# missing 200-400 and 100-400 announcements?



## dallasdave (Sep 13, 2012)

Hi all,

Been watching this site all year and I thought by now we were supposed to have announcements about the new 200-400 and the updated 100-400 leading into Photokina...?

With nothing being announced by now are we now looking at end of year (Xmas) or even next year?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 13, 2012)

Rumors are just that. Nothing you read here is guaranteed, and many post that a item is confirmed based on talking to a local camera salesman, who likely has no real inside knowledge.
Never buy or sell equipment based on just a rumor. Just enjoy the many fine contributors to the site and take photos!


----------



## dallasdave (Sep 13, 2012)

I understand rumors are rumors, but I thought the 200-400 at least was used at the Olympics?

so unless something major was found wrong with it, they should be able to announce it by now


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2012)

dallasdave said:


> so unless something major was found wrong with it, they should be able to announce it by now



Sure, they _could_ announce it now. But what if that can't produce it in quantity for another year? Maybe they're figuring out that long lags between announcement and availability, and repeated slipping of shipping promises, piss off their customer base, and they're going to wait until they're sure they can meed demand at release?


----------



## dolina (Sep 14, 2012)

My guess would be the 200-400 will ship next year.

An updated 100-400 is just a rumor and not an actual product.


----------



## canon816 (Sep 15, 2012)

All I can say is I hope they don't release this lens (200-400) for another 5 years. I have already spent too much money on gear. Although I do have two kidneys and im pretty sure I only need one... ??? ???


----------



## AE5+ (Sep 15, 2012)

We already get big gaps from announcements to availablilty, the Mark II big whites were announced in August 2010, and have only been available in the UK a short time, so nearly 2 years.

Personally I would prefer they delay announcements until they have stock ready to ship. If I see an interesting item announced that I want buy, I want to be able to buy it straight away, and not have what feels like a never ending wait for it to come to the shops.

I have decided to change my 50mm lens for a 24-70 MKII (because of rumors I knew it was on the cards), but by the time it comes to the UK (I expect Jan 2013) that decision will have been made 2 years ago.

I think rumors is excellent for planning the longer term changes to your camera system, and possibly avoid some shorter purchases that have to be replaced.


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 15, 2012)

I hate nothing more than waiting between announcements and delivery. Therefore I am also happier in case there is no announcement around until they can actually deliver the goods. In any case I tend to buy what is at that time needed and available, so my recommendation for you is to take a look at 500mm or 400mm prime lenses. Don't worry about lenses not appearing for the next year or so. You won't be able to bring those lenses to your next shoot, will you?


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 17, 2012)

The 200-400 is particularly surprising, since there apparently were several (dozen?) at the Olympics. Unlike a couple other posters, I prefer to know what is coming in the future, since it allows me to better plan my equipment expenditures.


----------



## vlim (Sep 17, 2012)

Why ? no 200-400, no new 100-400, no new 400 (5.6), 2012 is not a year for the wildlife photographers :-[


----------



## tron (Sep 17, 2012)

Rumor has it that there will be more ... rumors in the future about a new 100-400 lens ;D


----------



## dallasdave (Sep 17, 2012)

I have an old 100-400 that I have sent to canon twice for cleaning and recalibration in the past 2 years. I've been waiting for the mark 2 to finally come out, but yes, it's just more and more rumors :-[


----------



## Omar H (Sep 17, 2012)

Yes, the sites will continue to be flooded with rumors about a new 100-400. When if finally gets announced (assuming the rumor becomes fact) then the same sites will be flooded with bitching about the price of the such "new lens" 

after that, comes the thrilled fotographers claiming this to be the best lens they've ever seen : without actually having it used for long enough. finally, someone will come up with a ludicruos flaw in the lens (big emphasis on the price again) and how Canon missed the mark again 

about two years into this, we'll start reading rumors about the "new" 100-400L MIII 8) and there we go again!!


----------



## dallasdave (Sep 19, 2012)

I wondering if the plant shutdowns have anything to do with the 200-400 not being announced?

I'm now taking a look at the Sigma 100-300 F2.8 OS as a replacement to my 100-400. I don't like the loss of 100mm, but with the 1.4 ext, maybe it's not too bad.


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (Sep 19, 2012)

Canon's new supertelephoto lens probably launching year-end
http://asia.cnet.com/canons-new-supertelephoto-lens-probably-launching-year-end-62218773.htm


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 19, 2012)

Yes, yes, make it available!  Severe lens acquisition syndrome is affecting me again. ;D


----------



## vlim (Sep 19, 2012)

Yes that's great but it will concern very fortunate ans passionated photographers ou professional ones...

