# 100-400 f/4-5.6 or 200-400 f/4 "little brother"



## FunPhotons (Aug 10, 2013)

The apparent upcoming release of a new 100-400 got me thinking, would I prefer a 100-400 replacement (100-400 f/4-5.6 IS) or a 200-400 f/4 little brother, with higher IQ, no built in TC but would work "as well" as the 1.4 add on TC, for around $2k? I think I'd prefer the latter.


----------



## Click (Aug 10, 2013)

I voted for the 100-400 f/4-5.6 ...And hopefully no PP


----------



## comsense (Aug 10, 2013)

You are comparing apple and oranges. 100-400 f/4-5.6 is the little brother you are talking about. The majority of cost of 200-400 f/4 is due to f/4 at 400 end. If you plan on keeping that, the brother won't be significantly littler. I would guess if it still zoom with IS, expect about $10K. You are expecting that to be priced like $1400 lens.   
It will benefit canon to have a cheap lens within reach of entry level hobbyist. And anything more than $2K (which means 400 end at f/5.6) is going to kill that goose.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2013)

200-400mm f/4 for around $2K. Wake up, please, or stop whatever pharmaceutical regimen you're on.


----------



## Click (Aug 10, 2013)

comsense said:


> You are comparing apple and oranges.



I agree with you comsense. I was thinking more "what is the most fitted to me", usage vs $$$


----------



## rpt (Aug 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 200-400mm f/4 for around $2K. Wake up, please, or stop whatever pharmaceutical regimen you're on.


And I was going to say that there should have been a third option - "It depends... (18% Grey)" but then, there were these two reality check posts! So. Well, dreamers make reality happen. The world has had so many naysayers. And there are the Wright brothers. Not just the ones who got a "heavier than air" contraption to fly. So 200-400L IS V @ under US$ 2,000? And that is not written in the European numerical format! Well, very possible.


----------



## Click (Aug 10, 2013)

...I also thought that the price of $2k was a mistype of $12K. I hope it is.


----------



## rpt (Aug 10, 2013)

Click said:


> ...I also thought that the price of $2k was a mistype of $12K. I hope it is.


Where the beep am I going to get $12K from? OK, don't answer that!


----------



## Click (Aug 10, 2013)

lol  The 200-400 at $12K is too much for me...That's why I'm looking forward to the new 100-400 at a more affordable price.


----------



## FunPhotons (Aug 10, 2013)

Damn you guys are intense, forget I asked ... (no not going off in a rage quit, just wondering why I bother)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2013)

FunPhotons said:


> Damn you guys are intense, forget I asked ... (no not going off in a rage quit, just wondering why I bother)



Putting up a poll is fine, but it sort of helps to have credible choices. If you got a call a month before an election and the pollster asked who you'd vote for if the election was tomorrow - the independent candidate or a yellow-spotted Heffalump, what would you think of the poll and the pollster? :


----------



## winglet (Aug 10, 2013)

I'm saving my pennies for the _real_ 200-400. I figure by the time I have the cash, it'll actually be shipping! ;D

Fun-Photons, please don't get mad. I think it's great you're trying to stimulate discussion with a poll. But consider what you're hoping for. The actual 200-400 F4 with 1.4x TC is $12,000. Do you really think they'll make a version without TC for $10,000 less? Seems a bit of a stretch, no?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Aug 10, 2013)

The little brother would be around 7k, not 2.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 10, 2013)

The 100-400 costs about £1200 retail here in the UK, the 400mm f5.6 prime is about £1100, so given that the currently 12 year old 400mm f4 with IS costs about £5.6k, it's a fair guess that a circa 2014 400mm f4 prime, with IS would retail for probably in the order of £8k, so add the 200-400 zoom functionality, maybe £9k if you lucky, more likely £10k as the 200-400mm 1.4x is retailing at £12k in my local shop !

I'd say more likely (than a f4 200-400) is a 200-400 f4-f5.6 with hybrid IS and weather sealing at £3k would be a realistic alternative replacement to fit with the 70-200mm range, but wouldn't at all be surprised with a pump 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 with the new look white body, improved optics and plain IS, but then as argued before - isn't the 70-300L the logical replacement for the 100-400 giving the higher mpx options available now.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Aug 10, 2013)

The 100-400 is already a killer Lens. Some individuals don't understand the requirements in engineering for such a design of a straight f4 and of course the R&D behind it.. If Canon can robustly improve its IQ, and IS then it's a solid improvement much like the 70-200 IS II. If Canon takes it a step further and can improve its breathing by making it a twist zoom (WOW).. I rather enjoy the push pull but on the other hand HATE the breathing it has during zooming in and out. It has a rather nice Bokeh at 5.6 throughout its zoom range so I'm not worried about it being a f2.8 for any extra... having the 100-400 with its capability to drop it on an APS-C for extended range or putting an extender on it for full frame is paramount for long range wildlife and sports work. O ya, I'd appreciate it if they could improve the hood mount as well. When Canon comes out with the new 100-400 I'll buy it hands down regardless of what they do to it...( as long as it has a better IQ)


----------

