# Why The EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Delay?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 13, 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/2012/11/why-the-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x-delays/"></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/2012/11/why-the-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x-delays/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>The million dollar question….


</strong>We’ve been banging on the proverbial doors trying to find out why the known EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x has yet to be officially announced, priced (it’s going to be $10,000+) and made available to the  people that need it.</p>
<p>The latest we’ve heard, and from a pretty knowledgeable person is that the lens has needed a redesign in regards to the “bump” that holds the built-in 1.4 TC. The person wouldn’t elaborate as to why it was an issue, but it was brought to the attention of Canon at the Olympics that some pros were complaining that the “bump”, or a function of the “bump” got in the way of something. Again, what the something was wasn’t elaborated upon. If anyone out there knows, I’d love to hear it.</p>
<p>This is about the only explanation I have received beyond “manufacturing issues”, which could also be playing a small roll I suppose. However, lately we’ve seen that the new super-telephoto lenses are now making their way to “in stock” status around the planet. Maybe we’re closer to the new supertelephoto finally being announced.</p>
<p>Sorry we can’t be more conclusive on this one, this is the best information we have.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Viggo (Nov 13, 2012)

It couldn't be that it is in the way when dismounting the lens?


----------



## SJTstudios (Nov 13, 2012)

Viggo said:


> It couldn't be that it is in the way when dismounting the lens?



I would think so, I've heard that there is some issue with the teleconverters movement with dismounting.


----------



## dolina (Nov 13, 2012)

They must not like "bulge" jokes. ;D


----------



## PackLight (Nov 13, 2012)

$10,000 + price tag.
No need for Canon to hurry on my account.


----------



## M.ST (Nov 13, 2012)

A few people had the chance to test the lens.

Most of them are not very happy with the build quality of the build in TC and the image quality if you add the TC.

I have both TC´s, why should I pay extra money for a build in TC? 

My personal opinion: The lens is too big and havy as a walkaround lens compared to the EF 100-400 IS. The solution with the build in TC is not amazing. For the mentioned price I prefer the normal big whites.


----------



## gunnar997 (Nov 13, 2012)

M.ST said:


> The lens is too big and havy as a walkaround lens compared to the EF 100-400 IS. The solution with the build in TC is not amazing. For the mentioned price I prefer the normal big whites.



this lens is not meant to be a walk around lens.. just like the 400 f/2.8 and 500 and 600 f/4's.. you don't see people walking around town with those unless they have a purpose to.. its meant for sport, wild life, and journalism when you need flexibility and be the fastest possible lens you can get. hence the price tag. 
the 100-400 is more of just a general purpose tele that does everything which is why it is smaller and lighter

as far as the TC goes.. its for connivence.. so you don't have to take your body off put the TC on and put your body back on.. Just move the lever and you're ready to go! just like TV lenses (which is what that stems from) it just makes things easier on the fly so you can get that shot more easily


----------



## EchoLocation (Nov 13, 2012)

I'm definitely not going to buy this lens, but it has been really interesting following it from the 5DIII spy shots in Africa(or wherever) to the Olympics. There is definitely quite a bit of mystery and speculation about it. I've been wondering why it hasn't been officially announced yet.


----------



## bchernicoff (Nov 13, 2012)

I imagine that perfectly centering the extender when swung in from the side was a decent engineering challenge. 

It would also have to be user-proof such that if the user believed they had engaged the extender, that it did engage and was perfectly aligned and couldn't move on its own even when the lens was bumped around.


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 13, 2012)

Maybe they could just make the poor man's version, a 200-400 f4 without a TC...


----------



## wwnwong4829 (Nov 13, 2012)

This lens and 6D will show up in HK at the end of Nov , to celebrate the 40th year anniversary of Canon HK. 
Here is the link, sorry, only Chinese version is available. ;D
http://www.canon.com.hk/imaginenation/


----------



## PackLight (Nov 13, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> Maybe they could just make the poor man's version, a 200-400 f4 without a TC...



Best idea of the day.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 13, 2012)

M.ST said:


> A few people had the chance to test the lens.
> 
> Most of them are not very happy with the build quality of the build in TC and the image quality if you add the TC.
> 
> ...



Why is someone paying $10k on this f4 and not getting the 400 f2.8 mk.ii ? (Unless they can afford both...  )


----------



## bchernicoff (Nov 13, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Why is someone paying $10k on this f4 and not getting the 400 f2.8 mk.ii ? (Unless they can afford both...  )



200-400 would be a very useful zoom range to have on the sidelines of a basketball, football, soccer, baseball, etc game. That being said, 168-420mm f/4 is better (Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 + 1.4x) and a helluva lot cheaper. Will it be as sharp? No. Good enough for the online and print media who buy such images? For sure. Will it focus fast or accurately enough? That's the question.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 13, 2012)

Lets hope that canon doesn't derp like nikon did with PC-E & the D800.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 13, 2012)

I can imagine the AF/MF and AF range limiter switches are a little hard to get to in a hurry, esp on a pro body?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2012)

mrsfotografie said:


> I can imagine the AF/MF and AF range limiter switches are a little hard to get to in a hurry, esp on a pro body?



That...or you go to flip the AF/PF/MF switch and hit the lens mount release instead?


----------



## bchernicoff (Nov 13, 2012)

mrsfotografie said:


> I can imagine the AF/MF and AF range limiter switches are a little hard to get to in a hurry, esp on a pro body?



I think you nailed it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 13, 2012)

Even though I shoot a lot of sports, I won't get the lens either. Admittedly I already own the 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8, but I shoot wider than f/4 a ton and this isn't very useful for me. In fact, for indoor volleyball and basketball I set aperture range from f/2 to f/4 with ISO safety shift on (or if I'm using the 70-200 lens, f/2.8 to f/4). I prefer the faster shutter speed in exchange for opening up wider.

However, I can definitely see the utility in this lens, and if I didn't already have the 300 and 400, I probably would use it for football and soccer, as long as they were day games or well-lit venues. My problem is that my night stuff is NOT well-lit, so to keep a fast shutter I need wider than f/4 probably.

I think this lens would be great for well-lit sports, and wildlife photography, and it'll add a ton of convenience over the longer primes.


----------



## kirispupis (Nov 13, 2012)

Canon should just look at the practical and business sense here and get rid of the idea of a built in 1.4 extender. Most photographers will be perfectly happy adding their own extenders to a 200-400/4 IS as necessary. This will simplify the lens and reduce its price.

IMHO it is nice that someone at Canon took a risk and tried to come up with something new. What is not nice is trying to stick with that plan when all indicators show it is not working.

If they can release a 200-400/4 IS at $8k I think a lot of people will buy it.


----------



## dolina (Nov 13, 2012)

I agree with all your points. Only thing I like about this lens is the built-in Extender that makes using it risk-free.

Separate extenders sell for $500~ and integrating one should be cheaper.

Now, where are those 135 and 400/5.6 updates?




bdunbar79 said:


> Even though I shoot a lot of sports, I won't get the lens either. Admittedly I already own the 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8, but I shoot wider than f/4 a ton and this isn't very useful for me. In fact, for indoor volleyball and basketball I set aperture range from f/2 to f/4 with ISO safety shift on (or if I'm using the 70-200 lens, f/2.8 to f/4). I prefer the faster shutter speed in exchange for opening up wider.
> 
> However, I can definitely see the utility in this lens, and if I didn't already have the 300 and 400, I probably would use it for football and soccer, as long as they were day games or well-lit venues. My problem is that my night stuff is NOT well-lit, so to keep a fast shutter I need wider than f/4 probably.
> 
> I think this lens would be great for well-lit sports, and wildlife photography, and it'll add a ton of convenience over the longer primes.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 13, 2012)

Wow....$10K price tag, this will be on my "DREAM" list.

I hope the new 100-400 will be around $2500 or less. X-my fingers :


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 13, 2012)

Looks like maybe it could block sight from left eye? Shooting sports you sometimes want both eyes open to help tracking. ???


