# Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Development Announced



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 7, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/02/canon-ef-200-400-f4l-is-announced/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/02/canon-ef-200-400-f4l-is-announced/"></a></div>
<p><strong>London, UK, 7th February 2011</strong> Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Canon today announces the development of a telephoto zoom lens featuring an integrated focal length extender Ã¢â‚¬â€œ 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.</p>
<p>Designed for CanonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ 560mm.</p>
<p>Perfect for photographers who require high performance, fast aperture and a flexible telephoto range, the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4Ãƒâ€” will enable photographers to shoot a greater breadth of subjects using a single lens, delivering the best possible image quality at all focal lengths.</p>
<p>Developed as a new addition to CanonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s acclaimed L-series of professional lenses, the new lens will offer an unsurpassed combination of versatility, first-class optical performance and an enhanced weather-proof construction. The model will be released as part of CanonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s continued development of its EF lens line-up, offering enhanced performance and improved functions that cater for the needs of photographers from beginners through to professionals.</p>
<p>The EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x is scheduled for launch during 2011.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## bvukich (Feb 7, 2011)

*Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Announced*

Wow, this one sure came out of left field. Any word on price?

I'll be the first to guess... My first thought was $2699, that seems a little low, but there is't really anything to compare it to.


----------



## Twisted Road (Feb 7, 2011)

*Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Announced*

Oh wow. I wasn't expecting that. But, man do I want one.

Cost and tonnage? Both probably more than I want but I can still dream.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 7, 2011)

*Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Announced*

I will wager $7499 USD.


----------



## bvukich (Feb 7, 2011)

*Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Announced*



Canon Rumors said:


> I will wager $7499 USD.



I got my number by taking the 100-400, and adding 50%; but looking at the pricing of f/4L primes in that range, your numbers look more realistic.


----------



## AJ (Feb 7, 2011)

*Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Announced*

... drool ...


----------



## trueblue (Feb 7, 2011)

*Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Announced*

Has Canon ever made a lens with a built in teleconverter? I thought they were having manufacturing problems? With this many new lenses announced, does this mean they're fixed?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 7, 2011)

*Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Announced*



trueblue said:


> Has Canon ever made a lens with a built in teleconverter? I thought they were having manufacturing problems? With this many new lenses announced, does this mean they're fixed?



Well, this is a "development" announcement. So they have 10 months left in 2011 to start making them for customers.


----------



## Tim (Feb 7, 2011)

Sure! Canon's been making scores of lenses with built-in extenders for many years now. They're just all video lenses. I have 3 at work, with one costing about $25k (a couple Fujinons with extenders too).


----------



## c-law (Feb 7, 2011)

I guess we can safely say that the new 70-300L isn't the new 100-400.

Chris


----------



## tzalmagor (Feb 7, 2011)

This lens might be Canon's response to the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR, and the early announcement might be an attempt to keep people from jumping brand. This would mean this lens' price would be similar to that of the Nikon (read: ~$6,500), possibly with a premium for the built-in 1.4x extender.

That would mean this lens doesn't replace the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (which, I assume, competes with Nikon AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED).


The photo has a metal loop that I think is not a part of the lens, but rather a part of an anti-theft device (the one with a metal wire that has a lock on one side, and a big lump on the other side that wouldn't pass through the loop).

If I'm right, that might mean that the lens isn't just being display (as in, maybe this is just a mockup in a glass box), but a prototype that people can play with in CP+ (Feb 9th-Feb 12th, - in a couple of days), which means production could be significantly closer than Dec 31st.


----------



## drummstikk (Feb 7, 2011)

dilbert said:


> They don't say if the 1.4x extender changes the f-stop from 4 to 5.6...



The answer to that would be "yes." It's called "physics."


----------



## WarStreet (Feb 7, 2011)

I am impressed ! I guess $7500 as an initial price. Ouch !


----------



## ronderick (Feb 7, 2011)

Here's more pics at Japan's digicam watch article:

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20110207_425556.html

looks like there's a big switch on the side to turn the extender on and off.

Looks like everyone is concerned about price and size of this promising new comer...


----------



## Flake (Feb 7, 2011)

The street price of the Nikon version is Â£5000 the RRP is higher at Â£6200. Generally Canons lenses are a bit cheaper than Nikons for the same focal length, but this one has the 1.4 TC built in, so for it to compete with Nikon I'd suggest a street price somewhere around the same.

The bigger issue is demand, and I wonder how many will be sold, as I've never seen the Nikon version, Nikon users speak of it in hushed tones as if it's some mythical beast, most outlets don't even appear to stock it.

When I want these kinds of focal lengths I have the Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8, that's now available with OS and it has a good reputation. It's a full stop faster than this Canon through half its range, and with a 1.4x tc it reaches 420mm at the same aperture, with a 2x it gives 240 - 600mm f/5.6 All this is (including the TCs )available for Â£2100 which is about a third of what is being projected for the Canon.


----------



## tzalmagor (Feb 7, 2011)

Flake said:


> The bigger issue is demand, and I wonder how many will be sold, as I've never seen the Nikon version, Nikon users speak of it in hushed tones as if it's some mythical beast, most outlets don't even appear to stock it.



My impression is that most EF lenses Canon released since the beginning of 2008 are of the 'I wouldn't expect most outlets to stock due to low sales' category. That includes the two TS-E lenses, the 200mm f/2, the 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, the 600mm f/4, the 800mm f/5.6, and probably the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2011)

Flake said:


> All this is (including the TCs )available for Â£2100 which is about a third of what is being projected for the Canon.



