http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_can ... 2480288844 Another one of their "we're working on it" announcements. ; No release date, no info if they've received FDA approval or not.
Interesting but I think the sigmonster will take a lot to unrest. ; Awesome range, price, Nd IQ. ; This new Canon lens ain't gonna be cheap. ; 24-105 f/2.8 IS please?!
It is interesting that they are designing it with a teleconverter. ; That's my only complaint with the Nikon 200-400. ; The DOF is so thin that using it with a TC is almost impossible.
that's going to end up being a small sale volume item, it'll be big, really heavy, probably halfway between the weight of the new 70-200 2.8 with tele added, and the 500 f/4L, so it's not likely to be very hand holdable, at least not for very long, it will appeal to the monopod sports shooter, and the tripod/mono wildlife shooter, but who else? and i have $5.00 right now says the initial opening bid is over $3000
I'd be interested for sure (though in another mount, as Canon mount wouldn't do me much good at all) - as a wildlife and birder, of course. ; Shallow DOF welcomed, handholdability not an issue for me (well the 500mm F4 might be a monopodder, but the 200-400 wouldn't be a problem). ; Price? ; OK - that's an issue. ; Sony too has been 'working on' a 500mm F4 for quite some time with no actual release date yet known - and as lovely as it would be to shoot with, it'll also cost about the same as a new Hyundai...hard to justify that one unless I'm sending the bill to National Geographic. I've just added a high-grade matched Minolta APO 1.4x TC to my 300mm F4 APO, and I am ecstatic with it so far - I expected at least a 'slight' loss of IQ - but no - this thing down to the 100% pixel-for-pixel view has absolutely not altered the detail and sharpness an iota. ; That gives me 420mm F5.6, easily handholdable and for a grand total of $1,400...I'll stick with that for now and save the $8K - $12K lenses for when I get that NatGeo contract.
thats my next thing Justin. the 300 f4 with 1.4 tc. will be 630 mm at f 5.6 with crop factor. I would love one of them big telephotos too but the prices are crazy. this is where I am mad at nikon for not having a 400 f4 or f 5.6.
Exactly - having not used a TC before, I was pleasantly surprised to see they 'talk' to the camera and alter the EXIF appropriately, showing the lens as a 420mm, max aperture at F5.6, and a 35mm equiv of 630mm. ; I also played around with a cheap 2x TC I picked up for play, and stuck my Tamron 200-500 on - it doesn't produce much as far as IQ goes, but it was fun seeing the EXIF read as 1000mm with 1500mm equiv! I'm still working on uploading my latest batch of photos to my gallery, but just as a quickie sample of the 300mm F4 with 1.4xTC sharpness and detail...here's one untouched just resized: http://g4.img-dpreview.com/0DF28A083DAF42E29065B89B7F5874A1.jpg It's definitely a strong combo - just spend the extra to get a high-grade extender. ; The difference between the cheap Tamron one I picked up and the much more expensive Minolta APO unit is literally night and day. ; The Tamron is 2x so it isn't a fair fight - but I saw some shots from cheaper 1.4x TCs, and they had lost a little IQ...the matched units from the lens manufacturers are usually the best, or I've heard good word on the higher end Kenko units.
that was my plan. get the nikon 1.4 ; with it. I had someone with the 300 f4 tell me that they have used a 2x and with enough light it auto focused but I will stick with the 1.4. too much money to waste testing to see if the 2x works. Thanks for posting that pic. that is sharp
With enough light I think almost any TC/lens combo can focus - reading the Tamron 200-500, it is way too slow for any TC, let alone a 2x, and all lens charts label it manual-focus only...yet when testing mine with a cheap TC, I was able to get focus outdoors in Florida sunlight at max telephoto (F6.3, or F13 equivalent with the TC)...just not in heavy shade or indoors. ; Each camera may differ, but I'd stick with the 1.4x as it's well within AF limits on an F4 lens, and I was able to get quick accurate AF with flying birds and in shade with no problem.
Wouldn't that just be a 200-560mm f4-5.6? ; Maybe I'm just missing the subtlety between a built in TC and just having more zoom.
It would be - I'm guessing the difference mainly comes down to size - a 200-400 F4 with a built-in TC can probably be designed to be smaller and extend less than a 200-560mm would. ; It's a decent idea, since many users of 200-400 type lenses do use teleconverters at some point anyway - this allows it to be there without carrying a separate piece around and having to swap it in or out.
