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

Started Jun 20, 2013 | Discussions thread
dhogaza Regular Member • Posts: 343
Re: Canon 200-400 f/4 reviewed by "Chasseur d'Images"

jjnik wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

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.

Interesting.  It's a good lens, but compared to the new canon 200-400/4, I suspect it will fare about as well as the older Canon MK I IS lenses vs. the MK II's (i.e., back in the day, we were all amazed by the MK Is, but now the MK IIs are out, and we're stunned ... at least I am).

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)?

You'd sorta think so

Anyway, my advice to qianp2k is ... don't buy it.  If you were to do so, you'd just make people who really want it to have to wait longer to get it ...

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