# Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Information



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 1, 2012)

```
<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="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/canon-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x-tc-information/"></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="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/canon-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x-tc-information/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>“Production” model said to exist


</strong>Ben, a CR reader, had a chance to play around with the upcoming EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4tc in South Africa recently. He had a talk with a Canon product manager there about the highly anticipated lens and got to play around with the lens a bit.</p>
<ul>
<li>This was the first time that this specific model was on public display.</li>
<li>Changes were made post Olympics-this is probably the final version.</li>
<li>This one is a production model.</li>
<li>Pricing: somewhere around $11000.</li>
<li>Weight: No official comment from Canon. Ben thinks it feels nearly the same weight as the 600 F4 II.</li>
<li>Focus speed the same as 500 II on 1DX, virtually instantaneous.</li>
<li>Flip switch for converter works like a dream-instant magnification.</li>
<li>One has to move L hand from front to flip switch, when hand holding the lens more difficult to flip switch than with lens on mono pod.</li>
<li>Availability: next 2-3 months.</li>
</ul>
<p>Here’s hoping this lens reaches us in Q1 of 2013.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## ZoeEnPhos (Dec 1, 2012)

Hello Forum Readers!

I was on Canon´s the PRO Imaging Sales exhibition today (1st of December -12) for nature photographers, here in Stockholm, and the Swedish Canon PRO Photo Specialist Mr. K. Mörck was expecting that Canon probably will make an official announcement about when the first production lenses will be available for sales, later on this month of December 2012. I think many has eagerly been waiting for this lens!

/C


----------



## Jonathan Johansson (Dec 1, 2012)

http://youtu.be/S5u8j75i0b8


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 1, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> <li>Pricing: somewhere around $11000.</li>



Yawn....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <li>Pricing: somewhere around $11000.</li>
> ...


Don't worry, just because you're uninterested due to the high price, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people excited about this lens. Granted, I'm not one of them, either, but that's because 560mm f/5.6 is not nearly as useful to me as 840mm f/5.6 (or 1200mm f/8 with AF).


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 1, 2012)

The instant 1.4 teleconverter is a great idea. Switching in a teleconverter on big glass is a great time to have 3-4 hands. When I'm shooting surfers, I dread the swap, always worried a teleconverter or worse yet camera body with no lens is going into the sand.


----------



## kidcharles (Dec 2, 2012)

Sure this lens will be a nice versatile telephoto but given that it maxes out at 560 f/5.6 the $11000 price tag is kind of crazy. I'm sure some will pay, but it is still nuts.


----------



## Waterloo (Dec 2, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <li>Pricing: somewhere around $11000.</li>
> ...



If you can't afford it, why even comment? My money is in the bank just waiting and I'll be one of the first in line.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 2, 2012)

This is a very interesting Lens, no doubt, Nikon's 200/400 f.4 for wildlife shooters is a bit of a Legend, not great, but damn good. Canon's 200/400 will without a doubt be better, but. I'm a wildlife shooter, Africa & Arctic predominantly, I have waited so long for this lens that I decided to get the 400 f/2.8 VII then a few months back added the 600 f/4 V II, The quality of those two Lenses now makes this Lens superfluous to requirement, and as "Neuroanatomist rightly comments, I'de rather have my 400 f/2.8 & 600 f/4 on my 1Dx with option for f/5.6 & (Now) f/8. I just need a little munchkin to carry the Kit around, but I'll manage the minor downside for the upside of Versatility. I also agree with others that say this Lens will likely be a "Must Have" & I wish them enjoyment.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 2, 2012)

With $11000 price tag...I will add this lens on my "DREAM" list :


----------



## robbymack (Dec 2, 2012)

Personally I will never own this lens, I'm curious though of those who will buy it what are you planning to shoot with it? Would you rather canon just have a 200-400 and drop the teleconverter? Nikons 200-400 is one of the few lenses that intrigues me about the dark side.


----------



## hambergler (Dec 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure that is going to be the case with most people,

At 8500 this would be compelling. At 11K I really don't many choosing this over a 400 2.8 or 600 f4.

Even if I had money to burn I'd purchase those two before I ever got the 200-400.


