Canon 200-400 F4 1.4x extender anounced!

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...

The one stop loss idea is impossible because you cannot increase the size of the aperture with a TC. If I double the focal length, but can't increase the aperture size, then there is not other possible result other than 2 stop loss. THink about it. 400mm/4 is a 100mm wide aperture. Now I double the focal length with a fancy built in TC. The aperture is still the same size because my TC can't make the aperture blades grow. So now I have an 800mm lens with that same 100mm aperture. 800/100 = f/8 or 2 stops.

What you want sounds like that new Sigma 120-300 OS with a set of 1.4x and 2x TCs. That should be just under $4000.

Naw. I just want a 200-400/4L without the fancy extender for half the cost... that's what I want.

Thanks for the explanation, tho. I didn't realize the math was that simple.

scubthebub wrote in post #11808552
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.

The fluorite elements in the 800L would be only a little larger than those in the 500L (going on aperture size), the same size as the 400L and smaller than the 600L - I doubt that is the main reason for the price discrepancy.

Shadowblade wrote in post #11810342
The fluorite elements in the 800L would be only a little larger than those in the 500L (going on aperture size), the same size as the 400L and smaller than the 600L - I doubt that is the main reason for the price discrepancy.

Depends on where the flourite elements occur in the lens. On the 800/5.6, there are 2 flourite elements right behind the protective front glass in the largest diameter portion of the lens, whereas on the 400/2.8 IS, there is only one flourite element and it's farther back in the lens where the diameter is smaller. The 600/4 IS, like the 400/2.8 IS, has only one flourite element.

Take a look at the Canon Camera Museum and you can find all kinds of fun facts about some of Canon's bodies and glass...

http://www.canon.com/c​amera-museum/

When and *if* I even get the money for one of the super-tele's, it will be hard to chose between the 500L and this new 200-400... I am sure the IQ will be better on the prime (but no slouch, for sure), but the zoom capability will be welcome!

Why must these cost so much! I can see a price increase of a thousand or so, but upwards of $2,000+ is insane. Not much you can do though! Maybe I will have to get an older 500L!

Looking at the prices of the new long lenses, the EF 800/5.6 suddenly looks cheap to me.

gasrocks wrote in post #11810741
Looking at the prices of the new long lenses, the EF 800/5.6 suddenly looks cheap to me.

Oh yes? Would you mind buying me one?

Maybe they are cheaper by the dozen.

Pretty soon it is going to be cheaper to pay your subject to get closer.

tkbslc wrote in post #11811026
Pretty soon it is going to be cheaper to pay your subject to get closer.

So, you go ask that wild Rhino how much he would "charge" to move closer? Interesting concept...don't you just love our language?

Classic ! That may just have to be a sig line !

Shadowblade wrote in post #11807456
BTW I don't think you can call the 100-400L 'entry-level'

Yes, I suppose you're right, the 100-400 is far from being entry-level

Ricardo222 wrote in post #11811144
So, you go ask that wild Rhino how much he would "charge" to move closer? Interesting concept...don't you just love our language?

If you can afford this lens, you can afford a rhino too. And you can train him to do your bidding.

I think that wild Rhino woudl be glad to get closer.

gjman wrote in post #11815277
If you can afford this lens, you can afford a rhino too. And you can train him to do your bidding.

Screw the lens; I'm doing THIS!