Canon 200-400
- Thread starter gary996
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 May 2005
- Posts
- 5,622
- Location
- West London
Of course, but it's priced stupidly, it's probably more than the prime actually, given what you can get for the money (if it's 1 or the other, if you can afford/want more then it's no brainer)
So if it priced as mentioned in the article ($11k aus) then how much would that drop after 6 months or a year of sale? Not a lot because it's such a speciality item?
Have any similarly priced lenses been released in the last few years so you can estimate the price drop?
Have any similarly priced lenses been released in the last few years so you can estimate the price drop?
It's called the 100-400 f/4-5.6LThat's due a replacement as well though but that's basically the 200-400 for poor people.
No, the better option is the Sigma 120-300 OS with a tc... 180-420 f/4 and 240-600 f/5.6.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 May 2005
- Posts
- 5,622
- Location
- West London
It won't drop much to be honest, the high end teles don't drop much as they are very limited in production. The only good thing is they tend to hold value quite well second hand, largely due to the limited supply and the increased likelihood of a private individual taking meticulous care of a £8k lens (Except ex pro lens which tend to be battered!)
As an aside, reminds me of the fantastic data put together on historical canon lens at http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=257659
Sadly the jump of expense at the long end is massive, from £1k for a f5.6 to £5k for a f4 DO to £8k for a f2.8 at 400mm....
It's called the 100-400 f/4-5.6L
Yes but if you have the 70-200 then a 200-400 would be nicer not 100-400
Lenses overlapping isn't as much of a problem as people think it is, gary. In most situations you'll only have one body that you're actively shooting and changing lenses is only sometimes an option. And even if you have two bodies to shoot with, you'd struggle to have a 200-400 mounted on a second body, they'd just be too heavy unless you're in a pit and you've got the 200-400 on a tripod or monopod. Wildlife and you can forget about it.
True I guess
apparently they reflect more sunlight and reduce the effects of heat build up causing expansion of components in the lens. Supposed to increase image quality across a range of operating conditions.
- Or -
Its all a big marketing gimmick. White lens = pro = desirable.
Take your pick
No they did it to maintain market share as Nikon caught up. The 20-35L, 28-70L and 80-200L basically won Canon the pro user market space when they were the flagships, and when Nikon started catching up they needed to let people know that it was Canon that the pros used, so the new lenses came out in white, so whenever you saw a white barrel on TV at a sporting event etc., photographers would know it's a Canon shooter.
The glass canon uses is subject to thermal expansion so on their bigger lenses with bigger elements and a larger body the barrel is a light grey, dirty white color to try to minimize solar thermal heating.
That is still the case these days but canon use it as a marketing trick as well.
Never understood why they thought it looks good, Dirty white with red?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 May 2005
- Posts
- 5,622
- Location
- West London
Actually, the white has changed slightly. The 70-200mm f2.8l IS II is the last yellowish white. From the Mark II super teles, it is now a nicer "greyer" white.
To be honest I like the new colour, looks good I think, the old yellowy shade looked like a plastic lunchbox that had been through a dishwasher far too many times...
Maybe not obvious in my pic of my 400 vs 70-200, will try and take one over weekend to highlight
To be honest I like the new colour, looks good I think, the old yellowy shade looked like a plastic lunchbox that had been through a dishwasher far too many times...
Maybe not obvious in my pic of my 400 vs 70-200, will try and take one over weekend to highlight
Last edited:
yeah, the newer grey version is definitely an imporvement, the older yellowy ones just looked like they were stained, old and dirty or the UV bleached them like cheap PVC window frames.
I do hope Nikon updated their superteles with lighter versions.
I do hope Nikon updated their superteles with lighter versions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 May 2005
- Posts
- 5,622
- Location
- West London
In the world of canon it was versus say the 400 is i usm but no longer. Thonk its 4.2 or so.
That's why I like the is ii because of the significant weight loss. They shaved 30% or so off versus the mk I IS. It is very hand holdable
Also DP Canon improved the rubber gasket on the element. The older revisions were notorious for being rubbish and protecting the body which ended up each time you put the hood on you were risking scratching the body of the lens.
That's why I like the is ii because of the significant weight loss. They shaved 30% or so off versus the mk I IS. It is very hand holdable
Also DP Canon improved the rubber gasket on the element. The older revisions were notorious for being rubbish and protecting the body which ended up each time you put the hood on you were risking scratching the body of the lens.
Last edited:
