# OMG:  Canon finally released the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x



## TCampbell (May 14, 2013)

I've been watching the rumors on this lens for years.  I thought it was never going to surface in the real world.

It's a 200-400mm zoom (which makes it Canon's highest focal length "zoom") at a fixed f/4 focal ratio... except it has a built-in 1.4x teleconverter -- flick a switch and it's a 280-560mm f/5.6 lens.

The teleconverter is specifically tuned for this lens -- it's not a generic 1.4x.  The articles I've seen about it mention that it's MUCH shaper than just using a general 1.4x teleconverter with a lens.

And this lens can be yours for the low low price of only $11,799!  At that price you may just want to buy two!

Just in case anybody was wondering... my birthday is in October.


----------



## Tony S (May 14, 2013)

My birthday is in late December, so you guys have longer to save up to get it for me.

  I will be getting one after I turn in my winning Powerball ticket.


----------



## Overread (May 14, 2013)

I'd just like to remind you all that my birthday is in July and that if you all club together and get me one I'll not only write a really nice review for the forum, but I'll also all let you in the mods bar once for a drink! 

*I might then have to go into hiding before Teri tries to kill me for the bill that will incur *


Price is high, but I'd hope that some of that will get knocked down after launch like many prices - so it might end up $10K ish if we are lucky. Otherwise great to see Canon finally nail this section of the market (I've known quite a few wildlife/sports togs jump to Nikon JUST for their 200-400mm)


----------



## KenC (May 14, 2013)

For that price they should include not only a nice padded carrying case, but also a break on the insurance.


----------



## JacaRanda (May 14, 2013)

They clearly did not have me in mind with that price tag.  Darn, I thought it was all about me :angry1:

I am really struggling with wanting more reach and which route to take.  I should really thank Canon for letting me off the hook with their 200-400.


----------



## Derrel (May 14, 2013)

This thing was actually spotted, and photographed, by a TPF member on a photo safari in Africa, I believe it was, mid-way through the development phase, along with some pre-production Canon camera bodies..that was like, two years ago I think!!! I remember the thread here on TPF. I 'think' the Canon bodies were the prototypes of the 5D-III and 1DX, but could be mistaken. But the lens, yeah...it's been a long time in development.


----------



## kathyt (May 14, 2013)

I want it. How much does it weigh?


----------



## kathyt (May 14, 2013)

Derrel said:


> This thing was actually spotted, and photographed, by a TPF member on a photo safari in Africa, I believe it was, mid-way through the development phase, along with some pre-production Canon camera bodies..that was like, two years ago I think!!! I remember the thread here on TPF. I 'think' the Canon bodies were the prototypes of the 5D-III and 1DX, but could be mistaken. But the lens, yeah...it's been a long time in development.



Are you being serious?


----------



## Derrel (May 14, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> I want it. How much does it weigh?



3,620 grams. Google is your friend!!!

33 elements in 24 groups!!!

Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Hands On Preview [JuzaPhoto]

And YES, totally serious. The lens was seen, and photographed while in use on a safari, and the post was here on TPF. "Mystery lens" spotted or something like that was the thread name, IMMSMC, and it might NOT SMC!!! But yeah...the lens and the cameras were seen, "in the wild", during their testing phase, and there were photos of them posted. I think it was ~ two years ago.


----------



## kathyt (May 14, 2013)

Derrel said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > I want it. How much does it weigh?
> ...


That would be pretty amazing. I would be sure to make nice with those fine fellows. I like how they put the weight in grams instead of pounds. It doesn't sound so bad. They could have listed "really frickin' heavy" instead.


----------



## Derrel (May 14, 2013)

3,620 grams according to an on-line conversion engine is 128 ounces, or 7.98 pounds, so "about" what some 300mm f/2.8 lenses weigh. In the same general ballpark.


----------



## Overread (May 14, 2013)

Yep I recall those in the wild shots - they spun around the web like mad! Probably did canon a good bit of free marketing there since till that point it was something they were "working on" but that no one had seen anything of save demo mockups.


----------



## runnah (May 14, 2013)

It takes a true gear geek to take photos of photographers during an African Safari.


----------



## Steve5D (May 14, 2013)

KenC said:


> For that price they should include not only a nice padded carrying case, but also a break on the insurance.



B&H has the lens available for pre-order at $11,799.00. The case is another $699.00.

How the case isn't included is a mystery to me...


----------



## kathyt (May 14, 2013)

Derrel said:


> 3,620 grams according to an on-line conversion engine is 128 ounces, or 7.98 pounds, so "about" what some 300mm f/2.8 lenses weigh. In the same general ballpark.


Yep. I have the 300mm f/2.8 lens right now for two weeks from CPS. It is really heavy. I can't imagine lugging this lens around for very long.


----------



## kathyt (May 14, 2013)

runnah said:


> It takes a true gear geek to take photos of photographers during an African Safari.


Screw the pictures. I would be making friends.


----------



## Overread (May 14, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> KenC said:
> 
> 
> > For that price they should include not only a nice padded carrying case, but also a break on the insurance.
> ...



Eh if it saving near half the price I'm glad its not included (the case price suggests it must be something stupidly strong to survive almost anything - or is just supremely overpriced as an accessory).


----------



## DarkShadow (May 14, 2013)

Derrel said:


> 3,620 grams according to an on-line conversion engine is 128 ounces, or 7.98 pounds, so "about" what some 300mm f/2.8 lenses weigh. In the same general ballpark.


Good god,thats like holding a Newborn Baby.A sturdy tripod comes to mind.


