| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Canon 200-400
Justin Edmonds, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 1:16 AM on 02.07.11 |
->> Canon announced the development of a 200-400 f/4 with built in 1.4ex and is scheduled to be launched in 2011.
http://bit.ly/hkAW9x |
|
Michael Stevens, Photographer
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 1:21 AM on 02.07.11 |
->> How about a 100-300 f/2.8L IS now? :)
Considering that two of the most common lenses used by a majority of us are the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and the 300 f/2.8L IS that would be an easy sell. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
| | | Posted: 8:23 AM on 02.07.11 |
| ->> Well there is the lens I want but am sure I won't be able to afford (or be able to justify in my kit given what I've been shooting the past 2 years). |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
|
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 8:48 AM on 02.07.11 |
| ->> It's about time! Hopefully it isn't rediculously expensive, but I'm sure it will be... |
|
Jason Joseph, Photographer
|
Dublin | OH | USA | Posted: 9:30 AM on 02.07.11 |
| ->> That is going to be a pricey piece of glass! |
|
Dennis Wierzbicki, Photographer
|
Plainfield | IL | USA | Posted: 9:56 AM on 02.07.11 |
| ->> Cool, and about time...but the integrated 1.4X is a feature I really don't need (already have a separate 1.4X TC) and really don't want to pay for...sort of like IS on the current versions of the 300 and 400...if I could buy a non-IS version for less $$$ (like I did with my non-IS 70-200 f/2.8), I would, but having a built-in 1.4X TC will probably give Canon the justification to make their lens more expensive than the Nikon one, which will seriously diminish the attractiveness of this piece of glass, at least IMO. As far as I'm concerned, it's a feature I could definitely do without. I also wonder how much the integrated TC will add to the weight of the thing? |
|
Neil Turner, Photographer
|
Bournemouth | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 10:29 AM on 02.07.11 |
->> but the integrated 1.4X is a feature I really don't need
It could be that the design of the lens doesn't make it compatible with the current 1.4x model... |
|
Steve Violette, Photographer
|
Gulf Breeze | FL | USA | Posted: 10:38 AM on 02.07.11 |
| ->> My question is... Will the 1.4x still stop down the lens or not? |
|
Max Gersh, Photographer
|
Rockford | IL | USA | Posted: 11:27 AM on 02.07.11 |
| ->> It will be interesting to see how the integrated 1.4x works. Will it be something you have to engage like IS? I can't imagine that it will always be "on." Where does that piece of glass go when you don't want the extension? |
|
Anthony Soufflé, Photographer
|
Walter Scriptunas II, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Charleston | WV | United States | Posted: 12:05 PM on 02.07.11 |
->> Steve, this is from DPreview.
"With the converter engaged, it becomes a 280-560mm F5.6 lens." |
|
Dennis Wierzbicki, Photographer
|
Plainfield | IL | USA | Posted: 12:11 PM on 02.07.11 |
->> @Anthony: that's a much better picture...almost looks like it will swing into position for use and rotate out of position when not in use - probably stored in that semi-cylindrical bump out visible on the left side of the lens (as viewed from the rear element).
Again, this is an interesting feature, but unless it is substantially and technically better than a separate TC, and I don't personally consider convenience alone to be substantial, then I'd prefer having the option of buying a 200-400 with or without the integral TC, and not having to pay the extra for the TC nor having to carry it around with me (weight) at all times.
Interesting question by Neil...doesn't the Nikon 200-400 accept teleconverters? Why would Canon design a 200-400 that doesn't, and don't all other current generation Canon super telephoto lenses accept their TC's...unless they are trying to force new buyers into only buying what Canon wants them to buy? That might work if shooters had no other options other than to buy/stay Canon, but the past 4 years have seen thousands of former Canon fans moving to Nikon so clearly there IS an option. |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington/Normal | IL | United States | Posted: 12:11 PM on 02.07.11 |
| ->> Make it a full time 2.8 or 2.0 and they will have something. |
|
Gregory Greene, Photographer
|
Durham | NH | USA | Posted: 1:31 PM on 02.07.11 |
->> I understand Canon wanting to compete with the Nikon equivalent but I really wish they had released a 100-300 f2.8
instead. That would have peaked my interest a lot more.
Combined with the new TC's that would have offered great
flexibility. |
|
Svein Ove Ekornesvaag, Photographer
|
Aalesund | Møre og Romsdal | Norway | Posted: 1:33 PM on 02.07.11 |
| ->> The most interesting today was that no new 1ds was launched. I'm starting to think that Canon is tired of pros and want them to switch to Nikon. I want the 5dII sensor in the 1dIV body and I want it now. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 1:56 PM on 02.07.11 |
->> Svein-
What's the difference between that and a 1Ds III? |
|
Svein Ove Ekornesvaag, Photographer
|
Aalesund | Møre og Romsdal | Norway | Posted: 4:21 PM on 02.07.11 |
| ->> Video and better AF. And hopefully a stop or two better high iso performance. |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
|
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 4:40 PM on 02.07.11 |
| ->> re 1dsMkIV - I've always felt Canon should redesign the 5dII and make it more like the build of the old EOS 3 and get rid of the 1ds line altogether. |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 5:10 PM on 02.07.11 |
| ->> So can you use a teleconverter on the lens when the teleconverter is engaged? |
|
Svein Ove Ekornesvaag, Photographer
|
Aalesund | Møre og Romsdal | Norway | Posted: 5:10 PM on 02.07.11 |
->> I think there is place both for EOS 3d and 1dsIV with same specifications, but different bodies.
I'm more into killing the 1dIV and replace it with a 1dsIV with FF and 10fps. |
|
Gregory Greene, Photographer
|
Durham | NH | USA | Posted: 7:07 PM on 02.07.11 |
->> I kind of like the 1D/1DS split line. For one thing it
allows me to somewhat manage the cost of a 1D body every
few years. I'd hate for the entry point to the 1D line
to be a lone 1DS at $10000-$12000.
Also, I really hate the feel of a modular body and that
is what a 3D would end up being. I much prefer the solid
feel of a 1D body. |
|
Duane Burleson, Photographer
|
Sterling Heights | MI | USA | Posted: 2:25 PM on 02.08.11 |
->> I would think a built in converter would be much lighter weight than the current external 1.4x. because you don't have to enclose it in a housing with the weight of the mounts, case, etc.
Being built in also would allow it to be placed in a better optical alignment and probably with less elements than the external 1.4x resulting in sharper images.
I can see a lot of options being able to flip in and out a 1.4x when needed.
Just my thoughts.
Duane |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
|
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 2:34 PM on 02.08.11 |
| ->> Any optics wizards out there? It seems to me that with the built in 1.4, you will be adding glass but not increasing the distance between the front element and the camera sensor, therefore you will not lose a stop of light? Does that make sense? |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|