New Canon Stuff announced

StewartR said:
With regard to pricing of the 200-400: anyone who thinks it will be anywhere near £4k is away with the fairies, I'm afraid.

For starters the Nikon 200-400 is more like £4.5k-£5k depending on where and when you buy it. Plus there's the built-in Extender which I can see adding £500 to the price. Plus if it's been treated to the same weight-loss programme as the other Canon super-teles, it will be a lot lighter than the Nikon, and that's worth paying for too.

Bottom line: I reckon it will launch at £8k or more, and in the long run it will *eventually* drift down to about £5.5k-£6k.
Click to expand...

So if anyone wants to rent this lens, they best get renting some others from Stuart now so he can get a couple of these on release......
 
StewartR said:
Bottom line: I reckon it will launch at £8k or more, and in the long run it will *eventually* drift down to about £5.5k-£6k.
Click to expand...

*Ouch*

Not exactly 100-400 territory then.

Then again, this comes back to the old argument about people asking why stuff isn't made... it can be, but can you afford it...
 
StewartR said:
Can anyone explain how/why this might be a good idea?

Nikon did this on their awesome 80-400 VR over 10 years ago. If I recall correctly, the manual says this mode is "for people who prefer un-stabilized viewfinder images". It didn't make any sense then and it still doesn't make any sense now. It gives the following "benefits":
* increased shutter lag waiting for IS/VR to spin up;
* degraded AF performance if subject moves in the frame;
* harder to get composition exactly right if subject moves in the frame.

Can anyone explain?
Click to expand...

I too can only think of the battery consumption thing :shrug:

Canon seems to be hitting back at Nikon with lens power rather than cameras. Nikon's big lens choices are now looking distinctly second rate compared to Canons amazing new line up. Very strong draw for sports pros and wildlifers.

New 200-400mm looks fabulous, but nothing like the venerable and much loved 100-400L at all. Not in size, weight or price. Canon seem to have boxed it in at one end with the 70-300L and 70-200L 2.8 with impressive new MkIII extenders, and now the 200-400L at the other.

I think its days are numbered and predict a rush of 100-400L sales. I regretted selling mine the day after it went but needed the dosh for 5D2.
 
im glad of this announcment as i want none of it lol .. im safe :D
 
Don't forget the awesome crash diet 400 2.8.... ooooooh how I'd like a Nikon one of those!
 
desantnik said:
Don't forget the awesome crash diet 400 2.8.... ooooooh how I'd like a Nikon one of those!
Click to expand...

They're all just fabulous. No other word for it :love: And the Canon 1D4 is arguably better than a D3 in some ways...

Once you start doing the mental arithmetic, the psychological switch has already been made. You're on the slippery slope :lol:
 
Sadly, I think financially I'll not be in a position to kit up with a shiny Mk4 and some new "miss world slimmer of the year" white gear.

If money was no object, no question really.
 
StewartR said:
...Bottom line: I reckon it will launch at £8k or more, and in the long run it will *eventually* drift down to about £5.5k-£6k.
Click to expand...

Does anyone want to buy a kidney (or anything else I have two of)? :wave:
 
HoppyUK said:
I think its days are numbered and predict a rush of 100-400L sales. I regretted selling mine the day after it went but needed the dosh for 5D2.
Click to expand...

I like mine so much I now have two.
It would be nice to have a constant f4 across the range though.
 
desantnik said:
Sadly, I think financially I'll not be in a position to kit up with a shiny Mk4 and some new "miss world slimmer of the year" white gear.

If money was no object, no question really.
Click to expand...

I think that's a really interesting comment :) A couple of years ago a lot of pros were making the jump the other way just to get a D3, and the new money-making opportunities it created. Now it's changed.

Canon seem to have played a cool hand here, and made very good use of their lens power. They have a plant dedicated just to producing fluorite glass, which I think is unique amongst lens manufacturers. It's their magic dust, the key to these long lens' performance and spec, and Nikon just haven't got it.

boyfalldown said:
:D yes and only three years behind it, and only then just 'arguably' :D
Click to expand...

'Arguably' is good enough, and how long did it take Nikon to come up with full frame camera at all? :D
 
HoppyUK said:
I think that's a really interesting comment :) A couple of years ago a lot of pros were making the jump the other way just to get a D3, and the new money-making opportunities it created. Now it's changed.

Canon seem to have played a cool hand here, and made very good use of their lens power. They have a plant dedicated just to producing fluorite glass, which I think is unique amongst lens manufacturers. It's their magic dust, the key to these long lens' performance and spec, and Nikon just haven't got it.
Click to expand...

Without hijacking this thread - at the pro sport end of the market, significantly lighter long lenses are such a massive boon that it cannot be overlooked.

Whilst low light was the battlefield of the past, the Mk4 whilst not being the absolute winner is still "good enough" (unlike the Mk3) to compete and its still APS-H and not FX.

Personally, couple a "good enough" APS-H with lighter long primes and thats firmly sports tog territory.

FX for long lenses is a bit of a pain IMHO, which is why I haven't done it.

Possibly the only Nikon counter is the rumoured probodied DX with a generation newer sensor that offers "good enough" high ISO for sports (to be fair, controlled noise at ISO 26k would be fine unless you were shooting black bear baiting in coal cellars with non functioning light bulbs).

