# Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4X [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 6, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x-cr2/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x-cr2/" 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; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x-cr2/"></a></div>
<strong>When’s it coming?


</strong>The Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x was mentioned as an <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/02/canon-ef-200-400-f4l-is-announced/" target="_blank">in development product</a> by Canon back in February, 2011. A lot of us expected an official product announcement sometime in the following 6 months, however that hasn’t happened. The perceived delay is probably due to Canon wanting to get the new 500 & 600 super telephotos into the hands of photographers first. Shipments have started in small numbers, and stock levels should improve in the coming months.</p>
<p>I have been told that an official announcement has been delayed a few times, however we may see it finally announced in June, 2012. There is also a possibility of it not being announced until the pre-Photokina announcements in August or September. You can “almost guarantee” it won’t be announced after Photokina I’m told.</p>
<p>Availability? I would expect late 2012 or early 2013. The price I have heard for this lens will be in the are of $10,999 USD.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 6, 2012)

Price tag on recent "L" lenses are getting out of reach for me :'(


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 6, 2012)

Why canon?! Because the next thing us mere mortals need is another 10,000$ lens.

I Admit though, it would be a fun rental.


----------



## vlim (Jun 6, 2012)

Unfortunately that's too expensive for most of us ! that's why a new version of the 100-400 L IS is absolutely needed


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 6, 2012)

I can appreciate the difficulty in producing a zoom lens from 200-400 at a widest aperture of f/4 is, but seriously and practically, a lens that can only go to f/4 for me would not be worth $10k, period. Now, the 500, 600, and 800 lenses that do that, sure. But 200-400 is not enough coverage for me and I need f/2.8 at those focal lengths. Personal preference of course.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 6, 2012)

vlim said:


> Unfortunately that's too expensive for most of us ! that's why a new version of the 100-400 L IS is absolutely needed



+1...Also, please *NO* more pull & push zoom


----------



## preppyak (Jun 6, 2012)

vlim said:


> Unfortunately that's too expensive for most of us ! that's why a new version of the 100-400 L IS is absolutely needed


Yeah, although that too will probably be $2000-2500 if the price increases are consistent.


----------



## sb (Jun 6, 2012)

preppyak said:


> vlim said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately that's too expensive for most of us ! that's why a new version of the 100-400 L IS is absolutely needed
> ...



+1 Most definitely. Don't start selling your mk1 100-400 just yet, prices are heading into uncharted territory.


----------



## kirispupis (Jun 6, 2012)

This is rather sad as a price of $11k makes this lens way overpriced.

Consider this.
Nikon 300/2.8 VR - $5,800
Canon 300/2.8 II - $7,300 (25.8% premium)

Nikon 200-400 - $7,000

If you apply the same premium to a Canon 200-400, you arrive at a price of $8,800. Of course, the Canon 200-400 has the built in 1.4x extender, but if this lens is priced at $11k that means you are effectively paying $2,200 for the extender - compared to the III versions that cost $500.

Given current trends $9,500 would be an appropriate price for this lens. At $11k the lens begins to compete with the 400/2.8 II - which does not have the flexibility of a zoom but does offer better bokeh, faster AF, and the ability to become an 800/5.6. For my uses, that would put the 400/2.8 II as the better buy.


----------



## davehollandpics (Jun 6, 2012)

I was really hoping it would have been ready for the Olympics. A lens with a range of 200-560 would be really useful, especially when you can't move around a whole lot.


----------



## EOBeav (Jun 6, 2012)

Another one to kit with the next Rebel?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 6, 2012)

preppyak said:


> vlim said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately that's too expensive for most of us ! that's why a new version of the 100-400 L IS is absolutely needed
> ...



Even so, it would stilll be a decent value if IQ is improved. Think of it as combined 300 f/4 IS and 400 f/5.6 primes. If the resulting IQ is better than those two lenses and the price is a less then the sum, then it'd be a pretty good value with zoom flexibility down to 100mm.


----------



## t.linn (Jun 6, 2012)

At that price, this product is really irrelevant to me regardless of its features and benefits. L lenses have always been expensive but Canon appears determined to see exactly how much they can gouge their customer base before these lenses stop selling. I hope they find the ceiling soon.

I see some folks arguing that the price can be justified by comparing it to the cost of this lens plus that lens, etc. To me—and this is just my opinion—price gouging is determined by the cost of competing goods that offer reasonably similar performance. We don't know how this lens will compare to Nikon's 200-400 but I'm guessing it is not going to be _significantly _superior.


----------



## canon816 (Jun 6, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> If you apply the same premium to a Canon 200-400, you arrive at a price of $8,800. Of course, the Canon 200-400 has the built in 1.4x extender, but if this lens is priced at $11k that means you are effectively paying $2,200 for the extender - compared to the III versions that cost $500.



You can't compare the built in 1.4 TC to a 1.4TC III. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not there is significant image degredation with Canon's 1.4x and 2.0x TC's. A built in TC on the 200-400 will be calibrated to the rest of the glass on that specific copy and will likely be of much higher optical quality then the add on TC's.

It's an apple to an orange.


----------



## gofioamasado (Jun 7, 2012)

I've got a doubt:
if 1,4x extender is activated, will it take any light away, like other external extenders?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 7, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I Admit though, it would be a fun rental.



Walking around with a $10000+ lens I don't own doesn't seem to be that much fun to me - better bring a bodyguard, or a prime insurance what won't hesitate to pay if you say "wups, it's gone, dunno where to". 



t.linn said:


> At that price, this product is really irrelevant to me regardless of its features and benefits. L lenses have always been expensive but Canon appears determined to see exactly how much they can gouge their customer base before these lenses stop selling. I hope they find the ceiling soon.



They'll never "stop" selling lenses, just selling less, but at a greater profit. Enthusiasts and big pros would still buy this lens at $15000, and the 5d3 would be sold at $4000 just fine for the time being.



t.linn said:


> We don't know how this lens will compare to Nikon's 200-400 but I'm guessing it is not going to be _significantly _superior.



Maybe Canon is targeting these new L lenses like the 24-70ii and tele primes at upcoming sensors with 30mp+, leaving cheapos with current 18-22mp sensors behind - and esp. crop users, many of those would like to have a decent 100-400 replacement w/o paying for premium edge iq they don't use.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 7, 2012)

The 11k is a made up number

I had a play with a 200-400 and all I can say is that it is definitely not a walkabout lens. Think of the 70-200 f/2.8 II and double it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I Admit though, it would be a fun rental.
> ...


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 7, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Why so serious?



... meaning you weren't serious? Sorry, didn't pick up that, maybe you could use smilies to make it clearer. Personally, I'm currently just annoyed about Canon's policy - and I have been using Canon for 25 years - and maybe this shows a little now and then :-o


----------



## canon816 (Jun 7, 2012)

gofioamasado said:


> I've got a doubt:
> if 1,4x extender is activated, will it take any light away, like other external extenders?



You will probably lose 1 stop with the 1.4x engaged making it a 280-560 f5.6 lens. Just my take on it...


----------



## photophreek (Jun 7, 2012)

I can't justify f5.6 with the TC engaged for the same price as the 400mm f2.8 II. There must be a lot of R&D Canon has to recoup on this lens for it to be priced at $11K.


----------



## canon816 (Jun 7, 2012)

photophreek said:


> I can't justify f5.6 with the TC is engaged for the same price as the 400mm f2.8 II. There must be a lot of R&D Canon has to recoup on this lens for it to be priced at $11K.



I agree that the guess of $11k is a bit steep, but its tough to compare it with a 400 f2.8. I use a 600 f4 and a 300 f2.8 frequently, and depending on where I plan to shoot and what I am shooting will help me to decide which lens to bring.

Its just too much gear for me to bring both. This is why the 200-400 would interest me. It would give me more flexibility when I am out in the field and allow me to cover a broad range of zooms. 200-560mm. Also, unless I am shooting subjects that are very close to my tele lenses such as birds, I often stop my lens down to f6.3, f7.1 or f8 for a little higher IQ and longer DOF with larger wildlife. Of course DOF considerations come first but I do find that I am often not shooting wide open. 

Also, my 600f4 (NON IS version) weighs 13 lbs. The 400 f2.8 weighs over 11. Both are an absolute bear of a lens and need a tripod to shoot with. The 200-400 will likely come in much lighter. Maybe in the 7-9 lb range. It could even be lighter! (Afterall the new 600 f4 is only 8.5lbs!!) While this would still be a bear to shoot handheld it would certainly be do-able and with a monopod would be a breeze...

