# EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Available Mid 2014?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 23, 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=13376"></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=13376">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>The lens that will never be…. it seems

</strong>Juza from <a href="http://www.juzaphoto.com" target="_blank">JuzaPhoto.com</a> had a chance to play with the upcoming, but yet-to-be-officially-announced EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x. As with most previews, he was not allowed to post any images taken with the lens.</p>
<p>The interesting part of the article is at the end where he claims the lens will be available in mid 2014. That’s still a pretty long wait!</p>
<p><em>“One last thought is about price and availability. Canon has not said anything about price, but it won’t be cheap – my bet is between $9000 and $10000; availability is expected in mid 2014. As soon as the final version will be in production I’m going to try it to see its real image quality!”</em></p>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&t=canon_200-400_hands_on_preview" target="_blank">JP</a>] | </strong>Image from juzaphoto.com</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## hamada (Apr 23, 2013)

will never buy that lens so not such a shock for me.

canon has plenty of more affordable lenses in need of an upgrade.

50mm f1.4 anyone?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 23, 2013)

:-\


----------



## Click (Apr 23, 2013)

Bad news for those who are waiting for this lens.


----------



## Harry Muff (Apr 23, 2013)

They do realise that things need to be on sale for people to buy them, no?


----------



## charlesa (Apr 23, 2013)

Was getting second thoughts after I invested in a 400 mm f/2.8 recently, but seeing the delays and delays and even more delays on this piece of vaporware... no regrets.


----------



## rpiotr01 (Apr 23, 2013)

I'm firmly in the camp of people who could never afford it so it doesn't affect me, but I think this is starting to pass into 'black eye' territory for Canon. Shame.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 23, 2013)

great idea for a lens. too expensive for me.

But Sigma will probably have one out and available for $3500 before this hits the street.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 23, 2013)

Etienne said:


> great idea for a lens. too expensive for me.
> 
> But Sigma will probably have one out and available for $3500 before this hits the street.



+1 - EXACTLY what I was thinking.


----------



## dolina (Apr 23, 2013)

I do not expect it to be cheaper than a 500/4 IS II.

What I want to know is the weight of the thing. Is it heavier than a 600mm IS II (3920g)? It was reported to be heavier than the 400/2.8 IS II (3850g).

What I want to know is what will be Canon's response to Sigma's 135/1.8 OS.


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 23, 2013)

Perhaps it will be the kit lens for the mythical EOS 3D... :


----------



## jasonsim (Apr 23, 2013)

Perhaps Sigma will be out with their new 120-300mm f/2.8 OS Sport lens before long and throw in a 2x converter with it. 

I personally got tired of waiting and got the 300mm f/2.8L IS II: cheaper and works a charm with both v3 teleconverters.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Apr 23, 2013)

I fail to see the benefit of this marketing ploy, it destroys confidence rather than builds it, IMHO.


----------



## jrbdmb (Apr 23, 2013)

The original announcement from Canon (via CanonRumors of course):



> *London, UK, 7th February 2011* – Canon today announces the development of a telephoto zoom lens featuring an integrated focal length extender – the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x. The lens will be displayed for the first time during CP+, held in Yokohama, Japan.
> 
> Designed for Canon’s leading range of EOS Digital SLR cameras, the new lens will be an ideal addition for sports and wildlife photographers, offering exceptional flexibility with a built-in 1.4x extender that creates an increased focal range of 280 – 560mm.
> 
> ...



Black eye indeed. This has gone beyond ridiculous and has moved into surreal ...


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 23, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > great idea for a lens. too expensive for me.
> ...



I've been sending Sigma annual e-mails for several years, asking them to make a 200-500 f/4, basically a big brother to their 120-300 f/2.8. It might weigh a bit more than the 200-400 but would almost certainly be cheaper.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 23, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> Perhaps Sigma will be out with their new 120-300mm f/2.8 OS Sport lens before long and throw in a 2x converter with it.
> 
> I personally got tired of waiting and got the 300mm f/2.8L IS II: cheaper and works a charm with both v3 teleconverters.