But the majority of us (sports or wildlife photographers) wants a new 100-400 f/4-5.6 or a new 400 f/5.6 or a new 300 f/4


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 19, 2012)

Don't be offended, because of the expected price range.

I was just joking, because of the previous post pointing to end-of-year availability. I don't even know yet, if I will buy it. Perhaps after test results and prices have been published I will still choose a prime. Nevertheless it looks very promising to me.


----------



## dolina (Sep 19, 2012)

So Canon changed the MFD from the prototypes?







It is heavier than what I was expecting it to be. I was expecting it to be within 3kg and closer to the 500/4 IS II

$10,000~ price tag wasn't that surprising.


----------



## jthomson (Sep 19, 2012)

dolina said:


> It is heavier than what I was expecting it to be. I was expecting it to be within 3kg and closer to the 500/4 IS II



I'm also surprised at the weight. Given the latest canon releases I would expect it to weigh less than the Nikon 200-400mm even with the added extender.


----------



## bk-productions (Sep 19, 2012)

Bit too expensive for my pocket


----------



## candyman (Sep 19, 2012)

I don't have experience with a lens of 3.6 kG
How is it to work handheld with a lens of this weight?


----------



## GuyF (Sep 19, 2012)

candyman said:


> I don't have experience with a lens of 3.6 kG
> How is it to work handheld with a lens of this weight?



The obvious answer is, it depends on your strength and what you are shooting. Last Saturday I used a 5D3, 300mm f2.8 IS and 1.4x converter all afternoon at an airshow. The combined weight is about 3.6kg and my arms got a bit tired towards the end but not as bad as I thought they might (I'm not the strongest of people). The main problem was trying to hold steading in very high winds. Certainly if I got something heavier, a monopod would be essential. The thing is, you'll never be able to judge until you try - a couple of minutes in a shop is nothing like wielding a heavy lens for hours


----------



## Kernuak (Sep 19, 2012)

dolina said:


> So Canon changed the MFD from the prototypes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The prototype I tried out at Focus on Imaging in March felt similar to the 300 f/2.8 IS, so I would expect it to be under 3 kg too.


----------



## dolina (Sep 19, 2012)

As the man said it depends on your fitness level.

But what I have seen of photos from the Olympics this lens sends to be attached to a nice sturdy monopod.



GuyF said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have experience with a lens of 3.6 kG
> ...


----------



## Hodag (Sep 20, 2012)

dolina said:


> So Canon changed the MFD from the prototypes?
> 
> It is heavier than what I was expecting it to be. I was expecting it to be within 3kg and closer to the 500/4 IS II
> 
> $10,000~ price tag wasn't that surprising.



Where did you see a price?


----------



## tron (Sep 20, 2012)

Pros could beg to differ but I think a 500mm f/4L IS II is a much better value for money and much more useful.
Of course I compare apple to oranges here but still 10000 is too much for a zoom .... 1 stop better than ... 100-400!

Now a 500mm f/4L IS II on the other hand... I stop now! I will think of it in 3-4 years (unless 5D4 is announced oh well ...)


----------



## Daniel Flather (Sep 20, 2012)

tron said:


> (unless 5D4 is announced oh well ...)



You're the first to mention 5D4 in passing. Here we go.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 20, 2012)

dallasdave said:


> I wondering if the plant shutdowns have anything to do with the 200-400 not being announced?


No, they do not. The lens is under d3evelopment, so sample lenses that are handmade are being loaned out. Apparently, Canon is still not ready to produce them. Growing those large flourite crystals is a expensive and time consuming process, and once the design is finalized, the growing can commence in earnest.


----------



## dolina (Sep 20, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> No, they do not. The lens is under d3evelopment, so sample lenses that are handmade are being loaned out. Apparently, Canon is still not ready to produce them. Growing those large flourite crystals is a expensive and time consuming process, and once the design is finalized, the growing can commence in earnest.


My take is they need to produce enough copies before spending on shipping any units out. I hope the copies used in the Olympics gets distributed to our CPS so I can loan them out for a few days.


----------



## M.ST (Sep 21, 2012)

The new EF 200-400 is definitely no walk around lens, very heavy and expensive.

Who needs such a lens?

Don´t waste your money and use one of the big Canon telephoto lenses instead.

For travelling I wait for a new 100-400 lens.


----------



## canon816 (Sep 21, 2012)

M.ST said:


> The new EF 200-400 is definitely no walk around lens, very heavy and expensive.
> 
> Who needs such a lens?
> 
> ...



Who needs such a lens? 

I don't know, who needs a macro lens? Instead of macro people should just be happy with mid range zoom.
who needs long prime glass anyway? Instead go use a wide ange.
Need a wedding lens? I recommend you shoot without a lens...

This lens will have a great following and for many it will be a great consolidation of focal lengths. Sport photographers, nature photographers and traveling photographers just to name a few.