Sure...but you're forgetting about the uber-costly coat of white paint!


----------



## DetlevCM (Feb 7, 2011)

This does look like a very interesting lens.
Also because it's a highly versatile concept - yes, you can get 400mm with a 2.0 extender and a 70-200 for a reasonable price, but you need to swap lenses.

Having a built in extender sounds good if it can be switched on/off reasonably quickly.
And from what I've heard the 1.4 extenders from Canon have only a very small detrimental effect on image quality.

What I do worry about is the price though - I feel this will be very, very expensive.
-> so sadly, nothing for me for quite some time to come... 

(There are 2 other lenses on my list that I can't afford now, but will at some point... 16-35 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 II)


----------



## JLN (Feb 7, 2011)

for sure it'll be expensive, thats about as certain as the sun will rise tomorrow.

Pricing should be comparable to the 300 2.8, and the nikkor 200-400 vr.

I'm not suprised about this lens though, the canon camp's been crying for awhile now that nikon have the 200-400 so it was only a matter of time before canon released one.

For those waiting for the 100-400L replacement, THIS IS IT, well sort-of.
When the 70-300L was released many claimed that it was the 100-400 replacement, except it fell short somewhat.
It did however leave a obvious hole for a 200-400L and voila.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 7, 2011)

Assuming that it's available and sorted out by spring 2012, I'll almost certainly be buying one then. This solves _so_ many problems for shooting field sports and motorsports outdoors.


----------



## Gothmoth (Feb 7, 2011)

LOL.....

nobody heard about this lens before... or im am wrong?
are their any rumors about this lens i missed?


----------



## RuneL (Feb 7, 2011)

tzalmagor said:


> The photo has a metal loop that I think is not a part of the lens, but rather a part of an anti-theft device (the one with a metal wire that has a lock on one side, and a big lump on the other side that wouldn't pass through the loop).
> 
> If I'm right, that might mean that the lens isn't just being display (as in, maybe this is just a mockup in a glass box), but a prototype that people can play with in CP+ (Feb 9th-Feb 12th, - in a couple of days), which means production could be significantly closer than Dec 31st.



I'm pretty sure it's for a carrying strap and not a security lock.


----------



## liv_img (Feb 7, 2011)

tzalmagor said:


> The photo has a metal loop that I think is not a part of the lens, but rather a part of an anti-theft device (the one with a metal wire that has a lock on one side, and a big lump on the other side that wouldn't pass through the loop).



Thats the empty space to put the internal teleconverter when not in use, like the TV lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2011)

RuneL said:


> tzalmagor said:
> 
> 
> > The photo has a metal loop that I think is not a part of the lens, but rather a part of an anti-theft device
> ...



Yes, it's the lug for the carrying strap. Although the specs for the new superteles state that, "_Mechanical improvements include...a Kensington-type wire security lock has also been included, keeping the lenses secure during location-based shoots,_" that metal look is not the Kensington slot. Lenses back to at least the 300mm f/2.8L non-IS had the lugs for a carrying strap.


----------



## Flake (Feb 7, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> Assuming that it's available and sorted out by spring 2012, I'll almost certainly be buying one then. This solves _so_ many problems for shooting field sports and motorsports outdoors.



I'd like to ask what you're using now and why this lens fill a gap that others can't? In particular the Sigma 120 - 300 f/2.8 which for most of the range is a stop faster.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 7, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> Assuming that it's available and sorted out by spring 2012, I'll almost certainly be buying one then. This solves _so_ many problems for shooting field sports and motorsports outdoors.



Bob, you're actually the first person I thought of when I saw this announcement. This should mean not having to swap so often between the 70-200 and 500 at the racetrack


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 7, 2011)

Flake said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming that it's available and sorted out by spring 2012, I'll almost certainly be buying one then. This solves _so_ many problems for shooting field sports and motorsports outdoors.
> ...



I use a 300 f/2.8 L IS with 1.4X and 2X teleconverters on a 1.6x crop camera. I don't think that the 120-300 sigma would provide good enough image quality with a 2X TC. Certainly my 70-200 Sigma doesn't. The Canon 300 works very well with the 2X TC, as long as the subject isn't moving really fast. One big advantage with the zoom and built-in TC is that I don't have to take the lens off the body to install/remove the TC. That is important for any sort of motorsports run on dirt: motocross, pro rally, oval track, hill climb etc.

As for the stop advantage, most of the time I'm shooting outdoors during the day so light levels aren't a big issue. I may sell the 300 and buy a 200 f/2 for the really low light level stuff.


----------



## tzalmagor (Feb 7, 2011)

liv_img said:


> tzalmagor said:
> 
> 
> > The photo has a metal loop that I think is not a part of the lens, but rather a part of an anti-theft device (the one with a metal wire that has a lock on one side, and a big lump on the other side that wouldn't pass through the loop).
> ...



Learnt something today, thanks !


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2011)

tzalmagor said:


> liv_img said:
> 
> 
> > tzalmagor said:
> ...



That lump wouldn't serve any purpose in terms of anti-theft - when you look an enlarged image of it, you see that it's held in place by 4 little screws. Incidentally, the lug is also shown in that photo, also held in place by 4 little screws, making it completely useless as an anti-theft device, right? No key needed, just a common Phillips screwdriver to make off with the lens? No, I don't think so.

I'm glad that lump is there - when I first looked at the new lens, it was on my iPhone. I wondered about the 'built-in' TC and thought it was a bad idea if it could not be removed from the optical path (theoretically, it could have been turned off by shifting elements to reduce the magnification to 1.0x). Seeing the 'lump' reassures me that the TC elements do move out of the optical path when the TC is not in use.