I have a 300 f/2.8 IS and both V2 converters and the image quality is outstanding. But that's with a 300 prime, one of the sharpest lens that Canon makes. The issue I have is that I often shoot in dusty environments and dislike taking the lens off to change/add/remove TC's.

I'd rather have a 200-500 f/4 and a 1.4X TC than a 120-300 f/2.8 and a 2X TC. I think the image quality and focusing speed would both be much better.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 23, 2013)

Etienne said:


> But Sigma will probably have one out and available for $3500 before this hits the street.



... but the Sigma won't be white, so Canon is in the clear :->


----------



## psolberg (Apr 23, 2013)

I hope this fiasco doesn't become standard for other camera companies. Announce a product they will not have for ages.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 23, 2013)

holy crp that is a long wait! They seem to be having mad QC issues at their new lens plants (even the 24-70 II has copies varying quite a bit in where the DOF falls in each corner and even a bit in center frame wide open performance and that was after months of delays even).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 23, 2013)

DJL329 said:


> Perhaps it will be the kit lens for the mythical EOS 3D... :



I hear that it will come with it's own load bearing unicorn with tripod saddle. (like how the 1200mm came with it's own giant custom tripod or that giant Leica (?) super tele that came with it's own CAR to help transport it, only this is more magical!)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 23, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> I personally got tired of waiting and got the 300mm f/2.8L IS II: cheaper and works a charm with both v3 teleconverters.



if you can live without the zoom, that combo is one heck of a lot lighter and easier to wield too

i can see the appeal of the 200-400+flip in 1.4x for some though


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 23, 2013)

This is all reminding me of the infamous mythical octopus in The Goonies! ;D


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 23, 2013)

I guess I'm in the other camp ... I give Canon kudos for refusing to release the lens until it meets their QC requirements, suffering possible embarrassment and lost sales now, rather than damage to their reputation for quality later.

I doubt that I would ever buy this lens, but I might consider a non-TC version. For now, I'm waiting to see if the 100-400 zoom gets a refresh. If I need this kind of reach before that lens is released, I'll rent 300 or 400mm prime.


----------



## kirispupis (Apr 23, 2013)

It is quite clear why the development is taking so long. Clearly this lens is made possible through magical fairies. Unfortunately they have run into a few problems.

- A number of the fairies are on strike, presumably due to poor working conditions
- The replacement fairies are too fat, explaining the heft of this lens


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 24, 2013)

dolina said:


> It was reported to be heavier than the 400/2.8 IS II (3850g).



If so, that would turn this white elephant into an even worse fiasco than the 400 f/4 DO.

The problem with the f/4 DO is that, sure, okay, it's comparatively small and lightweight. But it's still big and heavy, it's still very expensive, it's slow, and it doesn't have great image quality. Indeed, except for weight, the 300 f/2.8 with a teleconverter is comparably priced, much better optically, and much more versatile.

If the 200-400 is as expensive and heavy as the rumors are generally agreeing upon...well, then, you've got a lens that's heavier than the 400 f/2.8, slower than the 400 f/2.8, and roughly as expensive as a 400 f/2.8. That's an awful lot to give up just for the convenience of flipping a switch for the teleconverter.

The lens isn't going to have significantly better image quality than the other Great Whites; they're already close enough to perfection that, though there's always room for improvement, there's never going to be room for much improvement. So if it's not going to be a clear winner in terms of IQ, if it's not going to win on price, if it's not going to win on weight, and if it's going to lose pretty significantly in terms of speed and reach, if all it really wins is the convenience factor at the cost of all those other disadvantages...well, it's going to fit a very small niche indeed.

