# EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Availability



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 16, 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="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13344"></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/?p=13344">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>A light at the end of the tunnel?

</strong>I spoke to someone at NAB last week about the yet-to-be-officiall-announced EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x. I was told that the lens is now “expected to arrive in the fall of 2013. The design and functionality of the lens are set, Canon is now waiting for the manufacturing process to be finalized so production can begin”.</p>
<p>I got to hold and play with the 200-400 a bit last week, and I must say the weight of it shocked me. It’s going to be pretty close to the EF 600 f/4L IS II. I’m sure everything else about the lens is top notch, as we’re still being told to expect a price north of $10,000 USD.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 16, 2013)

could not care less about when or if this 10000 euro lens is released.

but i want a great 12-24mm lens... !!!


----------



## ksuweh (Apr 16, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> could not care less about when or if this 10000 euro lens is released.
> 
> but i want a great 12-24mm lens... !!!



I want both! Not looking good for my bank account!!


----------



## sanj (Apr 16, 2013)

Thank you for the information.


----------



## RGF (Apr 16, 2013)

ksuweh said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > could not care less about when or if this 10000 euro lens is released.
> ...



+1 on the lens, +10 on the bank account.


----------



## Barrfly (Apr 16, 2013)

That's kind of pricey , but on the bright side I'm sure they will knock off a few bucks if you get it as a kit lens with the new 7D mkII .


----------



## iMagic (Apr 16, 2013)

So over 8 lbs? Yikes.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 16, 2013)

iMagic said:


> So over 8 lbs? Yikes.



Holy cow, not that I'd be in the market for a 10k lens, but I'm wondering what users Canon has in mind - at this weight, most photo-journalistic or quick action shots seem to be impossible?

But probably it's really a small pro sports (and maybe wildlife?) market, and those few people are fine to shell out that money for top notch iq & reach flexibility.


----------



## Sella174 (Apr 16, 2013)

Probably a stupid question, but what is the purpose of this lens ... apart from another look-what-we-can-do lens to divert attention from the fact that Canon cannot make EF-S primes.


----------



## RGF (Apr 16, 2013)

iMagic said:


> So over 8 lbs? Yikes.



that is on par with other canon L series lenses - around $1200 / Lb ;D ;D


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 16, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> iMagic said:
> 
> 
> > So over 8 lbs? Yikes.
> ...



Until you put it on a monopod/tripod and shoot from the side of a major sports event or out stalking wildlife. Or you're a paparazzi and needs to be able to go from shouting "Hi there" to being so far away as to be unnoticeable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> ...another look-what-we-can-do lens to divert attention from the fact that Canon cannot make EF-S primes.



Last time I checked, Canon was doing just fine at making the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro.


----------



## Sella174 (Apr 16, 2013)

OK, let me rephrase that ... "another look-what-we-can-do lens to divert attention from the fact that Canon cannot make a second EF-S prime."


----------



## Arkarch (Apr 16, 2013)

I also had a chance to play with the 200-400 at NAB last week.

My opinion - its advantage is flexibility; and the optics (at least through the viewfinder) looked very nice. But I have concerns. 

If you consider that most will either shoot it wide (200) or long (400) - its a 200 f/4.0 and 400 f/4.0 + 1.4 extender. Is the added convenience worth $10k+ ? For those who need the rapid flexibility not to miss a shot between 200 and 560 (extended + 1 stop), maybe. 

The feel was nice - I could handhold it but it is physically long. My biggest gripe was the position of the extender switch. I really would like to be able to flick it while viewfinding but its in the 10:00 position. On a tripod/monopod, not as much an issue.

I think this is going to be a very hot lens and very popular with wildlife and daylight sports photographers. High on my wish list but most likely I'll focus on the prime 2.8's first.


----------



## Sella174 (Apr 16, 2013)

So basically this is a 200-560mm f/4-5.6 lens? Now, due to the IS, if it is a highly portable (hand-holdable) lens ... great for sport and stalking game. If not, still, what's the point?


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 16, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> So basically this is a 200-560mm f/4-5.6 lens? Now, due to the IS, if it is a highly portable (hand-holdable) lens ... great for sport and stalking game. If not, still, what's the point?



It's not made for you, and it's not made for me.

