Canon EF 200 - 400 f4 +1.4x

puzzledpaul

Seems like it's more of a reality than a myth ...

I'm considering ordering two ... always good to have a spare

pp

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/unique_telephoto_zoom_available.do?utm_source=newsletter_may_2_13&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/yourspace/newsletter/newsletter_teaser_may_2013.do?utm_source=newsalert-may-2-uk-2013&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsalert

Matthew Saville

Our thoughts on the subject: http://www.slrlounge.com/canon-announces-new-200-400-f4-l-lens-priced-around-the-cost-of-a-small-car

Seriously, this lens costs almost as much as a Nikon 70-200 2.8, 200-400 f/4, a 2X TC and a D4... I'm just saying. Or heck, you could buy TWO Sigma 120-200 2.8's and 2X TC's, plus a D4! :-P

The funny thing is, anybody who was ever tempted by the Nikon 20-400 f/4 VR, well, they probably ALREADY switched cause they got tired of waiting. *coughcough*

=Matt=

ziggy53

http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?page_id=174

David_S85

"…And I'll also add a hard case for $699 in white, please. What? Case is dark grey only? Oh, just forget the entire order then."

puzzledpaul

Reading blog posts like Andy's above (and other similar) just adds more fuel to the 'it's not the kit, it's the user' scenario imo.
I'd love to have kit like a 1Dx + later generation big teles for the cam's high iso performance and extra IS capability provided by the newer lenses (4 v 2 stops)

Possibly because we get murky weather / light on a regular basis, I'm used to being out in same ... and often prefer the results over brighter conditions ... but when having to deal with such an exposure situation, anything extra the gear can provide would be most welcome.

Obviously not suggesting that (mortals like me) having such kit would necessarily improve the end result -but it'd be nice to have a few extra stops (and better AF) at one's disposal sometimes

pp

ziggy53

For those who need it, a Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG APO rents for just over $200/day (in a 4-day rental). That's a MSRP: $32,000.00 lens.

Closer to the price point, a Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM (MSRP: $12,999.00) rents for $90/day (in a 4-day rental).

I have no doubt that the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x is going to be a wildly popular rental item among sports and wildlife photographers.

puzzledpaul

Rental - well, ok - but don't really think it's for me
Since last July I've clocked nearly 900miles on the bicycle I use for travelling to my local venue - minimum round trip 5.5ml, max 8 (depending which part I visit)

My 500 has been part of my gear on each and every trip.
I've no doubt that renting either / both a 1Dx + 200-400 (or other similar gear) would convince me that they're great bits of kit ... but it'd go no further than that, for obvious reasons (and I don't even do the lottery)

pp

Brett1000

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Seems like it's more of a reality than a myth ...

I'm considering ordering two ... always good to have a spare

pp

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/unique_telephoto_zoom_available.do?utm_source=newsletter_may_2_13&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/yourspace/newsletter/newsletter_teaser_may_2013.do?utm_source=newsalert-may-2-uk-2013&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsalert

nice lens, expensive price !

puzzledpaul

Brett1000 wrote: »

nice lens, expensive price !

Indeed - but way out of my pocket (I was jesting, of course )
(UK prices even higher than $/£ conversion as well ...)

However, whilst I accept AR's comments about 'composition control' offered by using a zoom, as an amateur, I'm less stressed by instances where I've missed a shot because the subject has come too close for the 500 I generally use.
Since I visit a local venue on a regular basis, I'll just have another go sometime - not as if I've shelled out mega£ on some trip / got a deadline to meet ... I'm just after a half reasonable pic, whatever the subject.
Also, considering the degree of 'pilot error' usually present, I'd probably zoom it the wrong way ... not a problem one has with a prime
Then there's the fact of only having approx 10% extra reach ... but losing a stop.

pp

jmphotocraft

I can't fathom this lens. I recently bought a cherry used 300/2.8 L IS and a 1.4xTC3 and I couldn't be happier. I'd much rather have the extra stop and the extra kidney than the zoom flexibility. Somehow the fixed lens produces a ton of keepers for me to sell.

puzzledpaul

As usual, RHS of pond ppl need even deeper pockets.

pp

http://www.wexphotographic.com/search/?q=canon%20ef200%20400%20f4

kdog

Interesting read from Peter Read Miller, a sports photographer who got to use one at the summer olympics. http://pixsylated.com/blog/peter-read-miller-canon-200-400mm-london-olympics/

Sam

kdog wrote: »

Interesting read from Peter Read Miller, a sports photographer who got to use one at the summer olympics. http://pixsylated.com/blog/peter-read-miller-canon-200-400mm-london-olympics/

I really love his conclusion:
In short, I think that Canon has really hit a home run with the 200-400mm. Combined with amazing high ISO performance of the EOS-1D X camera, this lens becomes a real “go anywhere, shoot anything” piece of gear for both sports and wildlife photographers.

Say what! I'm sure Peter is a great guy and fine photographer, but lets get real. While I can't argue with what he wrote. While casually writing that this is a great combo, as if it were a vacation travel kit for grandpa, he totally ignores the fact tat this real "go anywhere" camera and lens combo is $18,000. Plus tax, license and dealer prep of course.

I could be a lot poorer than I think I am but even in my wildest fantasies I can't see me owning even just the lens.

While this is certainly a technical marvel, for most of photographic humanity this is a non event.

Sam

mercphoto

I think a big part of the steep price has to do with the fact this is a brand new lens. Even the newly redesigned super tele primes are very expensive. The prior 300/2.8 was a bit of an older lens that probably recouped all its R&D many times over and the cost had dropped steadily the years. The newly redsigned super tele primes plus this super zoom are brand new, lots of R&D to recoup, an unfavorable currency exchange rate too. Early adopters will pay the price to be early adopters. Give it time, the price will drop.

kdog

Has Canon ever dropped the price of any lens by an appreciable amount?

Richard

If you're a professional violinist playing in a major symphony orchestra, you probably have spent somewhere between $30k and $100k for your instrument. Have you looked at the price of digital Hasselblads lately? I can't get very worked up about the price of professional gear--it's simply out of the question for me and that's that.

Sam

Richard wrote: »

If you're a professional violinist playing in a major symphony orchestra, you probably have spent somewhere between $30k and $100k for your instrument. Have you looked at the price of digital Hasselblads lately? I can't get very worked up about the price of professional gear--it's simply out of the question for me and that's that.

Richard,

Just for the record I am not "all worked up" about the price. You seriously don't want to see me "all worked up".

These were simply my first thoughts. Medium format I understand, marvel at and dismiss, but this damn lens is made to fit on my camera, yet the only way one will ever be attached to my camera is if the UPS guy mistakenly drops one off on the porch and then disappears in a vat of lye. :D:D

Sam

pathfinder

Interestingly, the yen is dropping versus the dollar, reaching 100 yen/dollar exchange recently due to the activity of the Bank of Japan; so maybe, we will see Japanese goods decline in price just a bit. That is certainly the plan of the Japanese government. Cheaper cameras and cheaper Toyotas? Really??

This lens is quie expensive, but consider its cost, versus owning a 200 f2.8 L prime, a 300 f4 L prime, a 400 f4 prime, and a 500mm f5.6. More likely it will replace a 300 f2.8 and a 400 f4 DO, and a 500 f4 for some wildlife shooters. For better or worse, it costs considerably less than the combination of an EOS 300 f2.8 IS L II, a 400 f4 IS DO, and 500 f4 IS L . Quite a bit less, I suspect. And will be smaller to carry than those three lenses, and easier to schlep through airports. And from reports, optically just a good as the primes. If true, that is remarkable.

Not having to open the camera lens interface to install the TC will be worth quite a bit on a dusty safari. I hope we see more of this combination in the future from Canon.

ziggy53

kdog wrote: »

Has Canon ever dropped the price of any lens by an appreciable amount?

It's a little hard to find exact prices for past items but, thanks to the Internet Archives, I was able to locate past pricing for the Canon EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM on the B&H page for April 1999. They sold that lens for the very real 1999 price of $1699.00USD.

http://tinyurl.com/pwpxzee
(ziggy edit for correct URL)

Plugging in $1699.00 to a CPI calculator, and adjusting for inflation between 1999 and 2013, I get $2,371.37.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1699.00&year1=1999&year2=2013

B&H has the very same lens currently selling for $1,499.00 (after a $200 "Instant Savings", which I believe is at least partly available due to Canon adjusted dealer cost.)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162616-USA/Canon_2577A002AA_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html

The difference is $872.37 (adjusted 1999 price minus current selling price).

Yes, Canon lenses really do seem to become more affordable after time.

kdog

Thanks for the analysis, Ziggy. However, I would have to argue that accounting for inflation is irrelevant to question of whether or not it might be productive to wait for the price of the lens to drop. What you've shown is that the price of the lens has remained remarkably consistent. Not to mention that the S&P index from 1999 is almost precisely the same as it is today, so the lens really isn't any more affordable today than it was in 1999 for most people.

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/spx1960.html

mercphoto

The comparison to the S&P index is completely irrelevant. Is this lens any more affordable today than it was back in 1999? Ask yourself this, how much has your salary changed in the last 14 years?

kdog

Bill, are you talking price or affordability? They are two completely different concepts in my book. Price is objective, measurable and a noun. Affordability is relative, subjective and an adjective. Here's what you said:

mercphoto wrote: »

Give it time, the price will drop.

To which I simply replied:

kdog wrote: »

Has Canon ever dropped the price of any lens by an appreciable amount?

It was an honest question. I was simply interested in hearing your basis for saying the price would drop.

ziggy53

kdog wrote: »

Has Canon ever dropped the price of any lens by an appreciable amount?

kdog wrote: »

... It was an honest question. I was simply interested in hearing your basis for saying the price would drop.

In addition to the occasional "adjustment" incentive, which manufacturers offer to dealers in order to either stimulate sales or adjust the manufacturer's inventories, manufacturers also offer dealers a more considerable pricing reduction during a new product rollout which replaces an older product. This allows the dealers to liquidate their own old inventories with less capital loss.

The last thing a dealer wants is to get stuck with old inventory of a product the public views as "obsolete", so the manufacturers help them out a bit. It turns out that this final price reduction benefits the end user as well.

Andy

Y'all are crazy with these maths Nobody is going to own this lens unless they make their living off of wildlife, sports or event photography and that warrants the expense. For the rest of everyone, you'd just rent it from borrowlenses.com