When it comes right down to it, it really seems to be nothing more than a grossly overpriced and overweight upgrade to the 100-400. I'm still thinking the classic combination of a 70-200 f/2.8, a 400 f/2.8, and maybe a teleconverter is going to mop the floor with this new lens for all but a few edge cases. (And, yes -- I know those edge cases exist, and those who spend a lot of time shooting in said edge cases are going to buy this lens no matter what.)

I'd really love to see a lens like this succeed, but either the weight or the price would have to be dramatically improved for me to have much hopes for it. Put the price at (or below) $7,000 and leave the weight or keep the price where it's rumored and get the weight under 7 pounds. Not much else, I fear, can save it at this point.

Regardless, that Canon actually officially announced this before the first copies had come off the production line is unprofessional. Go ahead and announce it before you've got enough on hand to sell, but don't announce it before you've actually got something in your hands you happily plan on selling. It's that whole thing about counting unhatched chicks....

It's a shame, too. Canon is the undisputed master of the supertelephoto. If anybody was going to pull this off, you would have bet on Canon to be the one to do it. That they're flailing around so miserably suggests to me that some heads should already be rolling.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## ddashti (Apr 24, 2013)

That is _definitely_ a long wait! What happened to "3rd quarter of 2013"?


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 24, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> ...had a chance to play with the upcoming, but *yet-to-be-officially-announced *EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x.






TrumpetPower! said:


> Regardless, that Canon actually officially announced this before the first copies had come off the production line is unprofessional.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 24, 2013)

9VIII said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > ...had a chance to play with the upcoming, but *yet-to-be-officially-announced *EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x.
> ...



Except, of course, that Canon _did_ officially announce it. See the press release here:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/2/7/canon200400mm



> The EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x is scheduled for launch during 2011.



Cheers,

b&


----------



## eml58 (Apr 24, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > It was reported to be heavier than the 400/2.8 IS II (3850g).
> ...



Cant fault your logic on this Trumpet Power, what a disappointment, to have openly declared this Lens in 2011 for a late 2011 Availability, and the beat goes on.

On weight, the unit I handled in Singapore in January was I felt around 4Kgs, slightly heavier than my 400f/2.8 V2 & 600f/4 V2 Lenses, not much, but slightly heavier. At that time the Canon Singapore Guys were saying with some confidence I might add, mid 2013, which I read as possibly Sept/Oct 2013, if it's now mid 2014 (and that's not confirmed) then I'm Gob Smacked.

I dont want to start a debate like the "DR" Thread, but the fact is Nikon have had a 200-400f/4 available for close to 10 Years, they sell quite a lot of these as well, I certainly find a load of Nikon shooters on Safari with the 200-400f/4, and I've used the Nikon Lens myself on a D3x & D800 (Borrowed), at less than 3.4 Kgs, it's a good Lens, 200 end very good, 400 end less so, and the Nikon Teleconverters, forget them, how is it that Canon, who I feel make the best Long Lenses on the Planet, cant get their Crap together on this ?? My 200f/2, 300f/2.8/400f/2.8 & 600f/4 with the V III teleconverters, are all simply amazing Lenses, what's the difficulty here for a Company like Canon to get this right in less than 3 years ??

I agree with most other Posters, Canon should have kept their Traps closed on this Lens until they had a Product 6 months from Market, simply makes them seem idiotic with these 2 & 3 year pre announcement announcements.

At least I get to balance the value on my 400f/2.8 for another year before selling it.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 24, 2013)

eml58 said:


> I've used the Nikon Lens myself on a D3x & D800 (Borrowed), at less than 3.4 Kgs, it's a good Lens, 200 end very good, 400 end less so, and the Nikon Teleconverters, forget them, how is it that Canon, who I feel make the best Long Lenses on the Planet, cant get their Crap together on this ??



Excellent point.

The Nikon 200-400 f/4 weighs 3.36 Kg. The Canon 1.4X TC weighs 225 g. Combined, that's 3.58 KG.