----------



## OCwildlife (Dec 2, 2012)

I'm considering selling a few lenses to get this one. Looking forward to trying it out. I read it will weight 335g or around 7.4lbs. Thats a biggy to me. I'm needing to lighten my gear. [which is usually the old 500mm and iDMK4 around 12 lbs total. With a possible 7DII + 200-400, I would increase distance, and decrease weight. So tempting! Either that or the new 500, which weighs just a little less than the 200-400. Hard decision! I love my 500.
BTW, I'm Linda, hello.  I read this forum alot.


----------



## expatinasia (Dec 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don't worry, just because you're uninterested due to the high price, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people excited about this lens. Granted, I'm not one of them, either, but that's because 560mm f/5.6 is not nearly as useful to me as 840mm f/5.6 (or 1200mm f/8 with AF).



Well said. 

This is a seriously expensive zoom, I am sure many will buy it, but I see little point. Most sport photographers I know already have the 500 or 600s etc. There is very little incentive for them to by this/


----------



## OCwildlife (Dec 2, 2012)

Well the big worry is will that 560mm be as clean as the old 500mm? If it is, then that old heavy 500 will be less missed than I thought. 

And will I want to shoot at f5.6 for the duration of a day in shadows and late afternoons?....back to shooting at 400mm. Not that big of a deal. I do find when shooting with my 300, I am always wishing for a 400. 400 is useful for sports and larger wildlife. Quite a few times I had to run backwards so I could get far enough away for a full shot of a close Bobcat. Tree shooting would be great at 400 also.

Air shows, well 500mm was tight. I had myself wishing for a 400 a few times. It's too bad they could apply that inboard teleconverter to a 500mm. That would be a big seller. Sure, I prefer 500mm, but there are quite a few uses for 400. A revamp of the 400DO would have been great. I'm tired of my shoulders hurting!  So the 200-400 still doesn't help that much.


----------



## ddashti (Dec 2, 2012)

Wow. A video turns the long-lingering "idea" into a reality!


----------



## Zv (Dec 2, 2012)

Granted it is pricey and that it maxes out at 560mm @ f/5.6 as someone put it BUT look at what you get - a pretty awesome zoom range of 200-560mm, the latest image stabilization, a built in teleconvertor (bet that wasn't easy to do!), weather sealing and L build quality. And it's light enough to handhold. Based on Canon's recent lens you can be sure IQ will be pretty darn good too! 

Do I have 11k to spend? Nope. 

Do I wish Canon made a cheaper version? Sure would be nice of them but aint gonna happen. 

I'll leave the sports and wildlife to the rich and be content with my puny 70-200 and 7D instead!


----------



## dolina (Dec 2, 2012)

As heavy as the 600/4 IS II (3920g)? I wonder if it'll approach the weight of the 800/5.6 IS (4500g)!

Priced nearly as much as the 400/2.8 IS II ($11,500)?

The pluses of this lens are the zoom and built-in extender. A short f/4 and and longer f/5.6 are still slow even with modern bodies like the 1DX. Compromises like these are acceptable on a $7,000 lens but not on a $11,000 lens.

I expect this to sell as much as the 800/5.6 IS after the 600/4 IS II was introduced!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 2, 2012)

robbymack said:


> Would you rather canon just have a 200-400 and drop the teleconverter?



Yes! It would be a great replacement for my 100-400. I don't really require the extra reach and have a 1.4 TC for when I do. I would like to gain a stop on the long end, but keep the versatility of a zoom. 

No built-in TC would reduce the price and weight somewhat, which is good. I however doubt Canon will release a 200-400 w/o TC because it will eat into the sales of the 200-400 w/ TC.


----------



## telephonic (Dec 2, 2012)

Allow me to fantasize this beast PLUS 1.4X on 1DX. :


----------



## dolina (Dec 2, 2012)

A separate extender sells for $430. Materials-wise it should be cheaper when integrated.

Rather I think the weight and price is mostly from Canon trying to surpass Nikon's 200-400 VR II.

Anyway, not in the market for this thing. I rather get a white prime than a white zoom.


----------



## sanj (Dec 2, 2012)

This lens has my name written on it. Am going to get it for sure.
Am tired of paying excess baggage every time I travel to Africa. Every time I board a small airplane...

Will sell both my 300 2.8 and 600 f4 (both version 1) and replace it with this. No more sensor dust, excess baggage etc.