----------



## EDL (May 14, 2013)

DarkShadow said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > 3,620 grams according to an on-line conversion engine is 128 ounces, or 7.98 pounds, so "about" what some 300mm f/2.8 lenses weigh. In the same general ballpark.
> ...



Bah, a mere featherweight compared to the 34.6 pounds of Sigma's 200-500mm f/2.8 APO EX DG  :hail:


----------



## DarkShadow (May 14, 2013)

Wow,I learn something new everyday.I can do curls with that.:shock: I did not realize they get that heavy.


----------



## bentcountershaft (May 14, 2013)

For what it is the weight isn't bad.  Less than a gallon of milk.


----------



## DarkShadow (May 14, 2013)

At least lugging a gallon of milk around I can drink it along the way and it starts to get lighter.


----------



## Tony S (May 14, 2013)

Considering that the 400 2.8 IS II is $10,999 and a 1.4TC is another $449  the new combo 200-400 with built in 1.4TC at 11,799 is not bad.   And since it's lighter I might actually save money over having shoulder and neck surgery carrying around the 11 pound plus behemoth 400 2.8 IS ...  but I do like the 2.8 for night shooting.


----------



## TCampbell (May 15, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> KenC said:
> 
> 
> > For that price they should include not only a nice padded carrying case, but also a break on the insurance.
> ...



My EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM included the hard-shell case but you can buy the case separately (I suppose if your case was damaged.)  I couldn't find much info on the lens straight from Canon (their page on the lens is pretty thin on content other than to show that the lens is real now.)

HOWEVER... I hopped over to B&H to look up the lens and under the "In the box" tab, they do show that the case is included with the lens.  Assuming that's accurate, this lens is even MORE of a bargain!  (yes, my tongue sort of was in my cheek.)  I did see that they've finally posted the MTF curves for the lens and it's extremely good... even with the 1.4 tele enabled it's extremely good.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 15, 2013)

OMG! I'm probably the only one who is very NOT INTERESTED in this lens. 

Glad you guys are though! Start saving! ;-)


----------



## Derrel (May 15, 2013)

This lens, and Nikon's 200-400 f/4 VR...does not make a lot of sense for many scenarios. Oh sure, there are "some" people who want this focal length range, but to "me", I always thought the 200-400 f/4 was kinda useless. Why???

Let's just call the lens 7.5 pounds. Soooo, a 7.5 lb, 200mm f/4??? WTF??? Or a 7.5 lb 300mm f/4? Huh??? A traditional Nikkor 200mm f/4 is about the size of the bottom part of a 12-ounce beer bottle, and used 52mm filters. A Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S is about the size of a 1-liter soda bottle, and is 'roughly' the size of a 70-200mm f/2.8. Basically, the user gets a long, heavy, FRONT-heavy, slow-aperture lens, for thousands of dollars...

Again??? A 7.5 lb 200mm f/4 lens??? F/FOUR????

Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 always struck me as a "so what!" lens...same with this thing. Of course, for daytime birding, and for some field sports shot during decent light, from stationary positions, and where nothing ever comes close to the camera position so that 200mm is not a drawback, and you do not mind being forced to work off a monopod at all times, then yeah, 200 to 400mm stuck at f/4 makes some sense.


----------



## Overread (May 15, 2013)

I've heard many bird photographers (the ones who shoot from hides) like the idea of a high quality 200-400mm lens (as opposed to a more iffy quality 100-400mm) because its a very usable zoom range for when the wildlife comes closer than expected. Yes they'll have their other camera and 500/600mm on the other tripod - but the option to have a 200-400mm (plus 1.4TC with the canon!) is a good range for them to work with since they can then adapt to a situation where they can't physically move themselves to reframe the shot . 

Yep its niche - but then appealing to niche markets is the power of the DSLR


----------



## Compaq (May 15, 2013)

Let's say 20 % the TPF members are bots or spamming machines. If the remaining members pitched in one buck each, we could afford almost 10 of those lenses.


----------



## kathyt (May 15, 2013)

Tony S said:


> My birthday is in late December, so you guys have longer to save up to get it for me.
> 
> I will be getting one after I turn in my winning Powerball ticket.


Sorry Tony, I already have the winning ticket.


----------



## dolina (May 30, 2013)

If you're on flickr join our flickr group and share your images from your 200-400mm Flickr: Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS Extender 1.4X Lens

Product shot was taken on January 13 2011, development was announced 3 weeks later on February 7 and now available in Canada today.

Two years and two months.

Any info as to the lengthy delay?


----------



## Overread (May 30, 2013)

Far as I know canons development announcement didn't actually have anything but a mockup design. That means it was either just a designed outer shell and no components or an early test model. From then till now is 2 years - not all that long to develop, test and put the lens into mass production (lets not forget that their lens line up has been under revision - heck the 400mm, 500mm and 600mm remakes got delayed  by about half a year or more due to production problems*)


*sourcing materials if I recall right.


----------



## dolina (Jun 6, 2013)

For the purpose of comparison.

From heaviest to lightest.

4.50kg - EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM
3.92kg - EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM 
3.85kg - EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM
3.62kg - EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X
3.19kg - EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM
2.52kg - EF 200mm f/2L IS USM
2.35kg - EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM


----------



## tirediron (Jun 6, 2013)

WTF??? A Canon lens that costs more than its Nikon cousin??????  :shock:


----------



## Overread (Jun 6, 2013)

tirediron said:


> WTF??? A Canon lens that costs more than its Nikon cousin??????  :shock:



We live in strange and confusing times




expensive ones too!


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 6, 2013)

Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X - FM Forums


----------

