Posted by Steve Foss on February 20, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Hmm, as a current 100-400 owner, I'm interested in a lot of things about this new lens. Like if f4 is available through its whole focal range or if it's just marketing and the f4 is only at the lower end, a tiny increase in performance over the current f4.5. Like whether some of the softness of the current model at max focal length and wide open is gone. Like, as Buck said, whether it's still a push-pull or a twist.
As always, such hints are tantalizing, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. There's always something new coming out. Guess I'll have to do the math and see what the Euro figure is in U.S. dollars.
It would be a nice lens, but it would be too heavy for me if it is f/4...I've already a big telephoto (600 f4), and I've choosen the 100-400 because I needed a small and light lens. A 100-400 f/4 would be nice but IMHO it would not substitute the 5.6 lens.
Posted by Ott Luuk on February 21, 2007 at 8:45 AM
Now it reads: " Price EUR 9999,00". Much more realistic.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on February 21, 2007 at 9:14 AM
9999 Euros is probably a default systems price, until the official one is released. 2495 might be right, but with all of the Canon rumors floating around right now, who knows? In the end, it really doesn't matter. It is just more toys...
Posted by Steve Foss on February 21, 2007 at 9:35 AM
So if I'm doing the math right, 2,495 Euros is about $1,900 U.S.?
Posted by Tom Webster on February 21, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Steve, at the current exchange rate for 02/21/2007, 2495 Euros equals $3,275.00 + a few pennies. The Euro is stronger than the dollar. 1 Euro = 1.3126 Dollars.
Posted by Todd Caudle on February 21, 2007 at 5:01 PM
An extra $2K for one f-stop seems like a high price to pay. Sounds like a lens you really gotta need, rather than want.
Posted by Steve Foss on February 21, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Thanks Tom. I had it backwards. If it's a true reflection of lens and price, that's a ridiculous amount of money to pay. But we'll wait and see, won't we. Speculation is always a chancy business.
Posted by Buck Ward on February 21, 2007 at 6:47 PM
The same website also has a 40D in their list of Canon DSLRs. but the link produces no details.
True???? With PMA a couple of weeks away, I guess we'll find out soon.
Posted by Tom Webster on February 21, 2007 at 8:41 PM
Steve Foss wrote
If it's a true reflection of lens and price, that's a ridiculous amount of money to pay.
If...and I emphasize, If...this is a for real lens...and it performs as well as Nikon's 200-400 f 4 lens...and it is sharper than the current 100-400mm f 4.5-5.6 zoom...I will be one of the first to purchase it. This would be the perfect bird-in-flight lens and the perfect companion to my 500 f 4L IS lens. However...it all depends on a bunch of "ifs". I'm not one to beleive rumor until I have the item in my hot little...er...big hands.
Posted by Tom Grey on February 22, 2007 at 10:59 AM
An extra $2K for one f-stop seems like a high price to pay. Sounds like a lens you really gotta need, rather than want.
A 400/4 prime would cost as much more than a 400/5.6 prime, as a 300/2.8 prime does than a 300/4 prime. That difference in the 300s is roughly $3600 to $1000. A 100-400 is a 400 prime PLUS the extra glass and mechanics needed to allow for a 4x zoom. That's assuming it would be a high-quality zoom, like, say, the 70-200s or the current 100-400.
Just as a benchmark, the Nikon 200-400/4, which is popular with wildlife photographers, costs over $5k -- and it is only a 2x zoom.
Gaining "just a stop" costs BIG BUCKS at super-tele length. The 2495 euro price was an obvious typo, or fantasy. (Assuming the lens is real -- it looks like that Belgian camera seller was putting up some guessware to stimulate online traffic to their site.)
Posted by Andy Mason on February 23, 2007 at 4:07 AM
Maybe its me, but when I click on the link above it goes to a 16-35mm f2.8 lens, I can't seem to see any reference to a new 100-400 is it a Canon lens ? Anybody else having the same problem ??
Posted by Buck Ward on February 23, 2007 at 7:13 AM
Well, I guess that confirms that it was no more than a rumor. Canon just announced this 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM lens. I don't know what the difference is from the previous version of that lens. Perhaps the 100-400 f4 was just a place-holder based on wishfull thinking on the part of this online seller.
Posted by Jess Lee on February 24, 2007 at 4:40 PM
That is a lens canon needs in the stable. It would be gret for the large mamal shooters and our trip to Alaska and Africa.
The current 100-400 has way to many issues to be completive with lens like the 200-400 Nikon.
I only wish it were available.
Discussion
14 repliesIt's listed for sale for this website http://www.geheugenkaart.be/English/store/viewitem.asp?idproduct=8981222
for 2495 euros, though it's not in stock yet
Wonder if its a push-pull zoom.
As always, such hints are tantalizing, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. There's always something new coming out. Guess I'll have to do the math and see what the Euro figure is in U.S. dollars.
True???? With PMA a couple of weeks away, I guess we'll find out soon.
If...and I emphasize, If...this is a for real lens...and it performs as well as Nikon's 200-400 f 4 lens...and it is sharper than the current 100-400mm f 4.5-5.6 zoom...I will be one of the first to purchase it.
A 400/4 prime would cost as much more than a 400/5.6 prime, as a 300/2.8 prime does than a 300/4 prime. That difference in the 300s is roughly $3600 to $1000. A 100-400 is a 400 prime PLUS the extra glass and mechanics needed to allow for a 4x zoom. That's assuming it would be a high-quality zoom, like, say, the 70-200s or the current 100-400.
Just as a benchmark, the Nikon 200-400/4, which is popular with wildlife photographers, costs over $5k -- and it is only a 2x zoom.
Gaining "just a stop" costs BIG BUCKS at super-tele length. The 2495 euro price was an obvious typo, or fantasy. (Assuming the lens is real -- it looks like that Belgian camera seller was putting up some guessware to stimulate online traffic to their site.)
The current 100-400 has way to many issues to be completive with lens like the 200-400 Nikon.
I only wish it were available.