All said and done, if the IQ compares to either of my long lenses at their respective focal lengths (560 is pretty close to 600) I would be inclined to consolidate my kit and sell the 300 and 600 to put towards the 200-400.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Why so serious?
> ...



I like using good glass to get the shots I want for fun and for pay. It'd be fun to take on a weekend sometime to shoot some wildlife or compressed landscapes, especially with CPS being so kind to me lately.


----------



## photophreek (Jun 8, 2012)

canon816:

I've been contemplaring the 200-400 since it's development announcement. However, since then, the 400mm f2.8II was announced and at probably the same price as the 200-400. The ver 1 of the 400 is certainly a heavy lens, but the ver II is the same weight as the 500mm f4 IS ver 1 which I own. Notwithstanding the versatility of the zoom, it's the ultimate aperture of the 200-400 that is my issue and as a result, difficult for me to decide on the 200-400 over the 400mm f2.8 II.


----------



## canon816 (Jun 8, 2012)

photophreek said:


> canon816:
> 
> I've been contemplaring the 200-400 since it's development announcement. However, since then, the 400mm f2.8II was announced and at probably the same price as the 200-400. The ver 1 of the 400 is certainly a heavy lens, but the ver II is the same weight as the 500mm f4 IS ver 1 which I own. Notwithstanding the versatility of the zoom, it's the ultimate aperture of the 200-400 that is my issue and as a result, difficult for me to decide on the 200-400 over the 400mm f2.8 II.



Excellent points. And the new 400 will be one heck of a lens! It really boils down to how you intend to use the lens of choice. I primarily use prime lenses for telephoto because I found that I was shooting at max focal distance most of the time. The IQ loss resulting from tele-zooms did not justify the zoom range. I am spending more and more time shooting from a Kayak and and currently bring two bodies that cover the 200mm to 420mm (300+1.4TC), so for me the 200 -400 would be a great lens.... as long as it doesnt capsize my boat. 

That said, Canon has never produced a lens of this caliber in this zoom range. So it will certainly be interesting to see the final product.


----------



## FarQinell (Jun 10, 2012)

What's the point of a built in 1.4X TC anyway - an expensive gimmick?

Why not a simple 200-560mm f4 to f5.6 zoom design?

Better still a 300-560 - after all who is really interested in 200 f4.

This new lens at the proposed price will be embarrassing for Canon if it is not pin sharp at 560/5.6 - IMO.


----------



## RunAndGun (Jun 10, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> What's the point of a built in 1.4X TC anyway - an expensive gimmick?
> 
> Why not a simple 200-560mm f4 to f5.6 zoom design?
> 
> ...



I don't know if I'd call it a gimmick. More of a convenience. Gives the lens some more flexibility and range. Maybe I look at it from a slightly different perspective being a TV photog and most of our lenses have built-in 2x extenders. Both of my lenses have a 2x built in. My wide angle 13x4.5mm, which in FF 35mm equates to 17.5mm-230mm becomes a 35mm-460mm; and my long lens 22x7.8mm, which equates to 30.5mm-670mm becomes 61mm-1340mm, all at the flip of a single lever. Granted, I don't like to use the extender unless I have to because it does cut your light and if you're wide open anyway you can get image degradation, but there have been many times where I could not have gotten the shot without it or not as good of a shot. And if it's built-in, you are a LOT more likely to use it. I have a 1.4x in my still bag and I RARELY use it. What's going to be quicker and easier if you need a little more reach? Flipping a lever or taking your lens off, putting on an extender and then putting the lens back on? And the converse is true if you need to get your back-end back quickly.

Just my take on it. But in stills, it's easy to crop in post if you need to get a little tighter, too. We really don't have that luxury in TV(well, a little, but the price to pay for the hit in image quality is much more significant.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 10, 2012)

The f/4 supertele lenses take a 1.4x TC very well. But - installing and removing it can be inconvenient. With this lens, it's just a lever flip, plus you're getting a TC optically matched to the lens. 

I'd be interested in this lens, except I know 560mm is shorter than I often need - thus, the 500/4 II + 1.4x III seems like the best bet for me.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 10, 2012)

Might be good for someone with the 70-200 2.8II, would nicely match. Canon has the long end covered now, we just need the wide, can we say 14-24?


----------