But there must be enough people out there or a big enough market for Canon to think it can make money with this lens. If it can compete with the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II at 200, and come close to matching the performance of the 300, 400, 500/600 primes while losing a stop, then it will be worth that much to sports photographers, who often use multiple lenses on multiple bodies.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 16, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> So basically this is a 200-560mm f/4-5.6 lens? Now, due to the IS, if it is a highly portable (hand-holdable) lens ... great for sport and stalking game. If not, still, what's the point?



I believe the IS in super-telephotos are not necessarily for hand-holding- at those focal lengths minor movements such as mirror slaps are exaggerated greatly, so you'd need it even on a tripod (which is why they HAVE either a tripod mode or tripod-sensing tech.) 
Plus, hand-holdability is somewhat relative up to a point. Reportedly, Neuro handholds (and sometimes runs with) his 600 II.


----------



## Sella174 (Apr 16, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> It's not made for you, and it's not made for me.



Yip, and I hope Canon is reading this thread, so they know to make two less on the first production run.


----------



## preppyak (Apr 16, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> So basically this is a 200-560mm f/4-5.6 lens? Now, due to the IS, if it is a highly portable (hand-holdable) lens ... great for sport and stalking game. If not, still, what's the point?


Well, a 400mm f/4 lens will cost you $6000+ from Canon. A 500 or 600mm lens from Canon will cost you $10k (though, they will be f/4, not f/5.6). A 200mm lens is another $750, and a 300mm f/4 is another $1000. So, in pure focal length you are getting a 50% discount. And of course you'd have to change between all of those. A 100-400 would presumably be an alternative, but, its an older design and you need to add a teleconverter to get to 560.

The point is that you get 200-400f/4 and 280-560 f/5.6 while not having to take a lens off the camera. In rough conditions (rain, snow, sand, etc), that's a big advantage. And in sports where the action moves from end to end quickly, you don't need one camera with a 200mm and one with a 5-600mm lens. Plus, with how the 1DX handles high iso, f/4 isn't too bad.

Definitely a very niche product, but, makes sense from a design standpoint if it's as sharp as the primes


----------



## Arkarch (Apr 16, 2013)

preppyak said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > So basically this is a 200-560mm f/4-5.6 lens? Now, due to the IS, if it is a highly portable (hand-holdable) lens ... great for sport and stalking game. If not, still, what's the point?
> ...



I dont see the discount - I see a premium. 

By your numbers,
200mm f/4 = $750
300mm f/4 = $1000
400mm f/4 = $6000
TC 1.4 III = $500

You get the 500/600 f/5.6 via the 1.4 that is also part of the 200-400 mechanism.
(edit - assuming the 1.4 works on a 400 f/4.0)

I total roughly $8250 done via components versus $10000+ as a single assembly. 

This is by no means a bad deal. For the 25% premium you get an all-in-one that saves you swapping time or additional bodies so as not to miss the shot. But still its all f/4.0+.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 17, 2013)

I, too, don't quite get the idea behind this lens.

Specifically, I'm having a hard time figuring out how it's better than the classical combination of a 400 f/2.8 on one body plus a 70-200 f/2.8 on another body. Most of the time you'd want to exclusively cover the range between 200 and 400 you'd be shooting with a 300 and only a 300. Most of the rest of the time that you want the flexibility of a zoom, you don't want to be stopped at 200 at the wide end -- and cropping from where the 70-200 ends to where the 400 begins isn't a problem. Similarly, cropping from 400 to what you get at 560 isn't a problem -- or, if it is, you slap on the 1.4x on the 400 and now you've got not a 560 f/5.6 but a 560 f/4. And pardon me if I don't exactly feel a thrill when I think of a 100-500 f/5.6.

And all of those crop considerations go double seeing how the stop of DoF shallowness you loose by shooting at f/4 is basically the same as what you get by shooting at f/2.8 and cropping. All you're left with by using the 200-400 is a few extra megapickles in a world where we're already swimming in megapickles to spare.

And, oh-by-the-way, with the two-body setup you've got your backup body right there at the ready. With the 200-400...do you still have a 70-200 on a backup body? If so, how is the 200-400 better than the 400 f/2.8?

I'm just not getting it, obviously....

But, still. I understand that it's got great image quality. But so does the 400 and the 70-200....

Maybe it's really just meant as a replacement for a 300 f/2.8? That I could see. But I'd still think that the preferred replacement for a 300 f/2.8 would be 70-200 plus 400....

I could also see this as a replacement for the 100-400 -- but not at ten times the price! (Not that the price for the 200-400 1.4x is unjustified; it seems quite reasonable. I just mean that though it's functionally a good candidate to consider as a replacement for the 100-400, financially it's in an altogether different league. Kinda like how the 400 f/5.6 and the 400 f/2.8 are functionally somewhat kinda sorta comparable but not at all financially comparable.)

I just don't get it....

b&


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> I just don't get it....



Then...don't _get_ it!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 17, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't get it....
> ...



Well...wasn't exactly planning on it...besides, I think I'm a one Great White kinda guy, anyway. I know there're others who think they can handle more than one, and I'm sure some of them do. But one's enough for me.

...besides, I hate to think of what would happen should the 400 even get wind that I've seen pictures shot with a 200-400....

b&


----------



## eml58 (Apr 17, 2013)

Wildlife !! Sports !!
Without any doubt, this will be "The" Wildlife Lens.
For those asking "why" "Will it sell", Look at Nikons 200-400f/4, USD$7,000 10 Years in Production into it's second iteration and sells very very well.

When I'm shooting Safari in particular where you need this particular range 200-560, this Lens saves me having to carry 4 current Lenses 200f/2, 300f/2.8, 400f/2.8 & 600f/4 (Unless I feel I need the f/2.8 for low light), I would likely still carry the 300f/2.8 as I cant see the new 200-400f/4 being quite as sharp as the 300, but I know this will be an amazing Lens. heavy ?? I shoot the 400f/2.8 & 600f/4 from a Monopod rig with a Wimberley, so this will simply go on the Monopod Rig, or a Beanbag, no different to the current way I shoot. f/4 ?? when I look at my History of shooting Wildlife Images very few of my Images are at less than f/4, my ONLY disappointment is it wont be available for my Tanzania shoot in June/July, or likely my Svalbard shoot in September/October, Bummer, but there's next year.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 17, 2013)

sanj said:


> Thank you for the information.



You just may have it for that Safari ?? shoot in September Sanj, maybe not though, might need to put the Safari off untill March 2014 just to be sure.

I just booked a Trip to Namibia for 2014 to shoot the Himba, so this works great for me for 2014, Yippee !!!!!


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 17, 2013)

Must admit to also being a little confused by this lens. It has a built in 1.4X but that means you can't take it off and use it on something else. Seems quite big, and not only in weight but actual size too - may be an issue when you have to travel by air to the events you cover.

So for sports you have a 70-200 f/2.8 ii on one camera, plus a 300 and/or 400 f2.8 ii with a 1.4x iii (if needed) on another.

Interesting. I hope they give a copy to TDP guy so he can do a full review and compare it to the 300 and 400 f/2.8 ii with and without extender.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 17, 2013)

In early march I was shooting Leopard in Northern South Africa (Mala Mala & Londolozi), with me was a Pro Photographer, Greg DuToit, he had a Nikon D3x with the Nikon 200-400f/4, I was using Two Canon 1Dx with the 200f/2, 300f/2.8 V2, 400f/2.8 v2 (The 200f/2 I had set up to my 5DMK3)(the 600f/4 V2 I had but mostly didn't use, too long on this trip), it was for me a perfect example while shooting of the value of this particular Lens (the 200-400), 1 Body attached to one Lens that covers 200-560 at between f/4 & f/5.6, for a Wildlife shooter to be able to Frame your shot as close to exact as possible in Camera, without having to shoot too long, or too short, this is it, flexibility, but yes, that flexibility comes at a cost, but that's life in general, not just in Photography, this will not be an everyones Lens like the 70-200f/2.8 L II or the 24-70f/2.8 L II, the new 200-400f/4 (1.4x) is a specialised Lens that will suit a particular type of Shooter, Wildlife & Sports & the 10k-12k price Tag isn't going to worry too much the shooter that's really interested in this Lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> I hope they give a copy to TDP guy so he can do a full review and compare it to the 300 and 400 f/2.8 ii with and without extender.