----------



## Justin (Feb 7, 2011)

I for one am enthralled by the possibilities of this lens. I'm guessing the built in tele extender will really minimize any degradation in IQ. It's going to be between this lens and the 500 for me. But framing up wildlife with a zoom has real advantages, even over maximum reach.


----------



## Xinz (Feb 7, 2011)

what would be the approximate time frame we can see this lens on field


----------



## max (Feb 7, 2011)

To me it seems a bit expensive... obviously I have no idea about IQ but...

Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6 $1600 (but at 400 the glass is half the size in area)
Sigma 100-300 f/4 aprox $1200 (as I remember)
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 aprox $2000 (as I remember)
Sigma 300-800 f/5.6 aprox $7500 (different range i know, but 800 5.6 should have same size glass than 400 4... but its an 800mm)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 aprox $2200 
Canon 300mm f/4 IS aprox $1300
Canon 400mm f/5.6 aprox $1400

So to me without knowing anything about anything!! I would kina price in the 4-5000 range.

But thats just me... I will not buy this lens as i dont need it.

I would love a 70-200mm 2.8 that goes to a 140-400 5.6 with a 2xTC


----------



## Etienne (Feb 7, 2011)

Cool lens. Nice to know that it's there, but I am sure it will be too expensive for the little I would need it right now.


----------



## stark-arts (Feb 7, 2011)

MSRP somewhere around 7 - definitely not the replacement to the 100-400 though the 70-300L could be...


----------



## kubelik (Feb 7, 2011)

max said:


> To me it seems a bit expensive... obviously I have no idea about IQ but...
> 
> Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6 $1600 (but at 400 the glass is half the size in area)
> Sigma 100-300 f/4 aprox $1200 (as I remember)
> ...



Max, you are sort of comparing it to the wrong crowd of lenses. I'd look at it this way:

Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6 L IS - $1800 listed - is 5.6 at 400mm and thus can't take 1.4x extender except on 1-series bodies, has older generation IS

Canon 400 f/4 DO IS - $6400 listed - is missing 200-399mm zoom range, requires separate 1.4x extender, questionable bokeh and image quality, has older generation IS, however it is much lighter

Canon 400 f/2.8 L IS II - expected $11000 listed - goes to f/2.8 but is missing 200-399mm zoom range, requires separate extenders

Nikon 200-400 f/4 AF-S VR - $6300 listed - requires separate 1.4x extender

that's really more the way the competition shapes up. so an approximately $7000 price tag seems fairly reasonable to expect


----------



## J-Man (Feb 7, 2011)

$7000 sounds about right, though I'd prefer it to be less than $5000.

I wonder if IQ will be better than the current 400/2.8 with & without 1.4x.


----------



## WarStreet (Feb 7, 2011)

stark-arts said:


> MSRP somewhere around 7 - definitely not the replacement to the 100-400 though the 70-300L could be...



The 70-300L : f5.6 @ 300mm
100-400L : f5.6 @ 400mm
200-400L : f5.6 @ 560mm

so, none of these lenses can be a replacement of the 100-400 since they are different category of lenses. 
With every stop increase the prices increase alot. 

Nikon's 200-400 VRII esp price is $7000. Newer lenses always cost more, and the fact that it has a 1.4 TC build in (current canon TC 1.4 III esp is $500) I don't think it is far fetched to expect an esp price of $7500. Actually, at this price, I believe it is a better value for money compared to the nikon.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 7, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> Nikon's 200-400 VRII esp price is $7000. Newer lenses always cost more, and the fact that it has a 1.4 TC build in (current canon TC 1.4 III esp is $500) I don't think it is far fetched to expect an esp price of $7500. Actually, at this price, I believe it is a better value for money compared to the nikon.



yes. the ability to change a 1.4x TC on and off without having to manually dismount and remount the lens is absolutely huge.

I think the real question becomes ... shell out $7500 for this lens, or $9500 for the 500 f/4 L IS II?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2011)

kubelik said:


> I think the real question becomes ... shell out $7500 for this lens, or $9500 for the 500 f/4 L IS II?



I dunno...my guess on the cost of the new lens is at least $8500. 

Personally, given the choice I think I'd opt for the 500/4 II - then, for 10K you'd have the option of a 700mm f/5.6 IS.

Have you looked at the MTF charts for the 500/4 II? Almost all the lines are squished against the top of the plot. It puts the 70-200 II to shame...


----------



## WarStreet (Feb 7, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> I dunno...my guess on the cost of the new lens is at least $8500.



I won't be shocked to see a $8500 price. As Kubelik said, the advantage of build in TC is huge. Maybe I am exaggerating, but could the flexibility of this lens, help in removing the need of an extra body/lens for some ?


----------



## liv_img (Feb 7, 2011)

That's the perfect lens for wildlife photography many of us have been waiting for years, looking with dispare at the Nikon 200-400mm f/4.

And NO, it's clearly NOT the replacement of the small and much cheaper Canon EF 100-400mm/4.5-5.6L. Nikon has both lenses in their range: the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and the 200-400mm f/4. Both are for different users. I will buy the 200-400mm f/4!


----------



## lol (Feb 7, 2011)

This is the best surprise of the announcements today! A dream wildlife lens, within the known laws of physics anyway. I wanted a long-ish zoom tele beyond the 100-400 for a while, as primes would be limiting even if you could afford to faff around swapping extenders around. I think the balance of range and spec keeps it well within my hand holding ability.

