Canon 200-400mm L announced - £11,999

D.P. said:
I never said any of those advantages are not apparent, I specifically said that speed and ease of use are much better with a built in TC.


I think we are not communicating clearly on the getting the shot part. I 100% agree that getting the shot is fundamental. The typcialy use case for the 200-400 without a built in TC would be:
1) Observe that subject size and distance (shy rhinos on safari) for todays shooting requires TC, put on TC.
2) Spend some time shooting distant rhinos on safari
3) Suddenly a large male lion approaches landrover very closely, zoom out and capture identical photos to that guy with the lens with the built in TC but accept shooting at f/5.6 or less vs f/4.0 or less. Guy with fancy new Canon lens just has to switch theTC setting on lens which is nice, but when comparing photos with a G&T back at camp there is relatively no difference.

No, Guy with TC on has to quickly try and change TC so he can get a 200mm focal length, not 280mm, or he shoots with TC on and zooms out as much as possible only getting the face at f/5.6. Guy with switch flicks it and gets 200mm f/4 and a shot of the entire lion, or zooms in a little and gets face shot.

4) Next day on safari, flamingos spotted but are a long way form shore. Guy with plain 200-400 puts on 2xTC, AF is slow and the images wont be as crisp at a naked lens but he gets some nice full frame captures that can still show fine feather detail. Guy with fancy lens with built in TC is stuck at 560mm, flamingos smaller in frame, composition cannot be matched without post-crops, final image has less detail.

Guy with fancy built in TC flicks the switch and removes TC, then fits conventional TC on at the same time as the other guy.

and of course scenario 5)
Zebra are up close to landrover so both guys shoot 200-400 naked (although wearing clothes). Out of no where a leopard is spotted in distance, landrover cannot approach closely for some reason. Canon guy flicks some switches and has a 560mm lens. Guy without built in TC, has to take lens off and quickly add TC. This takes longer and under some circumstances could cost the shot, although changing TCs is much like changing small prime lenses in a wedding- something Raymond I am sure you are quite happy in doing otherwise you would always use a 24-70! (hangign TCs is tually normally very easy because the lens is supported by the tripod, you just unlock the camera leaving the heavy lens supported, flick on the TC like a small lightporime, and then re-attach camera+TC.

In the real world shooting in a safari vehicle with a tripod is a massive pain... How about that situation where the animal jumps out and the driver doesn't have the time to turn the engine off, all you get is blurry vision from the vibration of the engine. Gotta say next time I go on safari I'm not going to take a beanbag, they are more of a pain that handholding. And then there is the walking safaris, carrying a large lens attached to a tripod when you're stalking through a bush should be funny to watch!

Just for fun there is someone using D.P.'s patent-pending super-TC module whoe combines the speed of the Canon's guys flick of a switch transition with the Nikon guys 2.0xTC and gains the 800mm needed to capture the FF shot of the leopard.


And for completeness, there was also a Guy with an 400mm (or 600mm, whatever) prime lens who is constantly adding and removing the TCs. When that lion get really close he cannot simply zoom out like the 200-400 owners, but is forced to remove the TC (and likely change lenses). If this prime lens had the ability swap between different TC settings then it would be much mere flexible. The reality is the guy with the fixed prime will either decide on a different composition (e.g. head and should portrait of the lion) or simply swap to his second camera with a 70-200 mounted.
Click to expand...
 
If you've got £11k to play with I suspect purchasing the Canon 1.4X Mk III and Canon 2.0 Mk III converters (which cost £395 each) will be like losing a 50p down a drain - ho hum not to worry. If I had that lens I would still have a 1.4x converter in my bag.

By the way, the new 200-400 can do the following according to Mr Rouse

1) With a 1.4x teleconverter attached and with the in-built teleconverter OFF, autofocus works fine and all focussing points work as normal, i.e you can select them with the joystick.