I know that I would happily give up my big glass for this lens if the IQ is just as good. I do a ton of wildlife photography and hike to access most of it. Currently I carry in an old 600 f4 and a 3002.8. I also shoot from a kayak and carry 2 bodies with long and short glass. I also travel and hate having to choose which lenses to fly with.

Well, maybe you are right. Who needs this lens anyway, maybe i'm the only one who could benefit from this lens.... Stupid canon...


----------



## IIIHobbs (Sep 21, 2012)

canon816 said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > The new EF 200-400 is definitely no walk around lens, very heavy and expensive.
> ...



LOL

Different strokes...

The 200-400 1.4x will be extremely versatile and much appreciated by those who benefit from the obvious flexibility offered by this lens. For any/everyone else, use whatever suits your needs.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 21, 2012)

I'm a sports photographer and unfortunately I won't be buying it either. If it only opens up to f/4, that won't be good enough for most of my stuff.

Edit: No fault of the lens, but AU's scheduling practices, ie everything has to be outside at 7pm


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2012)

canon816 said:


> Well, maybe you are right. Who needs this lens anyway, maybe i'm the only one who could benefit from this lens.... Stupid canon...


If this is your profession so be it. But Canon is stupid in everything related to 200-400 in the sense that they announced it months er year(s) I mean before it will actually be available. They were not professional enough to say even approximately when it will be available


----------



## canon816 (Sep 21, 2012)

tron said:


> canon816 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, maybe you are right. Who needs this lens anyway, maybe i'm the only one who could benefit from this lens.... Stupid canon...
> ...



Nothing sells better then hype... Maybe it is part of their marketing strategy... perhaps not so stupid after all.


----------



## DzPhotography (Sep 21, 2012)

I want one


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2012)

canon816 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > canon816 said:
> ...


Maybe you are correct! Stupid? No But professional? Still NO!


----------



## DzPhotography (Sep 22, 2012)

tron said:


> canon816 said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


----------



## dolina (Oct 7, 2012)

Dimension comparison between the 400, 500, 600 and 800.






400's 13.5-inch
500's 15.1-inch
200-400's 14.5-inch?

Reported to be heavier than the 400 (3850g). So does this mean the 200-400 is lighter than the 600 (3920g)?


----------



## candyman (Oct 7, 2012)

I would replace my 70-300L if the IQ of the new 100-400 is better than the 70-300L 
What do you think, will it be better?


----------



## canon816 (Oct 7, 2012)

candyman said:


> I would replace my 70-300L if the IQ of the new 100-400 is better than the 70-300L
> What do you think, will it be better?



If and/or when this lens comes out I doubt it will be better then the 70-300mm at 300mm.

The current 100-400 and the 70-300 lenses are both about the same for image quality at 300mm. The real advantage is the extra 100mm in one lens.

I do hope that the new version of the 100-400 would be slightly better then the old one. I would love this lens as an all purpose walk around/kayak wildlife lens. 

I'd love the 200-400, but the more I think about it the more I am discouraged by the weight to consider it as a walking/kayaking lens. Thus the 100-400 rumors get me very interested.

Like you... the IQ will be the deciding factor for me.


----------



## Greatland (Oct 7, 2012)

I spoke with someone who actually used it in London. He said it was an awesome lens, for what that's worth...I have been on a waiting list for the 600 for several months now and still don't have it....right now that is the one that I can't wait to get my hands on...Got the 1Dx back in late July, after being on another list since November so I guess that is just kind of SOP with Canon right now. Damn I want that new 600...sold my 500


----------



## kirispupis (Oct 8, 2012)

The 200-400 will be out of my price range, but if I had the money it would certainly be near the top of my list. It is an extremely versatile lens that I expect will become a favorite of wildlife photographers.

For me I am hoping for a new 100-400 lens. My suspicions are a new version would have the following attributes
- Slightly lighter, but otherwise similarly sized to the old one
- Much sharper. @400/5.6 this will be a very sharp lens - probably not near the level of the new 500 and 600 but significantly better than the old one.
- Much better AF. The old version was slooooow. The new one will be much better, at least for a 5.6 lens.
- Price about $3k

If it has those attributes I will buy it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 8, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> If it has those attributes I will buy it.



Me, too!


----------



## bvukich (Oct 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > If it has those attributes I will buy it.
> ...



Me three. I've rented the current version and was quite impressed. Good AF, good IS, sharp... I even liked the shotgun zoom, makes it really quick and easy to go from wide and see the whole field (football) and zoom all the way in nearly instantly to catch some action.