I'd guess the eventual street price will be in the ball park of the 300mm f/2.8L II. I think my saving up time will be comparable to the development time so this is perfect too!


----------



## motorhead (Feb 7, 2011)

This will be a must have lens for me. I use an EF100-400 for motorsports now and have often complained about the unwanted bottom end. 200-400 with the option of the extra 160mm reach will be perfect. It will also sit better into my existing lens range.

The next 12 months might become a very expensive one what with this and the possibility of the 1Ds replacement at some stage.

Richard


----------



## kubelik (Feb 7, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > I think the real question becomes ... shell out $7500 for this lens, or $9500 for the 500 f/4 L IS II?
> ...



neuro, the MTF charts for all the IS II lenses are insane, even with the series III TC's slapped on. I was sort of doubtful when canon came out with the claims of creating lenses that could resolve at 40 MP but it looks like they were being serious, and successfully so


----------



## traveller (Feb 7, 2011)

OK, time to indulge my pet hypothesis... The next camera in the 1D line will be full frame. 

What am I basing this on? First, Canon are touting how light the new 400mm f/2.8L IS II is (perfect if your moving from a 1D + 300mm f/2.8 to a full frame camera), now the long asked for 200-400mm will have a built in teleconverter. 

Well, it's an idea!


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 7, 2011)

Here's a question: to what extent will the 200-400 reduce the sales of the 300, 400, 500 and 600mm L primes? A typical Sports Illustrator photographer goes to an NFL game with both a 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8 plus both 1.4X and 2X TCs. Are they now going to use the 200-400 zoom instead? I realize that the new prime lenses are extremely sharp, (much) better than the old versions but will the zoom be "good enough" for most purposes?

Also, if Canon is expecting to have to amortize the R&D expenses of the new prime lenses over half (or less) the expected number of units of the old, that might explain the rather dramatic increase in prices.


----------



## Justin (Feb 7, 2011)

Right. It remains to be seen what the 200-400 will deliver in the MTF chart regard. The 500 is insane for sure. 

And now I'll expound on potential pricing scenarios. 

With the super tele refreshes, Canon is competing with itself more than any other outside factor. Canon can replace the super teles which are already epic performers and charge more only if they exceed (or shame) the predecessor's performance, or offer a weight savings or some other tangible). The MTF charts on the 500 appear to do so along with a respectable wight savings.

Or take the 70-200 2.8 II IS refresh for example. Canon's objective was to offer a superior optic to the 70-200 2.8 I IS. To do this it introduced an expensive, time consuming to grow, fluorite element among other things to the lens. it also improved the IS and decreased the minimum focus distance. Canon could raise the price for a superior product knowing that the 70-200 I IS would still continue to sell through available stock and on the secondary market. Canon was competing with itself largely.

The Canon 200-400 is different. Canon is clearly competing directly with Nikon with this product. This lens (the Nikon version) is a brand differentiator. Up until now, Canon did not offer said lens. Sure, Canon one-uped the Nikon lens (with built in, on the fly, 1.4x), but Canon is only really competing with Nikon with this lens, not itself, as there is no real analogue to this lens in the current Canon lineup. You could argue this, that Canon is competing with the 400 and 500 and 600 teles (and version IIs), but these really aren't the same products. Since Canon is competing directly with Nikon with this lens, it makes sense for Canon to price the product in-line with Nikon (1.4x and all), or even perhaps, even more aggressively. I think a lens at $6500 (to Nikon's $6791) makes the most sense for Canon. This splits the difference between two pricing scenarios for Canon:

1) low margin, high volume ($4000 US)
2) high margin, low volume ($8000 US)

And most likely will keep demand high enough to meet or exceed production capability. Canon is going to be producing a lot of these big white Ls this year. I can't see production being able to keep up with the first pricing scenario, although I'd love to be proven wrong.

And I do, for the record, think the first scenario, $4000 US, makes the most sense for Canon. It's how I would do it if I were in charge. But then, I don't have complete information about manufacturing costs, IQ quality, weight, etc. Still, I think this lens could help do two things for Canon, stem some of the bleeding in terms of brand switching, and potentially attract some folks back from the dark side. A new pro body wouldn't hurt either. 



kubelik said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > kubelik said:
> ...


----------



## Justin (Feb 7, 2011)

Bob,

A lot of shooters I see carry a 70-200 2.8 IS and a tele, but in your scenario there is no replacement for f/2.8 for speed and narrow DOF/subject isolation. I'm going to guess that the MTF chart on the 200-400 zoom isn't going to rival the 300mm II or 400mm II for example. It may be that Canon is OK with some erosion here too. I think it could support a lower entry point for the zoom on the back of higher volume sales. 

The 200-400 zoom strikes me a particular creature, separate and apart from the prime super teles. I'd be up for more debate on this though. 



Bob Howland said:


> Here's a question: to what extent will the 200-400 reduce the sales of the 300, 400, 500 and 600mm L primes? A typical Sports Illustrator photographer goes to an NFL game with both a 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8 plus both 1.4X and 2X TCs. Are they now going to use the 200-400 zoom instead? I realize that the new prime lenses are extremely sharp, (much) better than the old versions but will the zoom be "good enough" for most purposes?
> 
> Also, if Canon is expecting to have to amortize the R&D expenses of the new prime lenses over half (or less) the expected number of units of the old, that might explain the rather dramatic increase in prices.


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 7, 2011)

This is pretty good news, I was recently looking at a 2nd hand Nikon 200-400 and lusting.

However, this Canon lens is going to be a heavier and probably more expensive lens than the Nikon (3275g), due to the built-in teleconverter.