Are we supposed to believe that the company that makes a 400 f/2.8 that weighs a mere 3.84 Kg (compared to the Nikon version that weighs 4.6 Kg) is making a brand-new 200-400 that's actually heavier than a decade-old Nikon _plus_ a teleconverter? And is going to cost at least half as much again as the Nikon version? Really? A $3,000+ premium for a built-in teleconverter that weighs more than the competition's offering?

This is quite the embarrassment for a company that's just revolutionized the supertelephoto world with its hand-holdable Great Whites. It's a big step backwards, and not one that I think anybody would have expected.

Here's hoping it's just a fluke, or that the rumors are misinformed...but that we're even discussing this at all is very much not good for Canon.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## eml58 (Apr 24, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > I've used the Nikon Lens myself on a D3x & D800 (Borrowed), at less than 3.4 Kgs, it's a good Lens, 200 end very good, 400 end less so, and the Nikon Teleconverters, forget them, how is it that Canon, who I feel make the best Long Lenses on the Planet, cant get their Crap together on this ??
> ...



And the Nikon 200-400 is less than $7K, I'm expecting Canon's 200-400 to be closer to $11k, which sits with the pricing on the other V2 Whites, and I'll probably (last week it would have been certainly) get one when Canon bring it to Market, but what a fiasco for canon, they seem to have their Heads firmly in the Sandbox on this one.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 24, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > It was reported to be heavier than the 400/2.8 IS II (3850g).
> ...



It is interesting that the old 300 2.8 IS + TCs + 70-200 2.8 IS II + spare body might equal price of the 200-400. Depending, either scenario could be better.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 24, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It is interesting that the old 300 2.8 IS + TCs + 70-200 2.8 IS II + spare body might equal price of the 200-400. Depending, either scenario could be better.



That combination would certainly be an awful lot more versatile than this Great White Elephant. It very much seems like it's going to be a niche lens, which is not at all what one things of when one imagines a telephoto zoom. Again, I'm sure there will be scenarios for which it's ideal...but a general-purpose tool it certainly isn't.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## roadrunner (Apr 24, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



That announced the development of the lens, not the launch or release.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 24, 2013)

roadrunner said:


> That announced the development of the lens, not the launch or release.



Did you not read the whole press release, including the part I quoted?

Here, let me quote it again. Direct copy / paste from the press release:

[quote author=Canon press release]
_*The EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x is scheduled for launch during 2011.
*_[/quote]

Sure reads to me like they're telling us that they had *scheduled* a *launch* date sometime *during 2011.* And let's not forget that this was in February of 2011, so a statement like that really does mean that it was going to hit the streets "any day now, but certainly sometime in the next ten months."

Product delays happen. It's no big deal.

It does become a big deal, though, when you announce a product's imminent release within a specific near-term timeframe and then delay it by at least three years.

And it's a boneheaded amateur mistrake. A big corporation like Canon damned well should know, as I indicated in an earlier post, that you don't officially announce the product until the first units have come off the final assembly line -- for the express purpose of avoiding this kind of fiasco that Canon has created for itself.

Go ahead and let your anonymous sources pump stuff into the rumor mill, and maybe even every now and again showcase some of the nifty things your R&D team is playing with.

But no press releases, no official announcements, no dates, not even any timeframes -- nothing at all until those first units are all boxed up and ready to ship (and have cleared QA and everything else). They can sit in the warehouse for a couple months while you ramp up production, and you can release in limited quantities.

But don't make promises that you aren't certain you can't keep.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## RGF (Apr 24, 2013)

Was that mid-2014 or mid-2041 

Perhaps Canon should build a 200-400 F4 without the IS


----------



## RGF (Apr 24, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> I guess I'm in the other camp ... I give Canon kudos for refusing to release the lens until it meets their QC requirements, suffering possible embarrassment and lost sales now, rather than damage to their reputation for quality later.
> 
> I doubt that I would ever buy this lens, but I might consider a non-TC version. For now, I'm waiting to see if the 100-400 zoom gets a refresh. If I need this kind of reach before that lens is released, I'll rent 300 or 400mm prime.



