses in the lineup, and the variables go on.

There's a chance for Canon to steal some Nikon business in the sports/wildlife world also. Even though Canon is already very strong in the pro sports category positioning and pricing of this very versatile lens could offer Canon the opportunity to scoop up remaining Nikon pro sports shooters, if they choose to get aggressive. It's a lens that fits a niche with a defined need for broad focal range, with reasonably fast aperture (for the focal range), and the integrated TC sets the bar above Nikon.

I don't believe the 100-400 will be discontinued, unless a replacement focal length/similar priced lens is introduced. The 100-400 is an affordable way for most amateurs to get into a longer focal length and the price difference between it and the to-be-introduced 200-400 will be so great Canon would be shooting themselves in the foot to nix the 100-400. The 100-400 might still get a work over, or it might get replaced by a similar new lens, but Canon needs to maintain an entry-level 400mm zoom.

That's my analysis & pure speculation for now

Totally agree, especially regarding manufacturing costs - after all, I doubt the 800L costs much more to manufacture than the 600L, or the 600L much more than the 500L, but sells for significantly more.

Price the 200-400L below Nikon's offering, and reduce the prices of the new Mk II superteles to that of the current Mk I lenses (over a few months to a year, probably) and Canon could gain itself even more business in sports photography. With newspapers and magazines ordering a hundred lenses at a time, with bodies to match, they'll go for the cheaper solution, provided performance is equal.

BTW I don't think you can call the 100-400L 'entry-level' - it's the best supertele zoom Canon currently offers! More like a 'compact pro' solution, as compared to the bazookas more typical of supertele lenses... the 'entry-level' superteles would be the 75-300 and 70-300 lenses. It definitely needs a revamp, though - just because Canon's now launched a 200-400mm wide-aperture rocket launcher doesn't mean there isn't a need for a lighter, more compact solution, e.g. for travel photography.

Artie Morris say more like $10000

Using the weight difference between the Canon & Nikon lenses below I tried to come up with the weight range of the 200-400mm IS. This assumes that Canon continues the trend forward.

2007-Today Nikkor Super teles
200-400mm VR II 3360g $6,799
200mm VR II 2930g $5,999.95
300mm VR II 2900g $4,635
400mm VR 4620g $8,899.95
500mm VR 3880g $8,499.00
600mm VR 5080g $10,299.95

2008-Today Canon Super teles
200-400mm IS
200mm IS 2520g $5,700
300mm IS II 2350g $7,000 by March
400mm IS II 3850g $11,000 by March
500mm IS II 3190g $9,499 by May
600mm IS II 3920g $11,999 by June

Formula:

a) (Canon / Nikon) * 200-400mm VR II = 200-400mm IS w/o Extender EF 1.4X III
b) (Canon / Nikon) * 200-400mm VR II = 200-400mm IS w/ Extender EF 1.4X III

a) 2,593-2,890g without the 225g of the Extender EF 1.4X III
b) 2,818-3,115g with the 225g of the Extender EF 1.4X III

MSRP should be above US$7,000

Wow! This lens isn't out yet and it sucks for birding/wildlife already?

Some closeup pictures of the lens here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …der-1.4x-Lens-Review.aspx

Wouldn't it have been cool if they could have figured out how to get a 2X extender in there with only 1 stop loss? Yea, I know, it's a matter of physics, but to have an extender that doesn't overlap the range already offered by the lens would be the ultimate...

dog rocket wrote in post #11808357
Wouldn't it have been cool if they could have figured out how to get a 2X extender in there with only 1 stop loss? Yea, I know, it's a matter of physics, but to have an extender that doesn't overlap the range already offered by the lens would be the ultimate...

Would work if the lens was a f/2.8.

Shadowblade wrote in post #11807456
Totally agree, especially regarding manufacturing costs - after all, I doubt the 800L costs much more to manufacture than the 600L, or the 600L much more than the 500L, but sells for significantly more.

One thing to note from a review I read on TDP on the 1200mm L is that the larger lenses take a substantial amount of time to grow the fluoride crystal required for the lens. That's why the 1200 was only made to order with a 1.5 years lead time.

"The EF 1200 L was available by special order with lead times running about 18 months.

Why such a long lead time? For one reason, it takes nearly a year to grow fluorite crystals large enough to be ground and polished for use in this lens. In addition, the lens is "virtually hand-made"."
http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Also each lens has to have a portion of the R&D cost covered so they can continue to innovate. The iPhone 4 for example costs about $150-200 to manufacture, but sells for $600 to cover overhead, design, research, ect.

scubthebub wrote in post #11808552
but sells for $600 to cover overhead, design, research, ect.

& a fat margin for revenue back to shareholders.

Best way to make money in photography is to sell the gear.

dolina wrote in post #11808608
& a fat margin for revenue back to shareholders.

Best way to make money in photography is to sell the gear.

Actually Apple does not payout dividends, it keeps all its cash and reinvests in the company. They have on debt and millions in liquid funds to purchase whatever company they want at a moments notice.

Every market has their markup whether we like it or not

scubthebub wrote in post #11808712
Actually Apple does not payout dividends, it keeps all its cash and reinvests in the company. They have on debt and millions in liquid funds to purchase whatever company they want at a moments notice.

Every market has their markup whether we like it or not

But meeting/exceeding projections of both growth in Sales and growth in Net Profit drives the investment community unnecessarily, so that companies (even ones with ex-dividend stock) which are profitable and growing in both will lay off hundreds of workers anyway, just to please Wall Street -- by increasing the growth percentages even more so that the stock price goes up, not down due to lower-than-projected results missing by $0.01 per share, otherwise.

Shadowblade wrote in post #11807043
500L is a lot more portable than 600L,and gives you 700mm f/5.6 with a 1.4x TC.

The 800L is another option, but is, again, larger and heavier.

The 600L is heavier than both.

unless you're talking about the new 600L MK II...if the old 500mm was portable...the new 600L should be just as portable...those extra 2 ounces can't be that bad, right

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …=117&LensComp=7​48&Units=E