# Soon to be Launched EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 3, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href=""></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>From Canon Singapore

</strong>Canon Singapore posted an image on the their Facebook page showing the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x.</p>
<p><strong>They say in the caption:</strong>

<em>“Be one of the first to check out the <strong>soon to be launched EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x</strong> at the EOS Experience Roadshow happening this weekend! We’ll be at Cathay Orchard Cineleisure this 4-6 January from 11am-10pm! See you there!”</em></p>
<p>The wait may finally be over. How much you ask? I’m still hearing it’ll be about $11,000 USD.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151216535287883&set=a.289075002882.144120.286731937882&type=1&theater" target="_blank">Canon Singapore</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## sanj (Jan 3, 2013)

The time has come to go bust.


----------



## sanj (Jan 3, 2013)

Is it me or the lens does not look that huge? I would be delighted if it is not huge.


----------



## tiger82 (Jan 3, 2013)

I've handled it. I mated it to a 1Dx at Photoplus and it is huge and quite hefty. Great combination though.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 3, 2013)

tiger82 said:


> I've handled it. I mated it to a 1Dx at Photoplus and it is huge and quite hefty. Great combination though.



I hear it's about the same weight as the EF 600 f/4L IS II at around 8lbs.


----------



## tiger82 (Jan 3, 2013)

They had a 600 there too, it's about the same size. Handling is a little different because of the added lever for the 1.4x TC.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 3, 2013)

One of the worse kept secrets ever. : absolutely no surprise in its release.


----------



## Tom W (Jan 3, 2013)

It's a bank-account buster, but I really like this one.


----------



## infared (Jan 3, 2013)

$11,000....WOW! 
I would expect image quality to be "stunning" even with the extender in place. I know it is just me...but I do not "get" a lens of this configuration at this cost factor. I guess it gives pros good versatility in certain situations.
...but at that cost with an extender switch..sounds like the lens could be open to some serious maintenance situations down the road. Not trying to be negative...just standing back and scratching my head, based on what I know about photography. It is interesting, to say the least.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 3, 2013)

infared said:


> $11,000....WOW!
> I would expect image quality to be "stunning" even with the extender in place. I know it is just me...but I do not "get" a lens of this configuration at this cost factor. I guess it gives pros good versatility in certain situations.
> ...but at that cost with an extender switch..sounds like the lens could be open to some serious maintenance situations down the road. Not trying to be negative...just standing back and scratching my head, based on what I know about photography. It is interesting, to say the least.



actually, I know a lot of bird and sports shooters that would love to have this lens. it's pretty much the ultimate long lens in terms of flexibility, first between having the 200-400 zoom range, and then being able to throw in a 1.4x extender without having to unmount the camera, attach the extender, and then remount the camera.


----------



## Stone (Jan 3, 2013)

kubelik said:


> actually, I know a lot of bird and sports shooters that would love to have this lens. it's pretty much the ultimate long lens in terms of flexibility, first between having the 200-400 zoom range, and then being able to throw in a 1.4x extender without having to unmount the camera, attach the extender, and then remount the camera.



It's a versatile lens no doubt, but I wouldn't consider it the "ultimate". I think the ultimate would be a 200-400 f2.8 with no builtin tc. Sure it would be an absolutely massive lens, but a fast 200-400 for big field sports would let you shoot all day and well into the evening with amazing subject isolation. Throw on your own 2x tc and you've got yourself a killer birding lens at 400-800 f5.6. Now that's a lens I could see myself selling a car for 

The 200-400 is exciting, but I'm still saving for the 400 2.8....