Perhaps it is a QC issue or simply a bad rumor. After all, why believe this room anymore than the rumor that the lens would be released 3/4Q 13?


----------



## jrista (Apr 24, 2013)

charlesa said:


> Was getting second thoughts after I invested in a 400 mm f/2.8 recently, but seeing the delays and delays and even more delays on this piece of vaporware... no regrets.



Is that the Mark II?

If so, I can't imagine the 200-400 being better than the 400 f/2.8, though. Even with the 400/2.8 + a 1.4x TC attached, I can't imagine the 200-400 being better, with or without the TC enabled. Canon does amazing things with optics, but a zoom lens requires some kind of sacrifice one way or the other, even optimized as much as possible you have to keep both ends as well as the center of the range working as well as possible, which means the 400mm end would have to suffer, even just a little.

I would say the 400/2.8 II is a better piece of equipment, unless you absolutely need the focal range instead.


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 24, 2013)

For some reason this camera reminds me of those televisions that had the video player built in. Strange comparison I know, but still.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 24, 2013)

RGF said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I'm in the other camp ... I give Canon kudos for refusing to release the lens until it meets their QC requirements, suffering possible embarrassment and lost sales now, rather than damage to their reputation for quality later.
> ...



That's the issue though isn't it, it wasn't a rumour, Canon made an "Official" Announcement in Feb 2011 (See Trumpet Powers Post) that Canon were "In Development" of a Lens (200-400f/2 (1.4x) "For release in 2011", since then there have been several Canon Sponsored Showings, I went to one in Singapore in January 2013, where Canon Reps have made statements that the Lens was to be released at varying times (mid 2013 in my case), dependant on which showing you went to, and there's been no "Official" follow up announcement to my knowledge from Canon on this Lens since the Announcement in February 2011.

They've pretty well tripped over one of their appendages on this I believe, very poor all round, you would think Canon would at least bite the bullet & come clean on an expected release date, not that it would help too much I guess going on their current track record of "Announcements" followed by delays (i.e.. 1Dx & 24-70f/2.8L II). That's it I'm heading for a dark corner to sulk.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 24, 2013)

Ok, out of the Dark corner for one more Post on the subject, just one.

I feel that Canon for quite some time have taken a deliberate path on "Marketing" of making Pre Announcements of Camera Bodies & Lenses with a definite view in mind, get the info out to the Public to ensure anything that Nikon bring to the Market will not impact on Canon's Market share by having Canon users defect to Nikon products that look more appetising (Nikon D800 perfect example, canon totally mis read the Market), and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that as a marketing Angle, except where the Announcements are made and the product then goes into the "Delayed" routine, the 1Dx was an example, but the delay wasn't significant, from memory it was 6 months or more, but the situation with this particular lens is laughable bordering on stupidity.

Back to the dark spot, I'm looking for that Dark Abbey/Church that featured so much in another thread, that will remain nameless as I've had my quota of warnings.


----------



## tron (Apr 24, 2013)

First, the correct (complete) title of this thread should be: 

EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Available Mid 2014? (CR1) ;D ;D

Seriously, apart from the few (my guess) who will need one (and only one) big white that will have to stay continuously on the camera, a 500mm f/4L and a second one with less mm (either 70-200 2.8 or 300 2.8 ) are just fine (and do exist!)


----------



## ZoeEnPhos (Apr 24, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > I've used the Nikon Lens myself on a D3x & D800 (Borrowed), at less than 3.4 Kgs, it's a good Lens, 200 end very good, 400 end less so, and the Nikon Teleconverters, forget them, how is it that Canon, who I feel make the best Long Lenses on the Planet, cant get their Crap together on this ??
> ...