In sunny UK, I can expect the launch price to be at least Â£6.5k and will probably never fall below Â£5k.

So I won't be getting one, but hopefully it and the newer 500 II will bring in some cheaper 2nd hand models...


----------



## contrastny (Feb 7, 2011)

Looks like a great lens!

Does anyone know what the dimensions and weight is?


----------



## kubelik (Feb 7, 2011)

contrastny said:


> Does anyone know what the dimensions and weight is?



canon doesn't release the specs upon development announcement, as it means the lens still have final design stages to go through, and thus none of the detailed specs are absolutely finalized.


----------



## Sime (Feb 7, 2011)

Carrying a 70-200 f/2.8L II and Tele is ideal! But which one: 300, 400, 500, 600, 800? The new Canon EF 200-400 f/4L offers new choices! Full frame: 200-400 and 280-560 with 1.4x extender. Frame 1.3 crop: 260-520 and 364-728 with 1.4x extender. Frame 1.6 crop: 320-640 and 448-896 with 1.4x extender. Your two body camera possible range is 70-896! Can't wait!


----------



## traveller (Feb 7, 2011)

People are dreaming when they suggest this may be less expensive than the equivalent Nikon (it will almost certainly be more); this is not the successor to the 100-400mm L, it is in a completely different class. Some people seem to think that the historic lower price of Canon lenses will continue, but recent history shows that Canon is now happy to price their glass higher than Nikon (look at the new 70-200 f/2.8s).


----------



## funkboy (Feb 8, 2011)

I'd love to know which professionals &/or focus groups convinced them that building-in a teleconverter is preferable to using the separate units we all use now. Granted, in this lens class the extra length, weight, complexity, & cost added by the built-in TC are probably not all that noticeable to folks already used to carrying these behemoths (& the pros using it will certainly appreciate the ability to switch it on quickly, & without exposing anything to the elements), but I wouldn't expect to see it on anything in the "accessible to mere mortals" lens lineup (to borrow a phrase from Photozone...).

I guess the pros aren't exactly clamoring for updated primes; haven't seen any non-supertele prime announcements in a good while. Can we have just one fast IS prime for Christmas 2011 puhleeze?


----------



## funkboy (Feb 8, 2011)

I suppose that the design trade-off of TC+200-400 f/4 vs. simply doing a 200-560 f/4-5.6 makes sense, otherwise they would have just made the thing into a bigger zoom lens... In a lot of ways though I find it kinda silly that the first EF lens they made with a built-in TC is a zoom.

Think about what a revised 300 f/4L IS with a built-in TC would look like (& cost) for example...


----------



## kubelik (Feb 8, 2011)

funkboy said:


> I'd love to know which professionals &/or focus groups convinced them that building-in a teleconverter is preferable to using the separate units we all use now. Granted, in this lens class the extra length, weight, complexity, & cost added by the built-in TC are probably not all that noticeable to folks already used to carrying these behemoths (& the pros using it will certainly appreciate the ability to switch it on quickly, & without exposing anything to the elements), but I wouldn't expect to see it on anything in the "accessible to mere mortals" lens lineup (to borrow a phrase from Photozone...).
> 
> I guess the pros aren't exactly clamoring for updated primes; haven't seen any non-supertele prime announcements in a good while. Can we have just one fast IS prime for Christmas 2011 puhleeze?



funkboy ... not sure what you're getting at here, since you basically answer your own question when you note that professionals are going to want to switch it on quickly and without exposing anything to the elements. that's definitely the crowd that asked for this lens, especially the pro- and semi-pro wildlife shooters out there.

moreover, I don't know what you mean by "I wouldn't expect to see it on anything in the 'accessible to mere mortals' lens lineup" because there is no indication that this lens is for the consumer crowd. almost everyone is in agreement that it's going to be in the $6000 - $8000 range


----------



## Isurus (Feb 8, 2011)

*Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Announced*

Check the cost of Nikon's. That's probably a decent reference point and it currently runs for $6800 at B&H. $7500 is a very reasonable estimate.

So how exactly does "switching off the teleconverter" work? That's the part that has me most intrigued. You can't remove it, but you can turn it off?



bvukich said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I will wager $7499 USD.
> ...


----------



## Justin (Feb 8, 2011)

*Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Announced*

By the looks of it there is a lever switch that moves the 1.4x elements back and forth in front of the camera sensor.



Isurus said:


> Check the cost of Nikon's. That's probably a decent reference point and it currently runs for $6800 at B&H. $7500 is a very reasonable estimate.
> 
> So how exactly does "switching off the teleconverter" work? That's the part that has me most intrigued. You can't remove it, but you can turn it off?
> 
> ...


----------



## mikeeick (Feb 8, 2011)

tzalmagor said:


> The photo has a metal loop that I think is not a part of the lens, but rather a part of an anti-theft device (the one with a metal wire that has a lock on one side, and a big lump on the other side that wouldn't pass through the loop).



The metal loop is for a lens strap. All "big whites" have this loop (2 to be correct, 1 on each side). Or do you mean something different that I missed on the photo?


----------



## JasonInOregon (Feb 8, 2011)

Well I am just an enthusiast, but I am certainly excited about this lens. I won't be buying it until its been out for awhile, both for the price to come down a little and to be vetted first by all you vets. 

Hopefully in a couple three years, I can get it for about $6500. While that is a small fortune for me, it takes place of buying motorcycles and boats and such, so really, it's not so expensive of a hobby by comparison. At least that's what I tell my other half! 