My original switch to Nikon btw was largely because Nikon offered almost as good as a 1D MkIII (in most respects, better in some others) for a fraction of the cost. I simply couldnt justify the expense of best of breed - just as I still can't now :D
 
I am (still) pretty eager to try a 200-400 when I get the chance. I got close last year to getting a Nikon one and D700 before I bought the 1DIV. Now, I feel I probably made the right choice. I think the inbuilt TC is genius and could be a game changer for many outdoor photographers (and how many use big (ish) telephotos indoors?).

Only challenge I can see is that the obvious big prime to go with a 200-400/4 and 280-560/5.6 is an 800/5.6 and that is getting silly!
 
Probably motorised and moves out of the way. Quite common on pro video lenses. You can see the bulge on the pictures for it to move into.
 
If you look at the DPreview large image you can see not only the bulge but also a large lever marked "1x" and "1.4x". I suggest handraulic as opposed to motorised :D

How will it allow for the change in distance between rear element and sensor? Might sound a silly question, but just technically curious....
 
jerry12953 said:
How would the built-in TC work though?
Click to expand...

It looks like a simple mechanical pivoting lever in the pictures - just move it across and lock it. Only a few light bits of glass, like flicking a switch. Should be be sweet and light :thumbs:

I think we might see more of this feature. If there is room in the lens, which there is with longer focal lengths, and if many people are using an extender on a fairly regular basis anyway, it makes so much sense.

In the past, extenders and teleconverters were a dirty word in my optical dictionary, but now they're really good. I've even got one! :eek:
 
grumpybadger said:
Probably motorised and moves out of the way. Quite common on pro video lenses. You can see the bulge on the pictures for it to move into.
Click to expand...

That bulge behind the knob for the tripod mount then.....and it rotates into position or moves over bodily? Not that I mind really. It's whether it works that matters.....

At least it LOOKS LIKE the knob for the tripod mount. Maybe it isn't......
 
Last edited:
Sure I read somewhere that Nikon have the patent for a 100-500mm lens, what's the odds that will be developed as competition for the Canon 200-400mm
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
Sure I read somewhere that Nikon have the patent for a 100-500mm lens, what's the odds that will be developed as competition for the Canon 200-400mm
Click to expand...

Wait you can patent focal lengths? Or have I completely misunderstood your sentence...
 
600d looks good not enough to warrent a upgrade from the 550d
 
tijuana taxi said:
Sure I read somewhere that Nikon have the patent for a 100-500mm lens, what's the odds that will be developed as competition for the Canon 200-400mm
Click to expand...

Nikon have a 200-400 f/4 already that I guess is competition
 
Skyline On Fire said:
Wait you can patent focal lengths? Or have I completely misunderstood your sentence...
Click to expand...

No but you can patent lens design the optical layout
 
boyfalldown said:
No but you can patent lens design the optical layout
Click to expand...
Yes you can, and the rumour sites love to trumpet that so-and-so has filed a patent for such-and-such a lens design. But NOBODY caught a whiff of a lens with a built-in teleconverter, which is such a novel design you'd think it would surely have been patented...
 
It probably was Stewart, except that no one understood the patent. Have you ever tried decyphering the ones that get posted on CR? The tech drawings are a nightmare! :D
 
Ooooooooo that 200-400 sounds interesting, though I know I will never be able to afford it, or even be able to jusitify spending the ££££ on it.

Would be interested to see how the recently announced Sigma 120-300 OS f2.8 compares to it (I am hoping this will be much cheaper than than the 200-400!)
 
tijuana taxi said:
Sure I read somewhere that Nikon have the patent for a 100-500mm lens, what's the odds that will be developed as competition for the Canon 200-400mm
Click to expand...

Nikon have had a 200-400mm since about 1983. A 100-500mm might be possible, but maybe they'd just update their 80-400mm or release a 100-400mm?

On the 200-400mm is the inclusion of a 1.4 TC something a lot of people who use the Nikon 200-400mm use? I'd reckon you'd need a pretty clear day for it due to haze?
 
I'm reckoning on the street price being round about £9499.99 when it's released.

I grabbed this from POTN.

Extender 1.4x not engaged
- FF crop camera would be 200-400 @ f/4
- 1.3x crop camera would be 260-520 @ f/4
- 1.6x crop camera would be 320-640 @ f/4

Extender 1.4x engaged
- FF crop camera would be 280-560 @ f/5.6
- 1.3x crop camera would be 364-728 @ f/5.6
- 1.6x crop camera would be 448-896 @ f/5.6

I wonder if it'll be here before the 2012 Olympics.
 
I'd say almost certainly, if it isn't then they really have missed the boat there.
 
Laudrup said:
On the 200-400mm is the inclusion of a 1.4 TC something a lot of people who use the Nikon 200-400mm use? I'd reckon you'd need a pretty clear day for it due to haze?
Click to expand...

Common wisdom is that it doesn't take a TC too well (its actually pretty much f5 not f4)- although my own experience with the 200-400 even without TC is pretty blurgh anyway.

Haze can be an issue for really long stuff, but things like the 500 f4 or 600 f4 perform very well indeed, without the issues I was seeing.

I am sure Canon won't be making something with the same problems!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top