----------



## kubelik (Jan 3, 2013)

Stone said:


> It's a versatile lens no doubt, but I wouldn't consider it the "ultimate". I think the ultimate would be a 200-400 f2.8 with no builtin tc. Sure it would be an absolutely massive lens, but a fast 200-400 for big field sports would let you shoot all day and well into the evening with amazing subject isolation. Throw on your own 2x tc and you've got yourself a killer birding lens at 400-800 f5.6. Now that's a lens I could see myself selling a car for
> 
> The 200-400 is exciting, but I'm still saving for the 400 2.8....



sure, there are plenty of theoretical combinations that would could surmise as more flexible. I'm talking about pitted against current, real-world lenses, it's the most flexible bird+sport lens on the market. plus, I'd disagree that a 200-400 f/2.8 wouldn't be hindered by its massive size. even for field sports, you want to be able to move (even more so with birding), and just because it's on a monopod or tripod doesn't mean that mass and inertia become meaningless.


----------



## Stone (Jan 3, 2013)

kubelik said:


> sure, there are plenty of theoretical combinations that would could surmise as more flexible. I'm talking about pitted against current, real-world lenses, it's the most flexible bird+sport lens on the market. plus, I'd disagree that a 200-400 f/2.8 wouldn't be hindered by its massive size. even for field sports, you want to be able to move (even more so with birding), and just because it's on a monopod or tripod doesn't mean that mass and inertia become meaningless.



I don't entirely disagree with you. This lens is Canon's long overdue answer to Nikon's 200-400 and throwing in the builtin tc is a pretty good display of one-upmanship. I'm sure it will have stellar optics and f4 was probably the best tradeoff between speed and "portability". But I guarantee you if someone built my theoretical fast 200-400, you'd see it on the sidelines and out in the wild. I'd just spend an extra hour per week in the gym, although I don't consider any of the superteles all that heavy.


----------



## dolina (Jan 3, 2013)

Weighs like a 600 and costs almost as much... ;D


----------



## robbymack (Jan 3, 2013)

Woohoo...oh right I'll never be able to afford it. 200-400 without the extender please canon at maybe a price similar to the Nikon?


----------



## infared (Jan 3, 2013)

kubelik said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > $11,000....WOW!
> ...



yeah...it is not something I could ever afford to buy...but I am REALLY interested to see a review of the lens, as it is quite complicated, to see how it performs. ...I get the flexibility part...but $11 GRAND!!!! WOW!.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2013)

I debated this vs. the 500/4 II vs the 600/4 II. Since the 200-400 wasn't available (and technically, I suppose still is not available), I didn't consider it too strongly. But even so, the 600mm is more useful, to me. 

With the 1D X (and soon 5DIII) having f/8 AF capability, this lens would be more interesting if it could take a 1.4xIII, but the design precludes that. Personally, I'd rather have 600mm at f/4 than 560mm at f/5.6.

But I'm interested to see how this lens performs, regardless...


----------



## Plainsman (Jan 3, 2013)

So its going to be very expensive, heavy and slow at the top end.

Same price as the one stop faster 600/4 II maybe.

If this lens is not sharp at 560/5.6 it will bomb.

Even the extremely sharp 300/2.8 II prime has to be stopped down to get half decent images with matching 1.4X converter. So how useful will a 560/8 be on this new zoom?


----------



## KitsVancouver (Jan 3, 2013)

sanj said:


> Is it me or the lens does not look that huge? I would be delighted if it is not huge.



It looks "small" to me as well. You can find some comparison photos online that show it beside the 400 2.8 and 600 4.0. The front element diameter makes it look a bit "wimpy" to me. 

http://images.wantmi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Canon_super_tele_comparison.jpg


----------



## jasonsim (Jan 3, 2013)

I suspect that the use of the built in 1.4x will need no stopping down.  I don't need to stop down my 300mm f/2.8L IS II + 2x III combo. I use it at f/5.6 all day long:







When I used to have the 2x II, I would stop it down slightly to f/6.3:






As many have said on here though, I don't think this will be the ultimate birding lens. 560, is still on the short side. I often need my 800mm, which btw you can buy for less than the price of the 200-400mm. 

I think this will be the lens of choice for those on Safari's where they are stuck in a jeep or something and need the flexibility of the zoom. Also for outdoor sports in daylight.

Kind regards,
Jason



Plainsman said:


> So its going to be very expensive, heavy and slow at the top end.
> 
> Same price as the one stop faster 600/4 II maybe.
> 
> ...