I really want one, but I can wait until there's a new version. I'll just rent it again if I need it before that.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 8, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Rumors are just that. Nothing you read here is guaranteed, and many post that a item is confirmed based on talking to a local camera salesman, who likely has no real inside knowledge.
> Never buy or sell equipment based on just a rumor. Just enjoy the many fine contributors to the site and take photos!



+1.....I'm in the same boat waiting for new 100-400mm. I'm currently cover from 16 - 200mm at F2.8 straight - range I use most. Therefore, I'm no hurry for 100-400 yet, but it would be nice to have a lens that can cover up to 400mm.


----------



## dolina (Oct 8, 2012)

And remember not all rumors are created equal.

Some rumors are circulated by those who are under a non-disclosure agreement
Some rumors are based on hypothesis from known product life cycles, upcoming events, anniversaries and milestones
Some rumors are wishful thinking from Internet forums
Some rumors are just plain bogus

Buy based on requirement weighted upon available information.

Remember, all refreshed gear will cost more than what they are replacing.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 8, 2012)

Canon has really done well modifying buyer behaviour... the current 100-400 is about $1600 and you guys are saying that you are willing to buy a mk.ii for 2x the price?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 8, 2012)

tron said:


> If this is your profession so be it. But Canon is stupid in everything related to 200-400 in the sense that they announced it months er year(s) I mean before it will actually be available. They were not professional enough to say even approximately when it will be available


You seem to be confusing the statement that it was under development with a new product announcement. That is a big difference. It might take years to develop a product, there may be little pitfalls along the way, like the Tusanmi, which they should have predicted (very unprofessional not to have predicted that), and shut down the power consuming fluorite line and ruined many months production worth of crystals, if not more. That alone likely set back development for almost a year, since production would certainly have priority over R&D.
Once the product is announced, then start the clock to delivery. Right now, only prototypes have been seen, and for all we know, another tweak in the design is needed before its ready to announce.


----------



## dolina (Oct 8, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Canon has really done well modifying buyer behaviour... the current 100-400 is about $1600 and you guys are saying that you are willing to buy a mk.ii for 2x the price?



Market dictates price. ;D


----------



## dallasdave (Oct 9, 2012)

What's frustrating to me is that the 100-400 is such an old model and yet they won't update it, and the 200-400 was in use at the Olympics and yet there's no news on it either.


----------



## kirispupis (Oct 10, 2012)

My suspicion with the delay in the 200-400 is a factor of trying to balance market sustainability with engineering. I fully believe that Canon already has the know-how to build this lens. Where the problem comes is building one that will actually sell. How much of a premium will people pay for the built in extender?

Canon's 300/2.8 II is currently priced at $7250. Nikon's 300/2.8 VR is currently priced at $5700 compared to their 200-400 VR II at $6700. If you extrapolate this price then it comes to $8500 for a Canon 200-400. The 1.4x III extender is $500.

However the latest CR posts have put the price at $10k-$11k. That is a hefty premium for the convenience. At these prices the 300/2.8 II is quite a bit cheaper and handles a 2x extender very well. This also puts it in competition with the 400/2.8 II.

For this product to be a success, IMHO, they really can't price it above $9500. Even at that price I expect a number of people to find the 300/2.8 II to be a better alternative. The reason we are seeing the delay is Canon is finding it difficult to design the lens for that price while still keeping it within the optical standards of their best telephotos.

IMHO Canon really made a mistake here. They would help themselves far more by releasing a 200-400 without the 1.4x extender at $8500.


----------



## leecheeyee (Oct 10, 2012)

I want for the new 100-400 for long long ago!!!


----------



## FarQinell (Oct 10, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> My suspicion with the delay in the 200-400 is a factor of trying to balance market sustainability with engineering. I fully believe that Canon already has the know-how to build this lens. Where the problem comes is building one that will actually sell. How much of a premium will people pay for the built in extender?
> 
> Canon's 300/2.8 II is currently priced at $7250. Nikon's 300/2.8 VR is currently priced at $5700 compared to their 200-400 VR II at $6700. If you extrapolate this price then it comes to $8500 for a Canon 200-400. The 1.4x III extender is $500.
> 
> ...




I agree. In fact why did Canon bother with the fancy built in extender?
Surely a 200-560 zoom would have been much easier to design and manufacture.
If the new lens is not extremely sharp at 560/5.6 it will be considered a failure if the asking price is very high IMHO.


----------



## jthomson (Oct 10, 2012)

The 10K price doesn't make much sense.

The Nikon 200-400 is $1000 less than the Nikon 500mm.

I can't see the Canon unit being more expensive than the Canon 500mm.
If it really is 10 K then the Nikon 200-400 plus a converter plus a camera would be less than the Canon lens.


I like the Idea of the 200-400 1.4x, but if it is more expensive and heavier than a 500mm then i don't think it will sell well.


----------