Since I started out, I have used a crop sensor and I always want more reach, for wildlife and whatever I want to compose and I would rather not use the computer to crop too much. For me, zooms are heaven. There isn't really any fixed application for my use, so flexibility and the best IQ (given a crop sensor and the extra reach the 1.6 gives me) I can get is my goal. So, I have been focused using my budget on the best quality zoom optics.

With these lenses, I am quite happy with the tools in my bag:
10-22 EF-S
24-70 2.8L
70-200 2.8L IS II
100 2.8L IS Macro

For that extra reach that I've dreamed about with all the abundant wildlife in Oregon, especially birds along the coastal flyway and many preserves here for them to visit, I'd thought about the 100-400 lens. I'd been waffling between that lens and just going with the 70-200L 2.8 IS, but then the 70-200 2.8 IS II came out and I couldn't resist. Happy Birthday/Christmas to me! That was the whole budget for a couple years.

Then I thought about the 2X III TC and put it on my wishlist for when the time comes, but I'm so not eager to be juggling all those parts and pieces while out and about with my son and all. So, I have been looking at primes to give me that last tool to capture those amazing long reach shots.

Well, now, this amazing lens will be the last one I think I will want. With the less extensive range as compared to the 100-400, it should have better IQ and a bigger sweet spot. On those days when the light is good, that 1.4 TC built in will be amazing. Since I have a 1.6 crop sensor, with this lens at 400, I really get 640. Adding the 1.4 TC gets me to 896! THAT is enough reach for me. And it gives me a huge amount of flexibility that any single prime never could.

So, if anyone is wondering who wants a lens like this....I do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2011)

*Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Announced*



Isurus said:


> So how exactly does "switching off the teleconverter" work? That's the part that has me most intrigued. You can't remove it, but you can turn it off?



If you look at a larger image of the lens, you can see a 'bump' behind the lug for the lens carrying strap, right under the switch for the internal extender. That switch appears to be a small lever, which I presume swings the lens elements for the internal 1.4x extender out of the optical path and into that 'bump' when the extender is 'off'. 



bvukich said:


> I got my number by taking the 100-400, and adding 50%; but looking at the pricing of f/4L primes in that range, your numbers look more realistic.



A constant f/4 zoom is a whole different beast than a variable (f/4.5-5.6) zoom like the 100-400mm. As others have stated, this new Canon lens is most similar to the Nikon 200-400mm f/4, which is 15" long, nearly 8 pounds, and costs $6800. The Canon has a built-in TC, and that expensive white paint, meaning it will come in _at least_ $1K more than the Nikon counterpart.



tomscott said:


> In my opinion a better option is to have the 70-200mm with a 2x extender which pretty much gives you a 100-400mm, although obviously not as sharp and the length (which is the major point of this discussion) etc then it is 2 lenses in one.



Ah, but it's not really two lenses in one. First off, even the new 2x III has a noticeable negative impact on IQ of the 70-200 II. Second, adding a teleconverter to a lens in the field is actually much more difficult than simply switching lenses (which I guess is one big reason Canon built it in to the new zoom). IMO, the better bet is a 70-200mm zoom paired with a longer prime lens. If Canon were to release a 400mm f/5.6L IS for around $1700 or a 500mm f/5.6L IS for under $2300, that would be a big seller, I think, and a great complement to the 70-200mm II.


----------



## Isurus (Feb 8, 2011)

*Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Announced*

Thanks for the link to the larger pic. You can easily see how it will work from that.

I agree with your thoughts on the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L II and a long prime being a good alternative to this (and maybe preferred for that matter). It will be interesting to see how this lens actually performs optically, as well as how fast and accurate the auto focus is. For me the biggest advantage of the 400mm f5.6 prime over the 100-400 is auto focus speed and accuracy, especially when tracking BIF. 




neuroanatomist said:


> Isurus said:
> 
> 
> > So how exactly does "switching off the teleconverter" work? That's the part that has me most intrigued. You can't remove it, but you can turn it off?
> ...


----------



## WoodyWindy (Feb 8, 2011)

ronderick said:


> looks like there's a big switch on the side to turn the extender on and off.



That isn't a "switch" per se. It is a lever to move the actual 1.4x tele-extender lens group into play. I'll bet this lens also offers really good close focusing, as without the extender group, it would be very nice gap between the "normal" rear element position and the lens mount.



> Looks like everyone is concerned about price and size of this promising new comer...



I know I am.


----------



## tomscott (Feb 8, 2011)

I do agree also, i was going to voice my opinion of a zoom and a prime. But i did explain the weight problem, i dont know if you have been out in a forrest or lake carrying both a large prime a tripod to mount it on, with a big zoom and a body, but it does add a fair amount of weight and can be awkward making sure all the kit is secure and by this time a shot could be missed. I dont think there is a perfect scenario, the 400 DO could solve this problem, lighter, smaller and used with a zoom. But they are very expensive and depends whether you like the Highlighted boeker.. i dont mind it myself, i did have the 70-300mm DO and i have to say it was one of my favorite lenses especially as it was so small! But i sold it to get a 70-200mm II i didn't feel the need to have the pair but wish i had kept it now, especially for travel photography. 

