Canon 200-400 f/4 reviewed by "Chasseur d'Images"

Started Jun 20, 2013 | Discussions thread
jjnik Senior Member • Posts: 1,319
Re: Canon 200-400 f/4 reviewed by "Chasseur d'Images"

qianp2k wrote:

dhogaza wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

That part I actually hard to imagine other way around. I thought internal TC reduces gap, and internal TC lens elements probably are part of entire lens structure, that moves in and out dynamically.

It's still a single unit, like a conventional TC.

And as others have pointed out, the 1.4x III is so stunningly sharp that there's really not much room for improvement.

Slightly less vignetting because the TC is further up the lens is a possibility (minimizing vignetting is one reason for the canon TCs having that front snoot that sticks up the back of the lens a bit, according to some).

If internal TC indeed has no difference to external TC, then I'd not spend extra $4K just for integrity if Canon offered two versions, one with TC and one without TC.

Where has this myth come from that the internal TC is responsible for $4K of its price? I've seen others make similar statements as though it's a fact.

My guess is that it adds a few hundred dollars. Optically should cost about the same as a 1.4x III. Mechanically, yes, there's the swing and lock mechanism (including a switch to inform the lens's computer of the TCs position), but the external TC has a lens barrel, front and rear mount, and a separate chip to modify the signals passed from the lens to camera and vice-versa.

Just because the EF 200-400 is about $4K more than Nikons older 200-400/4 doesn't mean the internal TC's why.

That is where myth came from by comparing to Nikon copy that is not that old anyway.

Actually, the Nikon 200-400 was introduced in 2003 so it is sort of old lens design.  In fairness, it was given a very minor update in 2010 to add Nano coating and newer VR (and a price hike) - but, optically, it's unchanged.

The new supertelephotos are more expensive than their older Nikkor counterparts. On the other hand, the new Nikkor 800/5.6 is about $18K, a big chunk more than the older Canon counterpart ...

200-400G/4.0 (2010) is two years newer than Canon 800L (2008).

What does the Nikon 200-400 G have to do with the Canon 800L?  Isn't the relevant comparison, the $13,250 Canon 800L (2008?) to the $17,900 Nikon 800G (2013)?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow