OMG: Canon finally released the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x

[kathyt]

It takes a true gear geek to take photos of photographers during an African Safari.

Screw the pictures. I would be making friends.

 

[Overread]

For that price they should include not only a nice padded carrying case, but also a break on the insurance.

B&H has the lens available for pre-order at $11,799.00. The case is another $699.00.

How the case isn't included is a mystery to me...

Eh if it saving near half the price I'm glad its not included (the case price suggests it must be something stupidly strong to survive almost anything - or is just supremely overpriced as an accessory).

 

[DarkShadow]

3,620 grams according to an on-line conversion engine is 128 ounces, or 7.98 pounds, so "about" what some 300mm f/2.8 lenses weigh. In the same general ballpark.

Good god,thats like holding a Newborn Baby.A sturdy tripod comes to mind.

 

[EDL]

3,620 grams according to an on-line conversion engine is 128 ounces, or 7.98 pounds, so "about" what some 300mm f/2.8 lenses weigh. In the same general ballpark.

Good god,thats like holding a Newborn Baby.A sturdy tripod comes to mind.

Bah, a mere featherweight compared to the 34.6 pounds of Sigma's 200-500mm f/2.8 APO EX DG :hail:

 

[DarkShadow]

Wow,I learn something new everyday.I can do curls with that.:shock: I did not realize they get that heavy.

 

[bentcountershaft]

For what it is the weight isn't bad. Less than a gallon of milk.

 

[DarkShadow]

At least lugging a gallon of milk around I can drink it along the way and it starts to get lighter.

 

[Tony S]

Considering that the 400 2.8 IS II is $10,999 and a 1.4TC is another $449 the new combo 200-400 with built in 1.4TC at 11,799 is not bad. And since it's lighter I might actually save money over having shoulder and neck surgery carrying around the 11 pound plus behemoth 400 2.8 IS ... but I do like the 2.8 for night shooting.

 

[TCampbell]

For that price they should include not only a nice padded carrying case, but also a break on the insurance.

B&H has the lens available for pre-order at $11,799.00. The case is another $699.00.

How the case isn't included is a mystery to me...

My EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM included the hard-shell case but you can buy the case separately (I suppose if your case was damaged.) I couldn't find much info on the lens straight from Canon (their page on the lens is pretty thin on content other than to show that the lens is real now.)

HOWEVER... I hopped over to B&H to look up the lens and under the "In the box" tab, they do show that the case is included with the lens. Assuming that's accurate, this lens is even MORE of a bargain! (yes, my tongue sort of was in my cheek.) I did see that they've finally posted the MTF curves for the lens and it's extremely good... even with the 1.4 tele enabled it's extremely good.

 

[o hey tyler]

OMG! I'm probably the only one who is very NOT INTERESTED in this lens.

Glad you guys are though! Start saving! ;-)

 

[Derrel]

This lens, and Nikon's 200-400 f/4 VR...does not make a lot of sense for many scenarios. Oh sure, there are "some" people who want this focal length range, but to "me", I always thought the 200-400 f/4 was kinda useless. Why???

Let's just call the lens 7.5 pounds. Soooo, a 7.5 lb, 200mm f/4??? WTF??? Or a 7.5 lb 300mm f/4? Huh??? A traditional Nikkor 200mm f/4 is about the size of the bottom part of a 12-ounce beer bottle, and used 52mm filters. A Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S is about the size of a 1-liter soda bottle, and is 'roughly' the size of a 70-200mm f/2.8. Basically, the user gets a long, heavy, FRONT-heavy, slow-aperture lens, for thousands of dollars...

Again??? A 7.5 lb 200mm f/4 lens??? F/FOUR????

Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 always struck me as a "so what!" lens...same with this thing. Of course, for daytime birding, and for some field sports shot during decent light, from stationary positions, and where nothing ever comes close to the camera position so that 200mm is not a drawback, and you do not mind being forced to work off a monopod at all times, then yeah, 200 to 400mm stuck at f/4 makes some sense.

 

[Overread]

I've heard many bird photographers (the ones who shoot from hides) like the idea of a high quality 200-400mm lens (as opposed to a more iffy quality 100-400mm) because its a very usable zoom range for when the wildlife comes closer than expected. Yes they'll have their other camera and 500/600mm on the other tripod - but the option to have a 200-400mm (plus 1.4TC with the canon!) is a good range for them to work with since they can then adapt to a situation where they can't physically move themselves to reframe the shot .

Yep its niche - but then appealing to niche markets is the power of the DSLR

 

[Compaq]

Let's say 20 % the TPF members are bots or spamming machines. If the remaining members pitched in one buck each, we could afford almost 10 of those lenses.

 

[kathyt]

My birthday is in late December, so you guys have longer to save up to get it for me.

I will be getting one after I turn in my winning Powerball ticket.

Sorry Tony, I already have the winning ticket.

 

[dolina]

If you're on flickr join our flickr group and share your images from your 200-400mm Flickr: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS Extender 1.4X Lens

Product shot was taken on January 13 2011, development was announced 3 weeks later on February 7 and now available in Canada today.

Two years and two months.

Any info as to the lengthy delay?