Anyway, i live about a mile from lake Ullswater in the Lake District Cumbria, and i do alot of photography where i wade into the lake with lens attached to the tripod get a good base and wait. The birds then start to get used to you in their surroundings and come very close sometimes within 2-3ft. The nice thing about the zoom for me over a prime is compositionally its easier to frame and also they are alot easier to maneuver on the tripod without scaring birds away, also the tripod can be less bulky meaning moving creates less splashing and pain for me, especially after 6 or so hours of moving around. There are also steamers which cross the lake, and give large waves, having a bag attached can easily get the brunt of one of these waves which is why i generally only like to take one lens with me, means less likely for me to get the bag wet, also the primes are massive and heavy even to carry so in my situation having one lens would be much more preferable and being a zoom even better! Also if i lost one of the lenses though water damage it wouldn't be the end of the world whereas a 8k prime would literally kill me! but its the kind of photography i like and the risk to gear is worth it for the imagery. But not with those kind of monetary losses.


----------



## Tim (Feb 8, 2011)

WoodyWindy said:


> That isn't a "switch" per se. It is a lever to move the actual 1.4x tele-extender lens group into play. I'll bet this lens also offers really good close focusing, as without the extender group, it would be very nice gap between the "normal" rear element position and the lens mount.



That doesn't mean that it will necessarily have a reduced minimum object distance. A lot of video lenses with extenders still have MODs of 2-3 feet. Possibly the optics within built-in extenders differ from external extenders. But more likely, the lens is designed to form an image on the sensor from a longer mounting distance without the extender in place. That's what I really think is going on.

And my guess is $3999.


----------



## Pau (Feb 8, 2011)

Does anyone with good eyes dare to take a guess on the length of this lens based on its pictures? From there we might be able to estimate how much it weighs... and then maybe faint...


----------



## /dev/null (Feb 9, 2011)

I guess the closest thing to compare to is the Nikon 200-400 f/4 with a 1.4x extender added.

For the price that makes about $6500 + $500 = $7000

For the weight and size this makes

3.4kg + 0.2kg = 3.6 kg

366mm + 27mm = 393mm length

124mm diameter, given by the 400mm f/4 requirement. (The Canon 400mm f/4 DO is about the same diameter) 
Obviously, f/4 goes down to f/5.6 with the extender in, as somebody already pointed out above.

These are just educated guesses. For the weight you loose a bit because there's two less lens mounts, but you gain a bit because of the mechanics to swing the extender in and out of the optical path

Note that the bulge for the extender is quite a bit further towards the front of the lens, compared to where it would be if it was the usual bolt-on extender. We can assume that the position has been optimized, so the performance should be better than an equivalent 200-400mm zoom with independent 1.4x extender. Plus you gain the ease of use of just flipping the extender in and out without having to dismount the lens, possibly in bad weather conditions.

This looks like a very nice piece of kit, even if the price will be comparable to the 500mm f/4 prime.


----------



## Hulk (Feb 9, 2011)

JasonInOregon said:


> Since I started out, I have used a crop sensor and I always want more reach, for wildlife and whatever I want to compose and I would rather not use the computer to crop too much.



Just a precision : crop sensors don't give you more reach. They just crop the FF image that the lens delivers, and increase its dof.
A crop sensor only gives more reach if it has a higher pixel density than the FF sensor you compare it to, and you zoom into the image to crop it more.

To tell it differently, a future 45Mp 1Ds gives you exactly the same reach as a 7D whatever zoom factor you use on the picture. And any FF dslr gives you exactly the same reach as a 7D if you just crop the FF image by 1,6.

No big deal anyway.


----------



## Tim (Feb 9, 2011)

Hulk said:


> They just crop the FF image that the lens delivers, and increase its dof.



Depth of field remains the same. Angle of view changes because of the crop.

A 50mm lens with 6 inches DOF is a 50mm lens with 6 inches DOF, no matter if you put it on a 1Ds or an HV40. A lens is a lens is a lens. Depth-of-field is controlled by optics. Angle of view is the ONLY thing that changes between imaging formats. The difference is that on a FF sensor, more objects are now in view in the frame that are closer and farther away (blurrier objects appear in the frame), creating a higher contrast between the blurriest objects and the sharpest objects, which appears to create a shallower DOF when the DOF never changed.


----------



## studio1972 (Feb 10, 2011)

Tim said:


> Hulk said:
> 
> 
> > They just crop the FF image that the lens delivers, and increase its dof.
> ...



Actually you're both wrong. If the 2 images were viewed at 100% on screen then the DOF would be the same, as stated, assuming the pixel density is the same. However, if the images were printed or scaled to the same size, say 12 x 8, then the DOF would be less on the cropped image as the lack of focus would be amplified by zooming into the image. DOF is very dependant on the medium on which the image is displayed.


----------



## Hulk (Feb 10, 2011)

Interesting discussion about dof.

Dof is a factor of focal length, aperture, focus distance and sensor size. If you change only sensor size, you change dof, even with equal pixel density.

See there for more details : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2011)

Sounds like there are a lot of people trapped within the Circle of Confusion surrounding DoF. :

To put it into practical terms, yes, sensor size affects DoF. The effect can be phrased differently, though. The common viewpoint is that a larger sensor means shallower DoF - that's true if and only if you're talking about a shot with the same framing, i.e. to compensate for the narrower angle of view with a crop sensor, you move further from the subject to maintain framing, so the increased subject distance means deeper DoF with the crop sensor (and the perspective is different, too, but that's another discussion). However, if you keep the camera-to-subject distance constant, the DoF with the crop sensor is actually shallower than with a FF sensor, because the CoC of a crop sensor is smaller.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 10, 2011)

*Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L Review up on The Digital Picture*

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Extender-1.4x-Lens-Review.aspx

Just a thoughtful analysis of what the lens is likely to be, nothing firm or certain, but from a lens expert.