I have lost shots earlier because my subjects came too close. Now I wont. 

And on the long end 540mm f5.6 and 600mm f4 is not that different for me. If one day I start making money with my tele shots I will buy the 800...

Happiness...


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 2, 2012)

Waterloo said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



I can afford it, I just wouldn't buy it. It's simply not worth it. If it had been, say, 100-300/2.8 (all zoom range, no TC switch) and, say, $4000, that would have been interesting. As it is, the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS is far more interesting - it has more aperture (107mm versus 100mm), a wider total range (120-600mm versus 200-560mm), a faster maximum f-stop (f/2.8 versus f/4), and a current price of $3,000 (versus $11,000).


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 2, 2012)

dolina said:


> A separate extender sells for $430. Materials-wise it should be cheaper when integrated.



I disagree, the engineering and manufacturing cost for something that moves and needs to be positioned in place within tight tolerances is more expensive than a static component.


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 3, 2012)

sanj said:


> This lens has my name written on it. Am going to get it for sure.
> Am tired of paying excess baggage every time I travel to Africa. Every time I board a small airplane...
> 
> Will sell both my 300 2.8 and 600 f4 (both version 1) and replace it with this. No more sensor dust, excess baggage etc.
> ...



A friend of mine is a pro wildlife shooter , and sadly a Nikon user . He loves the 200-400, and travels the world with one.


----------



## CanonWife (Dec 3, 2012)

Dang--This was going to be my husband's Christmas gift. I've been searching Canon EU/Canon US for months trying to get an Olympic used one for him. Guess I'll just have to give him a little note hidden in some lingerie that says "as soon as Canon makes it you'll get the 200-400"! :-*


----------



## EchoLocation (Dec 3, 2012)

This lens was on display at a camera show in Hong Kong a few weeks ago(I live in China, but nowhere close to there, so i didn't take much notice of it.) My wife showed me an ad for the Canon booth at the show(the ad was all in Chinese,) and the ad clearly stated that the 6D would be on display as well as the 200-400mm 1.4x. 
I basically forgot that this lens hasn't been announced yet(or has it?) as I have seen this lens so many different times in the past couple of years. I'm not sure if the lens on display at the camera show here in China was a preproduction model or a consumer model....
this is definitely turning in to quite the saga.....


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 3, 2012)

I think this lens will be a real hit for wildlife photographers, particularly professionals, or those with sufficiently large bank accounts 

While some people compare it to tele primes. While I'd love to own a Canon 600mm f/4 II - I would find the lack of zoom limiting at times - eg for providing habitual context of wildlife, even birds) - or when larger subjects fill the composition. Then other people compare the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x (as as zoom) to xx-300mm 2.8 zoom lenses. However I believe the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x is a lens in a league of it's own, and shouldn't be compared to such lenses. 

The closest current Canon lens is the 100-400mm L. But it's design (push/pull), older IS, IQ and ultimate reach are not the same. (For the record I expect the 200-400mm 1.4x lens will have very high IQ, and if the 1.4x inbuilt teleconverter is tailored to the lens, I expect it will be particularly good still @ 500mm f/5.6) 

I'm not into sports photography at all (and thus don't need a f/2.8 telelens). Even then, lots of indoor photography requires a faster prime (eg around f/2) So I don't think it should be compared to the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 - as they are different lenses.

Now, I won't be the first to say that getting a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and using a 2x teleconverter will be a great 'budget' workaround... (and even then, not THAT cheap, but substantially cheaper than the rumoured price of the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x) However as a dedicated lens, I expect the Canon's AF will be faster and more accurate and the eventual IQ will be better. 8)

I believe the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 lens is also quite a 'comparable' - though of course it doesn't have the 1.4x. (Note: the latest version of this lens was the Nikon 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED VR AF-S, introduced April 2010 - price $7000 US). That's a popular lens with a number of Nikon wildlife photog's.

Although I can afford it, I very much doubt that I'll ever buy the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x- as I'll choose to use and send my money for other things - including donations to international charities. I just can't justify that price (at least not at this time). As I do like to photography birds (both in flight and perched) - as well as other wildlife, the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x offers a lot in terms of zoom range and I'm sure high IQ. The IS will be helpful, particularly at 560mm f/5.6, and f/4 between 200-400 is not at all shabby!

