sceptical1: I am also excited about the new 400mm lens and hope Nikon offers something comparable. I am assuming this lens will perform similarly to other 400mm prime offerings from Canon and Nikon. Here is why this is great - size / weight and stabilization. With a DX camera like the 7D MII you would have a light package that could be hand held for short amounts of time. Further, it would allow you to use lighter tripods / ballheads. The weight savings alone have me tempted to purchase this setup. BTW - I don't consider it expensive as it is similar to comparable offerings. Anytime you can get a completely capable wildlife setup for < 10k you should be doing a happy dance!
the 400/4 DO uses diffractive optics which is patented by canon. it may take a while before Nikon can do anything such as this.
Jonath: Things that make me wonder a bit 1) So many people are so sure of how good this camera is, even though it hasn't been properly reviewed yet. How do you know how good low light performance is until a proper raw comparison is done? Imaging-resource has OOC jpeg's and they look distinctly on a par with much cheaper APS-C competition - but I can't really pass proper judegement, yet, nor on burst shooting or AF. 2) on face value the specs of this camera are only marginally improved over the the mki - its almost as if its a mid-model upgrade, not one that has taken 5 yrs to arrive. I appreciate we get passionate about our favoured camera brands but isn't that just a little bit disappointing? The market has moved on so much since the Mk1, so many new ideas, features & capabilities. It would leave me feeling a bit short changed, although I appreciate having followed this thread that the legendary 7D is above any kind of criticism and I'm clearly an amateur for even suggesting any :-)
AF, metering, burst rate, high ISO, buffer depth, sensor, viewfinder, build quality, card slots, mirror blackout, HDMI output, video options, shutter lag, AEB, auto ISO, MFA have all been improved over it's predecessor. marginally improved? okay then. I actually have to look hard to find something they didn't improve on from the 7D original.
if the 50-150's are 70-200 equivalents, then the 70-200's are 105 to 300mm.
it's a 50-150mm lens. with a cropped field of view of a 75 to 225mm.
it's still missing the characteristics that make the 70-200 desirable such as DOF control, bokeh, field flatting,etc.
the 70-200/4's offer a similar range, more reach than the 50-150's. they can also be used if the customer decides to augment their kit with a full frame camera down the road.
a 70-200/4 with both a copped body and a full frame body of varying pixel densities can offer additional advantages to the photographer as well, by having a varied actual per pixel reach with attached onto the cropped camera versus the full frame.
then again, for Fuji,etc .. this is moot since they don't have full frame. however for a Sony, Canon or Nikon user - I'm not sure this really makes a lot of sense.
CurtM: I am a bit confused as to how this camera fits in the line up. I have a Eos70d -- bought because I am rather new to photography and it was great at video too. If I were to upgrade one day (if I ever get to the point where I am not the limiting factor but rather the camera is -- and I am not yet at that point), why would one consider this cropped frame camera over the Eos 6D or 5D with full frame? The price difference seems to be rather marginal.
Curt - basically between crop and full frame prosumer cameras you have two lines:
70D and the 6D with similar build quality, etc and ergonomics.
7DII and the 5DIII with similar build quality and ergonomics.
surprisingly each set is nearly a matched pair for both the APS-C body and the Full frame body.
the 7D as far as ergonomics and build quality and performance sits above your 70D and under the 1 series.
cropped cameras work best for reach limited applications - such as telephoto based photography. you can also get smaller / lighter (and also cheaper) lenses for the cropped cameras than you can the full frame cameras.
since the pixel density is higher on the cropped cameras (a 70D/7DII sensor is the equivalent of a 51MP full frame sized sensor), than the 5DIII or the 6D, you get more per pixel "reach" with the cropped camera than you do with the current full frame cameras.
jamesm007: The myth mirrorless fans like to say... That during hi-speed sport shooting the OVF blacks out. Well not true in the way its stated. You don't lose sight of the object your tracking!. I put my camera to 7fps, the shutter to 1/300, there is barely a split second black out for 24 frames. You could see much more than you could not see, because the frame rate is high enough to make it look smooth to the eye. Even allowing for the mirror going up. Try it. Tracking is smooth you never lose the subject to black out. Unless your shooting at 1/15 then there may be. But at that speed your probably not shooting sports or even kids playing.
they tweak the blackout with the fps, and it really depends on the shutter speed btw.
however, there's no "slide show" or lag with the image that you see - so your brain and eyes still allow you to track.
"delayed view" simply does not work well for randomly moving motion.
kevindar: If this lens performs as well as the newly released canon 16-35 f4IS and the nikon 14-24, it may be time for me to seriously look at sony for my full frame needs, at the next generation of A7r where the AF of a6000 (or better) is incorporated, battery life is improved, mirror slap is gone.
it looks like it will be good around 16, but falls and it's pretty mushy at 35.
TheDreamingWatchman: I'm sure this is a very good camera.The AF-speed will be quite impressive.
