Canon 200-400mm L announced - £11,999

[olv]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/0...elezoom-with-built-in-switchable-teleconverte

The 200-400mm was always going to be expensive, that much is obvious. But christ on a bike it's £12k!

 

[iamtheoneneo]

bargin, dont forget guys £10,000 of that is canon inflation.

 

[Raymond Lin]

200/2.0 and 400/2.8 comes to about £12k.

I'd take that instead !

 

[King Damager]

Thank god it's not extortionate. Was worried it was going to make me more confused about potential lenses!

kd

 

[munge]

And 3.6kg!!!

 

[Amp34]

And 3.6kg!!!

3.6kg isn't that heavy! The Nikon version is about the same (maybe a little heavier) and the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is only slightly lighter (and easily hand holdable for long periods). The general dmensions are the biggest issues - massive!

 

[D.P.]

3.6kg isn't that heavy! The Nikon version is about the same (maybe a little heavier) and the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is only slightly lighter (and easily hand holdable for long periods). The general dmensions are the biggest issues - massive!

Yeah, the Nikon one is popular because you can hand hold it for short periods of time.

The Nikon seems a bargain at £4800! Plus you can pick up the older ones cheaper.
(Just don't look at the Nikon 800mm price)

 

[2StepSteve]

Pricing error detected.

 

[Andy90]

About time it was released.

Not too extortionate - prices will settle a little.

I'm with Raymond though, a 200mm f/2.0 and a 400mm f/2.0 would be very nice.

BTW Ray, LCE at Guildford have a 200mm f/1.8 for sale at £3k - check their website - a cosmetically used version but apparently optically immaculate

 

[hyperst]

12k, does it include a small family car?

 

[Amp34]

About time it was released.

Not too extortionate - prices will settle a little.

I'm with Raymond though, a 200mm f/2.0 and a 400mm f/2.0 would be very nice.

BTW Ray, LCE at Guildford have a 200mm f/1.8 for sale at £3k - check their website - a cosmetically used version but apparently optically immaculate

The 200-400 is a sport/safari lens. It's a pain in the **** having to change lenses during action sequences.

 

[Ksanti]

Every time these lenses come up people throw a fit that professional lenses and bodies are designed for professional users and as such the high end gear that costs a lot to make will cost a lot to buy.

 

[Andy90]

Yes I know its a sports/safari lens.

I would still like the 200 and 400 though.

 

[Raymond Lin]

200/1.8?!?!?! I want!

 

[2StepSteve]

For this kind of money it should be 1.4 throughout the 200-400mm range.

 

[Amp34]

Every time these lenses come up people throw a fit that professional lenses and bodies are designed for professional users and as such the high end gear that costs a lot to make will cost a lot to buy.

Now the question is... Is it worth 5x the price of a 120-300 OS and a 1.4x TC?

Especially considering the new one is weather sealed and at least in the centre of the frame* out resolves my D7000 even wide open at f/4.

*I haven't really done any test shots with mine, just general shooting, which is mostly wildlife, hence the focal point being around the middle of the frame...

 

[olv]

Any European buyer would be totally nuts not to just order one in America and fly over and pick it up saving £4000.

 

[Andy90]

Andy Rouse has had one for 6 months. He's posted quite a nice review

http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?page_id=174

 

[King Damager]

200/1.8?!?!?! I want!

Is the .2 offered over a 200/2 really worth it though?

kd

 

[Raymond Lin]

Is the .2 offered over a 200/2 really worth it though?

kd

It's less about the 0.2, more about the bragging rights

It is cheaper than a new 200/2.0 though but if the 200/1.8 goes wrong you would be in trouble as I don't think Canon support it anymore.