----------



## risc32 (Jan 3, 2013)

i also don't see any need to stop down my 300mm 2.8, but if you feel like you do, go right ahead. 
Did this lens have that tele lock in the earlier photos? i don't remember it, but i might have just missed it.


----------



## max (Jan 3, 2013)

So lets see...
Nikon 200-400mm f/4 = 7 grand.
1.4x TC =300 bucks.

Seems a bit expensive if you ask me... 7-8 grand would be killer!! But it most probably will be 10-11


----------



## pj1974 (Jan 4, 2013)

Like some of the others who have posted in this thread, I am interested in how this lens performs, even though I doubt I will purchase it (I can 'afford' it... but most likely will decide to put so much of my money into other things... and that being not necessarily into photography).

If the Canon 200-400mm IS USM 1.4x lens is as sharp as my 70-300mm L IS USM lens, and performs well with the 1.4x engaged (ie has great IQ and AF is still fast and accurate), I believe it would be very attractive for those that require the flexibility of a zoom up to 560mm.

Obviously I'd prefer a lens that has f/2.8 to 400mm or even f/4 all the way to 560mm. But having said that, the weight (and probably other related issues, ie incorporating IS in a lens of that size) might be prohibitive.

Most of my wildlife shots (including BIF) I manage to seem to get fairly close (it probably depends the bird / environment and my own 'being discreet' nature). So there have been times when I've done BIF photos of eg Australia's Wattle Bird (a small to mid sized bird), and I was too close at 300mm, and had to zoom out to about 200mm. 

Obviously there are situations when one can never have enough mm (eg birds or other wildlife that won't let you get close, or moon shots, etc). For what it's worth, I feel like I really appreciate the flexibility of a zoom when out in the field, and the range of 200mm - 400mm @ f/4 and 280 - 560 @ f/5.6 is a great range, imho. (I don't do sports photography).

I really like the photo comparisons of various Canon tele lenses that KitsVancouver gave a link to (thanks). So while a large part of this post is also academic to me (and I do hope that it performs very well) - I'll keep my eyes peeled. Maybe when I get to retirement I will look at it with different eyes.... a great IS on such a lens is also very helpful!

Canon have come out with a high-spec lens in the 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x - and I think this is a good sign for the future... particularly if its a hit with pro's and enthusiasts. I'm looking forward to reviews, and more importantly seeing great photos from this lens. In the meantime I'm very happy with my very portable 70-300mm L, which in my Canon 7D, gives me a lot of very portable quality for a lot less price!

Paul


----------



## canon816 (Jan 4, 2013)

robbymack said:


> Woohoo...oh right I'll never be able to afford it. 200-400 without the extender please canon at maybe a price similar to the Nikon?



+1. Hopefully with better optics then Nikon's.


----------



## Gcon (Jan 4, 2013)

Time to flip a coin. Left kidney is heads, right kidney is tails. ;D


----------



## sanj (Jan 4, 2013)

KitsVancouver said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Is it me or the lens does not look that huge? I would be delighted if it is not huge.
> ...



Thanks for that. Yeah it is "small". 
But some people have actually touched it and say it's big. Lets see... Hope the wait is close to over.


----------



## sanj (Jan 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I debated this vs. the 500/4 II vs the 600/4 II. Since the 200-400 wasn't available (and technically, I suppose still is not available), I didn't consider it too strongly. But even so, the 600mm is more useful, to me.
> 
> With the 1D X (and soon 5DIII) having f/8 AF capability, this lens would be more interesting if it could take a 1.4xIII, but the design precludes that. Personally, I'd rather have 600mm at f/4 than 560mm at f/5.6.
> 
> But I'm interested to see how this lens performs, regardless...



Ideal situation 600 prime at f4 is better, AGREE. But for me the flexibility of this lens is very welcome. Provided of of course the IQ is close to the prime... When shooting wildlife in open plains even the 600 falls short many times. So the 200-400 and 800 seem ideal to me.