2) With a 1.4x teleconverter attached and with the in-built teleconverter ON, autofocus works fine but you can only use the centre focussing point

3) If you are totally desperate, like on a desert island and need to focus the suns rays through the lens to light a fire, then you may attach the 2x teleconverter. With the in-built teleconverter OFF, autofocus works slow but you can only use the centre focussing point. With the in-built teleconverter ON you are limited to the joys of manual focus.

Personally I wouldn't use a 2x converter, even the Canon one since the quality does take a nose dive.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I can change primes in a wedding because people don't run away. :p

Plus I have 3 FF bodies...

And if your superduper TC ever makes it out, I'm sure it'll sell like hot cakes but for now, we can only dream eh.
Click to expand...

The reality is most wildlife pros have multiple bodies with multiple lenses attached.

Also a lot of wildlife photography is much more static than you would think. Most animal go about there lives relatively slowly to conserve energy and to remain quiet and alert. The aim is also to either remain hidden or let your presence be known without disturbing the animal, patiently approaching in a calm manner. Of course the best shots are often dynamic, lions chasing antelope, ospreys catching salmon etc. In these cases you are mostly concerned about AF performance.



Don't get me wrong, I think the built in TC is a good idea but it is not going to change the face of photogrpahy like the invention of auto focus, IS, ultra wide lenses, colour film, digital sensors!
 

There is something fundamentally wrong with your planning if you have to change from 560mm down to 200mm where 280mm would somehow ruin the shot. The reality is ore like 560mm is not really enough, and then there is something closer where 300-400 would work. If you suddenly need to go way wider then that is what the second body is for.

VR has active does to help eliminate vehicle vibrations, that is what it is designed for. As for using tripods, that is the norm for pros, especially on the bigger lens you absolutely cannot hand hold them unless you are also a professional body builder and military marksman.
Tripods aren't a pain, they make carrying to much easy. I also attach a tripod or monopod to my 300mm f/4.0 just to make it easier to walk around with, just swing it over your shoulders. Far easier than hanging around your neck or hand holding.
 
D.P. said:
There is something fundamentally wrong with your planning if you have to change from 560mm down to 200mm where 280mm would somehow ruin the shot. The reality is ore like 560mm is not really enough, and then there is something closer where 300-400 would work. If you suddenly need to go way wider then that is what the second body is for.

VR has active does to help eliminate vehicle vibrations, that is what it is designed for. As for using tripods, that is the norm for pros, especially on the bigger lens you absolutely cannot hand hold them unless you are also a professional body builder and military marksman.
Tripods aren't a pain, they make carrying to much easy. I also attach a tripod or monopod to my 300mm f/4.0 just to make it easier to walk around with, just swing it over your shoulders. Far easier than hanging around your neck or hand holding.
Click to expand...

We're talking safaris here, in which case I'm thinking African safaris where unless you are a PRO (say working for the BBC) with free access off-road you have to stay on the roads in most parks. That means you will be moving around in a vehicle, without the ability to sneak up on an animal so you can shoot it closer, the reality is you'll be shooting long distance from the back of a truck/LR. That means occasionally there will suddenly be a creature turn up close by. Depending on what you are doing you could ignore it, or if you're just a wealthy amateur (lets face it safaris are generally expensive) you'll want to shoot that too. Either way I was responding to your scenario.

A second body would be included almost certainly but would that second body have a 70-200 or a 17-40 or 24-70? Obviously different people shoot differently but I'm guessing canon did a lot of research before they stuck a TC into the lens, I'm assuming because they had a lot of requests for it for example.

I found the easiest way to carry the 120-300 was with a rapidstrap system, it hanging by my side and then picked up when we got close to an animal.

On a side note to the vibration issue, I also didn't like the vibrations because they kept loosening the screws holding the lens mount to the lens... Not sure if it's standard not to have any loctite on screws or if it was just sigma UK forgetting to put any in when they serviced it... Luckily I had a tiny screwdriver to tighten them up every few days...
 
I think the multi award winning wildlife photogapher Andy Rouse has well described the benefits of an in-built TC.
 