----------



## Hulk (Feb 10, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sounds like there are a lot of people trapped within the Circle of Confusion surrounding DoF. :
> 
> To put it into practical terms, yes, sensor size affects DoF. The effect can be phrased differently, though. The common viewpoint is that a larger sensor means shallower DoF - that's true if and only if you're talking about a shot with the same framing, i.e. to compensate for the narrower angle of view with a crop sensor, you move further from the subject to maintain framing, so the increased subject distance means deeper DoF with the crop sensor (and the perspective is different, too, but that's another discussion). However, if you keep the camera-to-subject distance constant, the DoF with the crop sensor is actually shallower than with a FF sensor, because the CoC of a crop sensor is smaller.



Agree with your first statement, but not completely with the second. If you stay at the same distance, but use a different focal length to get the same image, the smaller sensor will have deeper dof and less blur. That's common field experience I think.


----------



## Justin (Feb 11, 2011)

*Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L Review up on The Digital Picture*

+$1200 for an extender doesn't seem like an educated guess to me. I love Bryan's site. And I read his guessview earlier, but I got to say that Canon would be much better off if they really want to sell these in volume not going stratospheric with the price. <$6800 would make this a competitive lens. The Nikon equivalent lens was selling for 6k not long ago. 



scalesusa said:


> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Extender-1.4x-Lens-Review.aspx
> 
> Just a thoughtful analysis of what the lens is likely to be, nothing firm or certain, but from a lens expert.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2011)

Hulk said:


> Agree with your first statement, but not completely with the second. If you stay at the same distance, but use a different focal length to get the same image, the smaller sensor will have deeper dof and less blur. That's common field experience I think.



I don't believe I mentioned using a different focal length to get the same image. Using the same focal length, same distance, the crop sensor will have shallower DoF (and obviously a tighter framing). Try it yourself - go to DoFMaster, pick a focal length, aperture, and distance, leave them constant, and set the camera to a 5DII vs. a 7D and see what that does to the DoF. For example, 5DII, 50mm, f/1.4, 10 ft = 1.02 ft DoF whereas 7D, 50mm, f/1.4, 10 ft = 0.65 ft DoF, i.e. shallower with the crop body. 

I mentioned compensating for the effect of sensor size on angle of view by changing distance to subject, but of course you could also compensate by using a different focal length. You're right that if you change lenses (or zoom) to keep the angle of view the same when you switch sensor formats, the crop body will have deeper DoF (e.g. for the example above, keeping things the same for the 7D, but comparing a 5DII, *80mm*, f/1.4, 10 ft = 0.39 ft DoF, shallower with full frame).

So, the point is that if you keep the framing the same (however you do that - changing lenses, zooming, or walking), the FF body will have shallower DoF, but if you keep focal length, distance, and aperture constant, the crop body will have shallower DoF.


----------



## Flake (Feb 21, 2011)

According to Northlight Images one UK camera dealer has listed this lens at a jaw dropping Â£10, 000 or $15,000. At the moment he's unsure if this is a real price or a placeholder for pre orders. It's an indication though that this is not going to even be a reasonably priced lens!

http://www.parkcameras.com/18509/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4-0L-USM-IS.html?referrer=Froogle&utm_source=google&utm_medium=froogle&utm_campaign=pid18509


----------



## WarStreet (Feb 21, 2011)

Flake said:


> According to Northlight Images one UK camera dealer has listed this lens at a jaw dropping Â£10, 000 or $15,000. At the moment he's unsure if this is a real price or a placeholder for pre orders. It's an indication though that this is not going to even be a reasonably priced lens!
> 
> http://www.parkcameras.com/18509/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4-0L-USM-IS.html?referrer=Froogle&utm_source=google&utm_medium=froogle&utm_campaign=pid18509



I checked the link and now the price seems to be Â£11,500 ! I understand that the build in extender is a great advantage, and the question here is how much extra will Canon charge for that advantage ? I doubt this price is correct.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 21, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> I checked the link and now the price seems to be Â£11,500 ! I understand that the build in extender is a great advantage, and the question here is how much extra will Canon charge for that advantage ? I doubt this price is correct.



the lens has only been announced for development, not even announced for release yet. I agree with WarStreet in that the price is a placeholder and can easily be off by several thousands of dollars.

we've seen in the past placeholders in even large retailers' behind-the-scenes inventories that were more than a couple of zeros off from the real price, simply because the placeholder price doesn't really matter.

if they are offering it up for preorder without knowing the real price (which I'm sure they don't, as Canon won't have a final price until they have a final design, which they also don't at this point), then it behooves the retailer to mark it up significantly. that way you know that whichever pre-sales you lock in are probably likely to stay around, and you'll be hitting your budgetary marks on the item. if you underprice it initially, you'll receive lots of initial interest, but then a bunch of either lost sales or unhappy customers once the higher real price is revealed.


----------



## barton springs (Feb 21, 2011)

I have to think these high price indicators will be very close since the just released new 400 2.8 is priced in at a whooping $10,499 on B&H. The older model is priced at $3,900 less. These prices are just too much for me I hate to say. I'm a pro photog but not "that" pro. I could do a total remodel of two rooms in my house with new carpet for $10,000. When the prices get that high it's time to re-evaluate.

With that said I'll eventually somehow end up with a 200-400 4.0 but with careful planning with an accountant. Possibly even lease it. Professionally this is not a must have lens for me. I'll just want to have one.

Rick
Austin, TX


----------



## Flake (Feb 21, 2011)

It's changed again (one wonders why):

_Developement of new lens featuring an integrated focal length extender. No price has been announced from Canon as yet_

Odd they should quote an SRP though, it implies they must have had some indication


----------