Dear Sir,

Thanks for your excellent thoughts.
About the approximate weight of the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x I have twice handled this lens - first time with a 5DMarkIII and the second time equipped with the 1Dx camera body.
At the same occasion I also handled the EF500mm f/4L IS II USM and the bigger "brother" EF600/II and was surprised that the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x was somewhat in the same weight range that the both bigger supertele primes!
I would not think it is heavier but maybe maybe a little lighter than the EF600/II but not by much.
But again I would have needed a digital small scale with me but I did not have a scale with me on the both occasion.
By the way I find the EF300/2.8L IS with EF 1.4xIII/2x III extenders to be quite versatile both with 7D and 5DMarkIII because of my back-injury I am more mobile outdoors with a bit lighter total weight.
However when capturing BIF that sometimes flying TOWARDS you - a zoom will be quite handy but then I use the excellent EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM with my 7D and sometimes with the EF1.4xIII and I do not think it is too much hassle to actually,
change or remove the extenders - when you are used to do that it is done in none-time and of course I usually plan my photo excursions so I am prepared with two camera bodies one handheld and the other on a tripod. But this is of course normal when it comes to wild-life-outdoor-photography!
Wishing you all Happy Shootings! Here in Sweden the spring season has lately had some real approach!

//Charl


----------



## J.R. (Apr 24, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It is interesting that the old 300 2.8 IS + TCs + 70-200 2.8 IS II + spare body might equal price of the 200-400. Depending, either scenario could be better.
> ...



Depends on what is the definition of 'general purpose', which may be different for each individual. The 200-400 + 1.4x extender will result in a effective 200-560mm lens which may be more versatile than carrying two lenses. 

Sounds quite useful for sports and wildlife shooters.


----------



## dallasdave (Apr 24, 2013)

I only want this lens to come out because the original rumor also said the 100-400 mark 2 was supposed to come out around the same time - lol.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 24, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Sounds quite useful for sports and wildlife shooters.



Some of them, yes.

The problem is that the lens is slow and heavy and expensive compared with Canon's other offerings, and the zoom really doesn't get you all that much advantage.

Most situations where you're using a Great White, things are actually rather predictable. Sports in particular; the players are confined to the playing field and virtually always follow the rules of the game. You should know where the action will be before the play begins, and it should be very obvious where the action is moving to.

And there's much less need for a zoom at supertelephoto ranges. If a runner is coming straight at you from a hundred yards away, it's going to be a long time before her apparent size changes significantly -- more than enough time to sling the Great White over your shoulder and pick up your second body with the 70-200. But if she's coming straight at you from ten yards away, in the blink of an eye she's going to go from filling the frame with a 200mm lens to filling the frame of a 180° fisheye.

That's why the combination of the 70-200 plus a supertelephoto is so useful. Past 200 you can crop the 200 until the supertelephoto takes over; at that point, you really don't need a zoom any more.

What you _might_ need is more focal length, which really means more speed. And that's where this thing is desperately lacking. With the TC engaged, it's a 280-560 f/5.6. A 300mm f/5.6 lens is pathetic, and a 560mm f/5.6 lens is rather sad. Indeed, I'm having a hard time imagining this lens at 560 significantly beating the 400 f/2.8 II simply cropped to the same field of view. Even if it's better on the test bench...well, in the field, the 400 has a two stop advantage over the 200-400 in that situation, and that'll overwhelm any theoretical advantages the 200-400 might have.

And past that? The 400 turns into an 800 f/5.6 with a 2X TC with performance not that far off the actual 800 f/5.6, Canon's biggest and most expensive lens on the market. The 200-400 is going to need an external TC in addition to its built-in one, and then it's an 800 f/8 that probably needs to be stopped down to f/11 - f/13, hardly better than a RokiBowYang mirror telephoto.