----------



## sanj (Jan 4, 2013)

risc32 said:


> i also don't see any need to stop down my 300mm 2.8, but if you feel like you do, go right ahead.
> Did this lens have that tele lock in the earlier photos? i don't remember it, but i might have just missed it.



Yes the lock was always there.


----------



## sproggit (Jan 4, 2013)

I think this is where I get flamed out to Jupiter, or laughed out of sight... :-\

I am trying to figure out what Canon's digital photography strategy actually is, who their market researchers (if they have any) actually bother talking to, and why they keep shooting themselves in the foot. (And I am sorry that I'm about to wander off topic a bit, but stay with me...)

Canon has recently launched 2 cameras which, for them, are absolute turkeys: the mirror less interchangeable lens EOSM, and the large-sensor G1X. Lots of R&D money wasted in being the last major brand to enter a markets sector, then doing so with a poor product. (Pause for flames).

Meanwhile, in the SLR space they introduce yet another variant camera, the 6D. This is really just a silly compromise - it is selling at the price the 5D should have been offered for, but with a stack of useful features held back. (Pause for more flames).

And in the lens space, they want to charge $11,000 for this? If it had been 5 or even 6 thousand, I could have conceded it made sense. If it was off-the-scale awesome, then 7500 with some steep cash back options. 

But the fact remains that this is likely to sell in only small numbers because of that price tag. I cannot help but wonder if the fact that Canon's last annual profits came in at under a billion are down to a very poor product strategy. They are building products that people don't seem to want (G1X a great example), then when they find one that should have the potential to sell like hot cakes (this 200-400mm) they go and price it out of the market. The amateur who has pushed his or her budget to a 5DIII is hardly going to spend several multiples of the price of the camera on a single lens, no matter how good it is. 

I've been a loyal Canon user for many years, and owned the 10D, 40D and now have a 7, but I just fail to see the point of this. 

Emperor Canon of the Camera Kingdom has no clothes on...


----------



## sanj (Jan 4, 2013)

sproggit said:


> I think this is where I get flamed out to Jupiter, or laughed out of sight... :-\
> 
> I am trying to figure out what Canon's digital photography strategy actually is, who their market researchers (if they have any) actually bother talking to, and why they keep shooting themselves in the foot. (And I am sorry that I'm about to wander off topic a bit, but stay with me...)
> 
> ...



Naaaaa. This lens will be extremely popular I believe. Flames or not. Pausing for them or not. 
People who do not want to pay for this have the 100-400 at their disposal...

And is 6D not selling very well? I thought it was..!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2013)

sanj said:


> When shooting wildlife in open plains even the 600 falls short many times. So the 200-400 and 800 seem ideal to me.



Maybe if Canon releases an 800/5.6L IS II. But I'll take the 600 II over the current 800. With the 1.4xIII on the 600 II, the 840mm f/5.6 combo delivers better IQ than the current 800/5.6, plus the new 600+1.4x is lighter, and allows me to use all 61 AF points on my 1D X (the current 800/5.6 is a Group F lens, allowing only 47 of the 61 AF points to be used). The 600 II + 2xIII is also optically better than the 800 + 1.4xIII. Given that, I expect we'll see a new 800 II coming along pretty soon, because the 600 II seems to have made the current 800/5.6L IS obsolete.


----------



## sanj (Jan 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > When shooting wildlife in open plains even the 600 falls short many times. So the 200-400 and 800 seem ideal to me.
> ...



Yeah I meant 800 II.


----------



## dolina (Jan 5, 2013)

To me the 200-400 is the super tele to have if you are (a) only allowed one as the zoom is very useful, (b) want the built-in extender and you have (c) a lot of light.


----------



## Renzokuken (Jan 6, 2013)

Please allow me to share the photos of the new lens. They are taken in Singapore












*Built-in Tele Converter *





*Lens Hood*





Heard from the staff that this lens still remains as a prototype and is not yet launched


----------



## sanj (Jan 6, 2013)

Thanks for posting the pictures...


----------