They don't 'give', he buys them retail (although I suspect B&H does put him at the head of the line for purchasing new lenses). I'm sure that as soon as they're available, Bryan will buy one to review.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 17, 2013)

eml58 said:


> When I'm shooting Safari in particular where you need this particular range 200-560, this Lens saves me having to carry 4 current Lenses 200f/2, 300f/2.8, 400f/2.8 & 600f/4



Well, I've never been on safari, so I'll certainly defer to your experience. But I personally don't see using all four of the lenses you list...I'd go with just the 200 and the 400 and the 1.4x TC. I'd have two bodies regardless; might as well have a lens attached to each. And I'd like to think that either I or my guide would have enough experience (or time) to know which to have ready. And to get into an optimal position for whichever lens was best. I also don't think I'd use the TC very much, except in slow-paced, deliberative settings...there's an advantage to using a TC, yes, but not a huge one.

So, that again brings us to the matter of whether the 200 and the 400 plus a 1.4x TC beats a slower all-in-one design. For convenience, maybe...but I'd still want the redundancy, which kinda does away with the convenience....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 17, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > I hope they give a copy to TDP guy so he can do a full review and compare it to the 300 and 400 f/2.8 ii with and without extender.
> ...



Doesn't he also take frequent advantage of the CPS loaner / trial program?

b&


----------



## ddashti (Apr 17, 2013)

Most likely going to be tied with the 7D Mark II (if not the 100-400 II).


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 17, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > I hope they give a copy to TDP guy so he can do a full review and compare it to the 300 and 400 f/2.8 ii with and without extender.
> ...



The amount of work he does promoting Canon he should get one for trial from them whether it is through CPS or not. Whether he then decides to buy it is up to him, and does not affect me in the slightest. That is what I meant by "give". I have a few friends that Canon loans lenses out for trial purposes, and those loans are not related to any CPS programme. For someone like TDP, then they should loan him one so he can write the review.


----------



## bycostello (Apr 17, 2013)

one to hire maybe


----------



## garyknrd (Apr 17, 2013)

I bet they sell more than anyone here would suspect. Nikon has the same lens, but what I have read it is lacking in optical quality with a T.C.? Never used one but only things I have read.
If this is as good as the new super tele lenses, Optically. Wow


----------



## sanj (Apr 17, 2013)

eml58 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for the information.
> ...



I like your zeal! Best wishes with your trips...
The 200-400 will not work very well with the Himbas, you need something shorter.

There is a guide called Jimmy there. He is very good. I think you can find him on face book.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> I suggest one camera with 24-70, one with 70-200 and a third with for example 200-400/4 or 400/2,8 500/4
> The biggest problem is to have a camera handy wide enough and for images in the field near you when something is happening fast in front of you



Nice Leopard shot, well done.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 17, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > When I'm shooting Safari in particular where you need this particular range 200-560, this Lens saves me having to carry 4 current Lenses 200f/2, 300f/2.8, 400f/2.8 & 600f/4
> ...



Which I guess is part of why Canon will make the Lens, some will use it, some will find it less than useful, but I'm reasonably sure getting this Lens in the first 6 months of release will be next to impossible.

When shooting something like Cheetahs or Leopards, you don't often have the time to consider attaching a Converter, plus on Safari there's the very real issue of dust getting into the Camera anytime you change a Lens, so the built in Converter would be a plus for me, on a Range of lenses to take with you ?? I travel from Singapore to Africa/Antarctica, when I get there I want to ensure I have as many scenarios covered as possible, better to have the Lens & not need it, than need it & not have it, Singapore's a long way from Botswana or South Georgia & excess luggage costs are not a factor when you travel with Long Whites.

I always shoot with at least 3 Bodies on three different lens set ups, 1Dx + 300f/2.8, 1Dx + 400f/2.8, 5DMK3 + 70-200 or 600f/4.


----------



## el bouv (Apr 17, 2013)

eml58 knows why we have been waiting for this lens.

If that is not your intended use simply ignore the matter.


----------



## Sella174 (Apr 17, 2013)

200-400mm f/4 IS ... yes.
200-400mm f/4 IS with built-in 2X converter ... yes.
200-400mm f/4 IS with built-in 1.4X converter ... no.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 17, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> 200-400mm f/4 IS ... yes.
> 200-400mm f/4 IS with built-in 2X converter ... yes.
> 200-400mm f/4 IS with built-in 1.4X converter ... no.



Or

200-400f/4 IS (1.4X) Yes
600-800 f/4-f5.6 (2x) Even Better


----------



## sanj (Apr 18, 2013)

eml58 said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...



Correct...!!


----------