However the 7DII is just not sexy! There is not one WOW-feature!I'm missing the tilted screen which is very useful in certain situations.Why is there no touch screen like on the 70D?Why did Canon not implement Wi-Fi like on the 6D and 70D? (I don't need Wi-Fi to upload pictures; I want Wi-Fi to control the Camera remotely, which is an amazing feature for wildlife.)I always had the feeling that Canon is so ungenerous: Why no time-lapse in Camera like Fuji? Why not several shots triggered by the self-timer like Nikon? These features hardly cost anything, but Canon is just too stingy!However my most important reservation is ISO noise and dynamic range. The ISO performance of the 7D was just pathetic; the dynamic range was not very good.The 7DII will be a little bit better in these regards and a little bit better is just not good enough for 2014!
if you need a camera to have a wow feature or "sexy" i suggest another hobby or a therapist...
jamesm007: Speaking only for the USA. Mirrorless sales are at record low levels. So are dSLRs. But dSLR sales are still much higher than mirrorless, why. The web sites such as this one and manufactors are driving away buyers. Once you buy a Pentax K-5, Nikon D7000, Canon 7D, or any FF. There is little to compel a person, a newbie an enthusiasts, a semi-pro, the money makers for manufactures, to buy another until this mirrorless thing goes away. By that I mean for mirrorless fans to stop trolling SLR forums. Its hurting sales overall! Everyone is doing it all wrong! Your confusing and pushing people away!
Its clear in all data that most in the USA and Europe don't want mirrorless as much as dSLR systems. Plain and simple. Once everyone learns this, you can steer the ship in the right direction. People would rather jump off the ship than forced into systems they dislike.
well Bam .. you'd be an expert on who's an idiot..
mmcfine: If you don't like it don't buy it! If you like photography first have something interesting to photograph, use the best (interesting) lens you can get, know how to post-process using RAW. Then you can buy a $200 used Rebel or $3000 5D, it won't make a massive different.
lol anandino .. bam is up to his usual canon bashing. sad really that some have nothing better to do in their mom's basement.
brelip: oh, and great job Sigma. Though i do wish the C is APSC only to save more weight...
the savings would be minimal as the lenses would still have the same large front elements. you'd get some savings in the middle and retrofocus elements, but that's a pretty small savings.
comparing the 55-250mm to the 70-300mm is not apples to apples - the 300mm will have a 53mm front element versus the 250mm's 44mm, and will be at least 50mm longer - and has to support that internally when you zoom out.
Karl Gnter Wnsch: If the "Sport" version is geared at the professionals which do not care that much about weight, why isn't it at least f/5.6? As f/6.3 they are missing the limit of the focusing systems - and since that is a physical limit the focusing on almost all DSLR will be compromized and not function as advertised and guaranteed by the manufacturers!
@nir-vana you are confusing transmission and aperture - which is not the same actually. transmission versus aperture is a measure of the efficiency and light loss - usually there's more with that in a zoom than a prime. aperture is straight focal length / limited by the diaphragm diameter.
this is pretty cool!
always wanted to see a rave DSLR
tlinn: Lot of complaining about this lens in the comments. Price is high, yes, and it is definitely fair to compare it to the competition and expect it to be competitive. But as for the rest, it seems fair to point out that every lens is a compromise in some way. Fuji offers amazing primes where IQ is completely uncompromised at the expense of convenience. This lens is for shooters that place a high priority on convenience and are willing to sacrifice some IQ to get there. Nothing wrong with that—even if my priorities lead me to other choices.
well according to some, fuji has already stated it will be a kit lens. since nikon and canon both have "kits" with their 18-135's it's not outlandish to think that fuji will bundle this in as a kit lens. it's not fast, not cheap, and not exceptional optically. it's a betweener lens that looks betweener in every category. at least hit one well - oh, it's weather sealed to go with the X-T1 .. which of course it may be bundled with it, but not a kit lens.. right.
troll more and harder there T3.. you're losing your touch.
Robert Kempen: this lens will be ideal for the game parks of Africa on an XT1
Get up close to the waterholes and shoot lions and other predators - good enough for those landscapes and sunsets also
Weather sealing perfect for the constant dust problem
OIS excellent for shooting freehand from the window of your vehicle
lol 135mm on a safari? good luck with that, and makes sure your medical insurance is up to date.
yes, but usually those types of lenses aren't 900 for a kit zoom either.
looks okay .. not sure what's happening with the reds in some of those shots... not an overwelming "wow" for a $900 lens though.
rrccad: so out of all these, only one would I consider the be "astro-photography" which is a challenging discipline in it's own right.
the rest i consider nightscapes. it's a shame that only one DSO made it on this list, as photographing DSO's is a technological challenge , extreme patience and time far exceeding that of the regular nightscape photograph.
Astrolandscape - I like that, and suits it for sure.
so out of all these, only one would I consider the be "astro-photography" which is a challenging discipline in it's own right.
RichRMA: Anyone looking at this would be advised (if high definition is their goal) to look into an alternative, custom apochromatic telescopes from Companies like AstroPhysics (U.S.) APM in Germany or TEC in Colorado. They'll provide better images (or at least as good) as the Canon for about 1/8 to 1/4 of the price. But it's likely a well-heeled collector will grab up the Canon.
a 220mm Flourite APO refractor? you're kidding right?
at 150K or so .. that actually may be cheap.
astrophyics only has a 175mm f/8 triplet for 21K no flourite.