Gaffer said:
£12k for a mid-range f/4 lens who's innovative feature is the ability to drop down to f/5.6?

Doesn't work for me.

Andrew
Click to expand...

Not quite 'the' feature is it :P The way I see it, it's a lens with a 200-560mm range and very good image quality. Whether you think the price tag is worth it then that's another matter. From the guy's review it seems to do lots of things right and very little wrong! I don't really know what the IQ is like on the Nikon 200-400 but as I'm not planning on changing then it's irrelevant.
 
Phal said:
It's very annoying to see the US price being almost half already :/

$11,799.00

Could have a holiday in the US for the price difference!
Click to expand...
You need to add local taxes to the US RRP price, so the gap between the UK price is a lot less.
 
SDK^ said:
You need to add local taxes to the US RRP price, so the gap between the UK price is a lot less.
Click to expand...

But if buying from the US and importing you'd head to somewhere that didn't have local taxes (Delaware, NH and Oregon for example).

Even then you're only looking at another 7ish% so they will still be paying around £3k less if you are in America.
 
Thought those taxes could also be claimed back? At least they can in Canada afaik as you're not a resident so paying other people's taxes isn't expected.

Either way, it's a sizeable chunk of cash :(
 
Rojin said:
I think the multi award winning wildlife photogapher Andy Rouse has well described the benefits of an in-built TC.
Click to expand...

No one has said there aren't good advantages, I just don't see it as a game changer, would definitely be more valuable on a prime and more valuable again if it had 2 different TCs available.

Considering the price you could buy 2 Nikon 200-400s and superglue a TC on one of them, and still have plenty of money left over to buy a D800. :D
 
Then the argument is how much you value minimsing the time lost taking the shot from having to put one camera down to pick up another or change lens/body and how much weight do you want to carry with you on location.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Then the argument is how much you value minimsing the time lost taking the shot from having to put one camera down to pick up another or change lens/body and how much weight do you want to carry with you on location.
Click to expand...

The integrated solution is definitely preferable. All I am trying to say is I don't think it is a game changer like the way Autofocus was.


I think the price point will be a big sticking point for Canon. With nikon users the 200-400 is often over looked because for a lot less money you can buy a 300mm f/2.8 + TC , for a little more you could buy the 500mm f/4.0 to get more reach or the 400mm f/2.8 to get more speed (and reach with TCs). The 200-400 is useful for certain types of photogrpahy and for keeping the weight down but it is not as popular as the other tele primes.
You also have to consider that over much of the 200-400mm range f/4.0 is very slow for that focal length. Getting to 300mm at f/4.0 is cheap, light and easy. Getting to 400mm is cheap and light if you are willing to accept shooting at f/5.6 (for most regular users the new 70-200 f/2.8s with TCs are perfectly acceptable, other wise we have cheap 300mm f/4.0 primes, and 80/100-400 lenses).

With Canons pricing this situation is even more skewed, the 400mm f.2.8 is much cheaper! Heck, you could get a 200mm f/2.0 + 400mm f/2.8 combo for not much more. They take all the TCs very, very well and are probably some of he best lenses Canon has ever made. The need for that zoom capability must really be overwhelming for most people to consider the slower relatively short zoom over 2 top primes.
 
Last edited:
AR has said how many more framed shots he will get using this lens, and that equals money. Sports shooters now that they have higher ISO performing bodies have also said how many more framed shots this lens will get them. It was also well liked at the Olympics. It's a pro, or loaded hobbyist lens. The main drawback for some will be the weight. As for cost, it'll replace primes that cost as much if this lens fits your needs. I'll never be able to afford one that's for sure!
 
Yeah. This is really for people where money isn't an 'issue' so to speak. In that either. It's how they earn their money, OR, you have lots of it. Interestingly, AR's review said he often found himself leaving the 200-400 (nikon) at home when he shot with it, because of the hassle of flicking a converter on off. It's one of the major things he seems to really like, that this isn't really a 200-400 lens, but more a 200-560.

kd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom