200-400/4L - how much would you pay?

[Steve Balcombe]

I think I'm a whisker away from placing an order for a 300/2.8L IS II and both MkIII Extenders. Best price in the UK for the three together is in the region of £5700.

One of the things which is stopping me (apart from abject fear of spending such a large amount on a toy) is the impending launch of the 200-400/4L. This is near enough the same optical size of lens, the only thing missing being the option of f/2.8 at 300 mm which would be nice to have but it's not mission-critical for me. Thanks to the built-in 1.4x, I wouldn't need to pay for any additional Extenders.

A major reason for choosing the 300 plus TCs instead of a larger lens like the 500/4 is its excellent portability (I want to backpack it), but I would be willing to give up some of that for the unbeatable convenience of the zoom.

But it's going to be very expensive. At street price, how much more would you be willing to pay over and above the £5700 (or the price in your country) for the 200-400? I'm not asking for speculation re the actual price - but how much of a premium over the 300-plus-Extenders price would you actually be willing to fork out before deciding it's just too dear?

 

[Wyville]

Although I won't be buying one, I think the 200-400 could very well be worth the $11,000 it is rumored to be. It seems to be a wildlife photographer's dream lens.

 

[Ray Chen]

Considering the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is less than half price of a 200 f/2, I would only value the 200-400 zoom at half of a a 400 f/2.8 prime + $1000 for the built-in extender.

--
_ _
| | | \ / |
| \ | | | | o

 

[iShootWideOpen]

I would pay up to $8K but the lens will be around the $10K mark.

 

[Andy Blanchard]

Well, at the risk of providing Canon with some free marketing research as to what price the market will bear...

The quite well regarded Nikon equivalent, albeit without the inbuilt TC, is "only" £4500 in the UK from well known stockists. Having had my hands on a couple of Canon's prototypes, the size of TC bulge and feel of the switch makes me suspect it's possibly just the regular 1.4x mkIII optics in a cradle. Put those two together, along with the large prices hikes of the Mark II super-tele primes and you might get some kind of idea as to pricing.

Unless the image quality is a spectacular step up from the Nikon, and once prices have settled down, I'd expect it to end up somewhere in the £5500-£6000 bracket due to the Mark II pricing uplift. At launch, and for some months afterward, I'd expect it to be selling somewhere around the £8000 mark. As to what I'd be prepared to pay, well, that's going to depend on the IQ and, to a lesser extent, when in the year it ships in relation to when I'm going to be using it, but probably somewhere in the £6000-£7000 bracket.

Andy

 

[Schwany]

You won't have a choice with regard to the price. Concentrate on what you need and what will work best for you.

Me, I wouldn't get one. I'd get the f/2.8 prime. The f/2.8 lens will use all the benefits your camera focus system has to offer. The f/4 is limited out of the gate. In addition, once you drop that 1.4x extender into place, it becomes a center point only AF lens. It also won't be as fast focusing as the 300f/2.8 under any circumstances. It may even be heavier. Remains to be seen.

I thought about the zoom when it was first announced because it could replace a 200f/2.8, 300f/4, and a 400f5.6 in my lens pile. However, I know it would never replace a 500f/4L IS on the best of days, so I swept that idea under the rug. I'd buy the 300f/2.8 before I'd buy the zoom, but that's just me, and I know what would work for what I use a camera for.

Maybe you should grow that whisker a little longer and think about it some more. At the rate Canon is going on production of that lens I think you'll have plenty of time.

 

[BigBen08]

I'd pay $10,000 to $11,000...but, the IQ has to be stellar with and without the tc.

Of course, I'd like the price to be lower. And there's other things to consider...size and weight, AF speed & accuracy, stops of IS offered. If it meets my needs, then I'd pay the price.

Time will tell

 

[jitteringjr]

Either way I am jealous. I can't justify spending that much on a lens, but if I did, I would say $10,000 to the rumored $11,00 USD would be fair.

I am hoping for some poor man's L compromises like a 100-400L II, a 400/5.6 L IS, or a 200-400/5.6 L IS to be released.

 

[Black Dot Bob]

It could be more than $15,000................. Then what?

 

[Jim4496]

It could be more than $15,000................. Then what?

Then i'll get the 500mm f4L II.

Or maybe just buy the Nikon 200-400mm and one of their camera's.

 

[BigBen08]

I am hoping for some poor man's L compromises like a 100-400L II, a 400/5.6 L IS, or a 200-400/5.6 L IS to be released.

You know, Canon users have been clamoring for lenses like these for a very long time.
If Canon produced them, I believe they would sell by the boat-load.

But instead, Canon concentrates on ultra-expensive lenses like the 300, 400, 500, and 600 super teles.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

The quite well regarded Nikon equivalent, albeit without the inbuilt TC, is "only" £4500 in the UK from well known stockists.

Yep - in other words the lens which we all thought was desirable but rather expensive is now less than Canon's 300/2.8 prime! (And that's without the 1.4x Extender I would need to add to get the reach.)

Having had my hands on a couple of Canon's prototypes, the size of TC bulge and feel of the switch makes me suspect it's possibly just the regular 1.4x mkIII optics in a cradle.

I've handled one too, and I understand what you mean. However it can't be the same, because when you flip it out of use the tube remains. When you remove a conventional TC the main lens shifts back by the length of the TC.

Put those two together, along with the large prices hikes of the Mark II super-tele primes and you might get some kind of idea as to pricing.

Unless the image quality is a spectacular step up from the Nikon, and once prices have settled down, I'd expect it to end up somewhere in the £5500-£6000 bracket due to the Mark II pricing uplift.

If you're right (but I fear you won't be :-(), that's in the same ball park as the 300/2.8 plus the two Extenders and I would give it very serious consideration.

It's also in the same ball park as Nikon's lens complete with a body to use it on...

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I can't justify spending that much on a lens,

Nor can I, so I'm not going to try.

 

[Apewithacamera]

no text

 

[mattr]

Considering the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is less than half price of a 200 f/2, I would only value the 200-400 zoom at half of a a 400 f/2.8 prime + $1000 for the built-in extender.

Good point, I agree.

I would never buy one anywhere close to the rumored price.

Everybody has different needs, but IMO constant aperture supertele zooms for wildlife/bird photography should be a thing of the past. The idea that somebody shoots with this monster at 200/4 when better results can likely be obtained with a more nimble 70-200/4IS that costs perhaps 10% is just ridiculous.

The future should be excellent supertele prime lenses (perhaps with built-in 1.4x and/or 2x TCs) used with very high resolution cameras that allow cropping flexibility.

 

[Andy Blanchard]

I've handled one too, and I understand what you mean. However it can't be the same, because when you flip it out of use the tube remains. When you remove a conventional TC the main lens shifts back by the length of the TC.

Good point; when you disengage the TC you effectively replace it with a rather large extension tube. Hmm. I guess that leaves two options; either you are switching between two sets of rear elements, or (more likely, I think) the TC is also correcting for the reduced distance between the rear element of the standard lens and the sensor.

If you're right (but I fear you won't be :-(), that's in the same ball park as the 300/2.8 plus the two Extenders and I would give it very serious consideration.

Due to the huge flexibility this lens offers sports and wildlife photographers I think it's going to be very popular for a super-tele, and larger production runs generally help to keep the manufacturing costs down. That's what I'm hoping anyway... Option B would be to trade in one of my other big primes, but it's going to have to have pretty amazing IQ for me to even seriously consider going down that route.

It's also in the same ball park as Nikon's lens complete with a body to use it on...

Yeah. Strange that... it used to be the other way around. What's up with that, Canon? ;-)

Andy