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 13, 2012)

M.ST said:


> A few people had the chance to test the lens.
> 
> Most of them are not very happy with the build quality of the build in TC and the image quality if you add the TC.
> 
> ...



So even with a TC optimized just for this lens at the long end it doesn't do better than an external TC?
(still must be more convenient though)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 13, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> I imagine that perfectly centering the extender when swung in from the side was a decent engineering challenge.
> 
> It would also have to be user-proof such that if the user believed they had engaged the extender, that it did engage and was perfectly aligned and couldn't move on its own even when the lens was bumped around.



yeah the tolerance must be tricky to get it lock in exactly


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 13, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Why is someone paying $10k on this f4 and not getting the 400 f2.8 mk.ii ? (Unless they can afford both...  )
> ...



basketball?


----------



## wtlloyd (Nov 13, 2012)

This gets my vote....especially when wearing gloves - football, anyone?





neuroanatomist said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I can imagine the AF/MF and AF range limiter switches are a little hard to get to in a hurry, esp on a pro body?
> ...


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 13, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> some pros were complaining that the “bump”, or a function of the “bump” got in the way of something



Well, I've talked to a lot of pros in person, and am secretly sleeping with the head of R&D at Canon, here's the truth (I'd rate it at CR2.5):

Because the new 3D or 1DXs or whatever it is called (I hear they're having a chook-raffle to deicde the name), 44.62MP camera with "new technology inside" is going to have a 500EX-ish sized built-in flash, GPS-receiver the size of an AWACS (for when you're deep underground shooting black cats in coal mines and need to know coordinates for how the hell to get back to the surface), plus a third grip on the top of the camera (for when you know, you need those upside-down shots). All of which will interfere with the mounting and unmounting of the lens.

They can't change the 'bump' to the right hand side because you'll graze your right-hand knuckles, the left and top are out because of the giant flash, the bottom is out because of tripod-mounting issues. So instead they're working on a solution that *exactly* shatters the optical elements of the teleconverter into exact 1/8 pie-pieces. The 'bump' will no longer be a bump, the lens barrel will just be slightly wider all around. When you engage the teleconverter, the pie-pieces simply squeeze together to form a perfect lens element again, with a bit of fancy fluid (kind of like dissolved lens-coatings) in there to make sure there's no extra glass/air interfaces.

Trust me, it'll work.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 14, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


the other side wont work since it will get in the way of the Dof preview button and if you have this configured to enable AI servo and there was a bump on the way to use your $10,000 + lens you would surely want to stab someone. On top makes more sense.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 14, 2012)

Also, has anyone else noticed that if this were a 7D or anything else with flash, and there were a CPL in the filter slot, it would be mighty-hard to squeeze your finger in betwixt the flash and filter to actually turn the thing?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Also, has anyone else noticed that if this were a 7D or anything else with flash, and there were a CPL in the filter slot, it would be mighty-hard to squeeze your finger in betwixt the flash and filter to actually turn the thing?



Maybe the 'bulge' in the rumored issue isn't the bulge of the TC, but the bulge of a popup flash? The flash on APS-C bodies interferes with TS-E knobs - my 24mm II came with a smaller substitute knob for that reason. Might be the angle, from the pic I'm not sure you could even swap the drop-in filter with the lens mounted on a 7D.


----------



## stewy (Nov 14, 2012)

I was thinking that it would be nice to have the 200-400 f4 an an every now and then use lens, but that's not going to happen if its going to cost $10K. I thought it would be closer to the price of the 70-200 II or 24-70 II.

Speaking of that. I see that these lens types of lens are commonly used for sports, but who pays for these pictures to justify the price of these lens? Especially when it comes to wildlife.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 14, 2012)

mrsfotografie said:


> I can imagine the AF/MF and AF range limiter switches are a little hard to get to in a hurry, esp on a pro body?


 
Looking at that image, there is a lock on the TC, but I wonder if it hits a Wimberly head?? That would be a show stopper for sure.


----------



## ddashti (Nov 14, 2012)

Is the image shown the actual product image of the lens?


----------



## Simba (Nov 14, 2012)

stewy said:


> I was thinking that it would be nice to have the 200-400 f4 an an every now and then use lens, but that's not going to happen if its going to cost $10K. I thought it would be closer to the price of the 70-200 II or 24-70 II.
> 
> Speaking of that. I see that these lens types of lens are commonly used for sports, but who pays for these pictures to justify the price of these lens? Especially when it comes to wildlife.



There is a better way to spend that money if I really want this zoom range.
Nikon D800 + Nikon 200-400 f4 VR II + Nikon TC 1.4
= $2,999 + $6,749 + $520 (Amazon price)
= $10,268


----------



## M.ST (Nov 14, 2012)

Yes. The image shown is an actual product image of the lens.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 14, 2012)

I'm starting to think this lens is a bit too much of a swiss pocket knife. Too many features, too little space.

I think it would be beneficial to drop the built-in TC as mentioned earlier. It's nice as a commercial stunt, but a 200-400 without it will be more reliable and most likely sell more units, especially if it's priced to beat the Nikon version.


----------



## sanj (Nov 14, 2012)

mrsfotografie said:


> I'm starting to think this lens is a bit too much of a swiss pocket knife. Too many features, too little space.
> 
> I think it would be beneficial to drop the built-in TC as mentioned earlier. It's nice as a commercial stunt, but a 200-400 without it will be more reliable and most likely sell more units, especially if it's priced to beat the Nikon version.



I love my Swiss knife.


----------



## Waterloo (Nov 14, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Also, has anyone else noticed that if this were a 7D or anything else with flash, and there were a CPL in the filter slot, it would be mighty-hard to squeeze your finger in betwixt the flash and filter to actually turn the thing?



There are pictures on Bob Atkins' website of the 200-400 with a 7D attached:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_ef_200-400_f4_extender.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maybe the 'bulge' in the rumored issue isn't the bulge of the TC, but the bulge of a popup flash? The flash on APS-C bodies interferes with TS-E knobs - my 24mm II came with a smaller substitute knob for that reason. Might be the angle, from the pic I'm not sure you could even swap the drop-in filter with the lens mounted on a 7D.





Waterloo said:


> There are pictures on Bob Atkins' website of the 200-400 with a 7D attached:








That DI filter isn't coming out with the lens mounted...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 14, 2012)

What actually happens to these 'demo' lenses, will they all go back to Canon eventually?


----------



## sanj (Nov 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the 'bulge' in the rumored issue isn't the bulge of the TC, but the bulge of a popup flash? The flash on APS-C bodies interferes with TS-E knobs - my 24mm II came with a smaller substitute knob for that reason. Might be the angle, from the pic I'm not sure you could even swap the drop-in filter with the lens mounted on a 7D.
> ...



Oh shit.


----------



## mhcooperphotography (Nov 15, 2012)

Just a thought - I wonder if they tried to build a "Drop-In" Tele-Converter? That way there would be no bump. Space would clearly need to be bigger than a DI Filter and optical alignment might make it impossible ... but it would be interesting.


----------



## dolina (Nov 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


>


Other than the filter I could imagine accidental body/lens detachments happening when changing focusing modes and MFD.

But then again Canon has already made warnings about the body bulge for other lenses like the TSE 17mm.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 15, 2012)

Something tells me that the solution to this is *not* going to be anything to do with redesigning the 200-400.

They'll probably use it as an excuse to leave the inbuilt flash off the 7D mk2 and 70D "for our own good"...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 15, 2012)

ddashti said:


> Is the image shown the actual product image of the lens?


Its a image of a prototype as used at the Olympics. There is no actual production yet, only hand made prototypes..


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 15, 2012)

dolina said:


> Other than the filter I could imagine accidental body/lens detachments happening when changing focusing modes and MFD.



like the switch on the left side before the bulge.
AF -> PF -> MF -> Lensinthemud


----------



## trowski (Nov 16, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Waterloo said:
> 
> 
> > There are pictures on Bob Atkins' website of the 200-400 with a 7D attached:
> ...



I'm utterly amazed that any of you are stunned at this design decision on the 200-400mm and even pretend that this might be changed. Have you looked at Canon's other super telephoto lenses? Lenses that share this exact same DI filter location (under the pop-up flash) are the 200mm f/1.8L, 200mm f/2L IS, 300mm f/2.8L IS, 300 f/2.8L IS II, 400mm f/2.8L IS, 400mm f/2.8L IS II, 400mm f/4 DO, and probably several others. Is it slightly annoying when using the 7D? Yes, but usually I know if I want to use a polarizer or not when I start shooting.



dr croubie said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Other than the filter I could imagine accidental body/lens detachments happening when changing focusing modes and MFD.
> ...



Last I checked, just pressing the lens release button doesn't immediately drop the lens off the camera. Some amount of turning was required. Maybe it's not an ideal location, but the AF/PF/MF not an often used switch. Canon could remove this switch and I wouldn't notice. However, again this design is shared with the other new super telephoto lenses. The switch location is identical on the version II 300mm and 400mm. It's only a little farther away on the version II 500mm and 600mm.

Side of the 300mm f/2.8L IS II:





I can see where the 1.4x might be causing them some design headaches since it's new to their still photography lens line-up. Perhaps there's some design challenges there that were not expected. However, including a switchable extender in a lens is not new to Canon: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/424578-REG/Canon_YJ20X8_5B_IRS_YJ20x85BIRS_2_3_20x_ENG_EFP.html

*shakes head* Honestly I think people on this forum really need to stop just trying to invent problems and letting their imaginations run wild without doing a few moments of research.


----------



## sanj (Nov 16, 2012)

mhcooperphotography said:


> Just a thought - I wonder if they tried to build a "Drop-In" Tele-Converter? That way there would be no bump. Space would clearly need to be bigger than a DI Filter and optical alignment might make it impossible ... but it would be interesting.



Defeats the purpose I think.


----------



## sanj (Nov 16, 2012)

I know I am a bit selfish when I say this but the current filter drop design does not bother me as I never use filters on tele lenses. And if I had to put a filter on these lenses it would be almost certainly a grad and that would go in the front.
If for any special reason I had to put a filter at the back end of the lens I would unmount it and put it.
Besides I do not use 7D.
But again, I realize this is selfish and Canon should design drop in filter for all potential buyers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2012)

You're right, of course, Trowski. I never even looked at the shorter supertele lenses that closely - my 600 II has sufficient space. I suppose people are grasping at straws because this is one more delay in a long line of delays from Canon...



sanj said:


> And if I had to put a filter on these lenses it would be almost certainly a grad and *that would go in the front*.



You'd need a pretty big grad filter (minimum front element size is 100mm diameter, filter would need to be even bigger) to put in front of a supertele lens, and some jury-rigged way to hold it there since there are no filter threads in front.


----------



## sanj (Nov 16, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> You're right, of course, Trowski. I never even looked at the shorter supertele lenses that closely - my 600 II has sufficient space. I suppose people are grasping at straws because this is one more delay in a long line of delays from Canon...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You suppose the 200-400 has front element that large?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2012)

sanj said:


> You suppose the 200-400 has front element that large?



Yes. With a telephoto lens design, the entrance pupil is basically at the front element, and since the entrance pupil is the optical representation of the physical aperture (iris diaphragm) it has the same diameter. 400mm f/4 means a 100mm diameter entrance pupil (400 / 4 = 100). With it being a zoom lens, the front element may need to be a little larger than that, to reduce vignetting. If you compare it to the 500/4 II (~125mm diameter front element), you can see that it's probably at least 100mm in diameter:


----------



## sanj (Nov 17, 2012)

Thank you Neuro. I understand corrected.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > And if I had to put a filter on these lenses it would be almost certainly a grad and *that would go in the front*.
> ...


http://www.cokin.co.uk/pages/cokinX.htm



neuroanatomist said:


> and some jury-rigged way to hold it there since there are no filter threads in front.


There is a lens hood mount.


----------