Again, if it weighed five or six pounds (regardless of price) or if it cost five or six grand (regardless of weight) or if it was a stop faster (regardless of both price and weight), it'd be a very attractive lens, probably a game changer. But heavy _and_ expensive _and_ slow? _And_ three years late?

Cheers,

b&


----------



## vlim (Apr 24, 2013)

This might be an error mid 2014 could mean mid 2013 8)


----------



## acoll123 (Apr 24, 2013)

I primarily shoot sports and would love to have this lens for field sports. At f/4 it is kind of slow but I just got a 1Dx and can probably afford the loss of light in exchange for the flexibility. I don't think I would use the teleconverter very often if at all and would probably prefer a less expensive option without it.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 24, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds quite useful for sports and wildlife shooters.
> ...



Nicely summarized ... I agree. 

Cheers ... J.R.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 25, 2013)

J.R. said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Yes, agree with everything Trumpet Power has said, having the 200f/2,300f/2.8, 400f/2.8 & 600f/4 currently it will always be a difficult decision to give up f/2.8, but when I look at my Images & review what I actually shoot at, I find although I do shoot from time to time at less than f/4, it's not that much, Mostly I shoot at f/4 to f/8, so the versatility factor of the zoom would be useful, the one Lens I would sell if I purchased the 200-400 would be the 400f/2.8 V2, not a chance I will sell the 300f/2.8 V2 until Canon produce V3, and that's not likely for a few years.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 25, 2013)

vlim said:


> This might be an error mid 2014 could mean mid 2013 8)



You could be right, I live in hope.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Apr 25, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> Perhaps Sigma will be out with their new 120-300mm f/2.8 OS Sport lens before long and throw in a 2x converter with it.


What's this mean? I've had that lens combination since it came out. Do miss the focus limiter switch of the new model but don't miss the price. Only thing I don't like is the inherent clumsiness of detaching a 2X TC, and the rather offputting OOF blur performance in some shots.

Other than that, though, sure 400mm f/2.8 would be a grand improvement but I actually _do_ often find the zoom useful at times in wildlife shooting (usually going from extreme close - i.e. roughly 240mm before factoring in crop factor - to extreme long, roughly 560mm again before the crop), and the weight of the 120-300mm + EF 2X Extender III is already close enough to unmanageable handheld that I would think twice about going to a 400mm. Of course I don't spend hours sitting in blinds; I just walk all over the place and try to get closeups of critters. Works surprisingly well on many things.

ha, Canon.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 29, 2013)

Edwin Herdman said:


> jasonsim said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps Sigma will be out with their new 120-300mm f/2.8 OS Sport lens before long and throw in a 2x converter with it.
> ...



I had a Sigma 120-300 OS and I've found it very lacking when compared to Canon's offerings. I ditched it for a 400mm f2.8 L IS and there is no comparison. Like many Sigma's with HSM, I found the AF to be a little erratic and a bit hit and miss for fast moving objects. It was too large and heavy for what it was. The focal length was well short of the stated 300mm, nearer 280mm at infinity. Focus 3m away and it's nearer 240mm....which was appalling. If I popped a 2x converter on it and A-B compared focal lengths with my 400mm at 4m , I found them to be very close in focal length....which means where guys are thinking they have a 600mm f5.6, it's actually closer to a 400mm f5.6. This focal length is better realized in a number of options...even a 2x on a 70-200 f2.8 II L offers a better focussing, better IS, lighter, smaller and cheaper options. Optically there was little between them (70-200 vs 120-300) but my 400L is better all round except weight. Even without a converter, at it's closest focus distance, the sigma gains only 40mm over the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II....which is a tiny increase at such a long length. I think this Sigma lens is a missed opportunity and that's a real pity.

I seem to be one of the few who could really give a stuff about the new 200-400 f4 L IS lens. If I had the money, I'd either replace my 400 L IS mk I and upgrade to a mkII or consider the new 500mm f4 L IS II as my light and portable option....have you tried one? It's SO bonkers light!


----------