Currently I have the Canon 70-300mm L - which I love for it's amazing IQ and particularly its portability (fits in my Lowe shoulder bag, and is nicely weighted and compact) . On my 7D it translates to a 480mm on a FF, which isn't too bad - though at times I desire more reach (naturally) and of course the 560mm f/5.6 on a 7D would nearly double that - being the equivalent of about 900mm on FF. :

Well... that's my 2 cents worth. I'm looking forward to it being 100% released, then the reviews -and more importantly - great photos made with it! Cheers.

Paul


----------



## samkatz (Dec 3, 2012)

I don't have the $$ or the physical strength to carry this lens. But if I had both, why not opt for either the 500f4 L or the 600 F4 L? really, if I'm going to empty the bank account and get a herniated disk, I'd go for the prime, with no gimmicks..

Am one who's still hoping for a replacement for the 100-400 L that's a bit sharper, better IS(a given) and lighter weight(I doubt it). Am also considering the 400 F 4 DO. However, I wouldnt spend 6K unless they upgraded it from the original.


----------



## brant (Dec 4, 2012)

600 F4 L FTW!!! ;D


----------



## dhofmann (Dec 4, 2012)

samkatz said:


> Am one who's still hoping for a replacement for the 100-400 L that's a bit sharper, better IS(a given) and lighter weight(I doubt it).



To avoid cannibalizing sales of the 200-400 lens, maybe they will announce a new 100-400 after sales of the 200-400 start to dwindle.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Dec 4, 2012)

A few posters make a good point: Why not just get the 500 or 600?

Well, sometimes you miss shots with a prime. A good example would be a bird flying right at you. Bears with cubs are another reason why a zoom would be superior. Also, the built-in TC offers a big advantage. Changing a TC in the rain or snow is awful.

I like the "look" that primes give for wildlife. But if this lens can be as sharp as the 300 or 500, while offering the ability to pull back to 200mm to get those hooves or cubs in the frame, then it's going to be a popular lens. If it's not as sharp as the primes, then it's in serious trouble.

----------------------------------------
http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/


----------



## candyman (Dec 7, 2012)

I like handholding a lens. I don't mind the 200-400 will take more time to actually hit the market.
I don't look like this guy but I see you need some bodybuilding before you can hold this lens. So time to go to the gym ;D


----------



## jasonsim (Dec 7, 2012)

Anyone looking for the 200-400 + 1.4x range, should consider a 300mm f/2.8L IS II with 1.4x III and 2x III. I just got mine and that combo is super sharp and versatile. Will be selling my old 500mm f/4L IS and old 300mm f/2.8L IS now. If I need something longer than 600mm f/5.6, I have my 800mm f/5.6L IS.

The price of the 300mm f/2.8L IS II has also dropped recently to $6800.00 most places. Add the 2% bonus most places are giving ( Amazon, BH, Adorama ) and purchase with a rewards card ( Amazon give 3x points for items purchased with Amazon Chase card) and you can get a 2x III for nearly nothing. 

Kind regards,
Jason



OCwildlife said:


> Well the big worry is will that 560mm be as clean as the old 500mm? If it is, then that old heavy 500 will be less missed than I thought.
> 
> And will I want to shoot at f5.6 for the duration of a day in shadows and late afternoons?....back to shooting at 400mm. Not that big of a deal. I do find when shooting with my 300, I am always wishing for a 400. 400 is useful for sports and larger wildlife. Quite a few times I had to run backwards so I could get far enough away for a full shot of a close Bobcat. Tree shooting would be great at 400 also.
> 
> Air shows, well 500mm was tight. I had myself wishing for a 400 a few times. It's too bad they could apply that inboard teleconverter to a 500mm. That would be a big seller. Sure, I prefer 500mm, but there are quite a few uses for 400. A revamp of the 400DO would have been great. I'm tired of my shoulders hurting!  So the 200-400 still doesn't help that much.


----------



## sanj (Dec 8, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> samkatz said:
> 
> 
> > Am one who's still hoping for a replacement for the 100-400 L that's a bit sharper, better IS(a given) and lighter weight(I doubt it).
> ...



I am not sure if I agree. Different market segments entirely..!! Not to say that the 100-400 may come later, but for certain the lenses cater to different people.


----------

