Canon Super 200-400mm with 1.4 Extender: Hi all, Has anyone out there been lucky enough to get their hands on Canon's EF 200-400mm f4L IS USM + 1.4Extender. Read lots of reviews on...

GeoffHD Loc: Essex UK

Hi all,

Has anyone out there been lucky enough to get their hands on Canon's EF 200-400mm f4L IS USM + 1.4Extender.
Read lots of reviews on this chunk of glass, but I think most of them have a bias one way or the other.
But how about you guys in the field, what do you think IF there is anyone lucky enough to have pockets deep enough to buy one of these.

ewg963 Loc: Meriden CT USA

I hear that piece of glass is out of this world. I envy anyone who's lucky enough to have it...

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

GeoffHD wrote:

Hi all,

Has anyone out there been lucky enough to get their hands on Canon's EF 200-400mm f4L IS USM + 1.4Extender.
Read lots of reviews on this chunk of glass, but I think most of them have a bias one way or the other.
But how about you guys in the field, what do you think IF there is anyone lucky enough to have pockets deep enough to buy one of these.

Who doesn't have bias.

ewg963 Loc: Meriden CT USA

Check out Andy Rouse's page. He seems to non biased.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

GeoffHD wrote:

Hi all,

Has anyone out there been lucky enough to get their hands on Canon's EF 200-400mm f4L IS USM + 1.4Extender.
Read lots of reviews on this chunk of glass, but I think most of them have a bias one way or the other.
But how about you guys in the field, what do you think IF there is anyone lucky enough to have pockets deep enough to buy one of these.

I managed to get my hands on one at a recent show, its pretty, but at the selling price I set it right back down. I felt the price was absolutely ridiculous for that lens when you look at the same offering from Nikon at almost exactly half the price. ($13,000 compared to $6749, but Canon has dropped the price to a mere $11,799 recently)

Budnjax Loc: NE Florida

This is a stroke-job IMHO. Considering you can buy the current Canon 100-400mm L lens and a 1.4X converter for about $11000 LESS than the price of this lens I can't imagine they are going to sell very many of these.....sounds like a lens for folks with more $$ than brains....

washy Loc: Dorset UK

GeoffHD wrote:

Hi all,

Has anyone out there been lucky enough to get their hands on Canon's EF 200-400mm f4L IS USM + 1.4Extender.
Read lots of reviews on this chunk of glass, but I think most of them have a bias one way or the other.
But how about you guys in the field, what do you think IF there is anyone lucky enough to have pockets deep enough to buy one of these.

Who is lucky enough to be able to spend £12,000 so about 17000$

PCL92

Just a note, you can't put a 1.4 on the 100-400 and have it auto focus. The F stop is above 5.6 with the extender. The new lens is awesome, but I think that I would rather invest in a 600mm prime at that cost.

washy Loc: Dorset UK

PCL92 wrote:

Just a note, you can't put a 1.4 on the 100-400 and have it auto focus. The F stop is above 5.6 with the extender. The new lens is awesome, but I think that I would rather invest in a 600mm prime at that cost.

The new lens has a 1.4 converter built in , so it should auto focus, but at a cost of £12,000

ewg963 Loc: Meriden CT USA

Yep and you'll get the sharpness wide open.

PCL92

I see the lens is more expensive in England. True the 1.4 is built in and that does auto focus, that is why it is so expensive I guess. I still would purchase a prime 600 if I wanted to pay hat much. The prime is quite a bit bigger to haul around but I think it would record sharper photos.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

You get what you pay for, or need! ;-)
SS

GeoffHD Loc: Essex UK

PCL92 wrote:

I see the lens is more expensive in England. True the 1.4 is built in and that does auto focus, that is why it is so expensive I guess. I still would purchase a prime 600 if I wanted to pay hat much. The prime is quite a bit bigger to haul around but I think it would record sharper photos.

I do not understand your logic 'it is more expensive in England because--- "the 1.4 is built in and that does auto focus, that is why it is so expensive"
By your logic those in the USA do not have the 1.4 built in so cannot auto focus.
It is more expensive here because this is RIPE OFF BRITAIN.
This lens is much more versatile that is what make so appealing.
And as for sharpness you must be one fantastic photographer to see the difference, yer right...
You on the other side of the pond get things really cheap, but you still moan.

GeoffHD Loc: Essex UK

ewg963 wrote:

Check out Andy Rouse's page. He seems to non biased.

Thanks for the pointer to Andy Rouse's page, makes for interesting reading.
Nice one ewg963

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

Budnjax wrote:

This is a stroke-job IMHO. Considering you can buy the current Canon 100-400mm L lens and a 1.4X converter for about $11000 LESS than the price of this lens I can't imagine they are going to sell very many of these.....sounds like a lens for folks with more $$ than brains....

Someone stole my 1.4X, but I did test the Canon 100-400mm on a 2X to achieve a disaster. The converters appear to work on lenses that open to F2.8, like the Canon 400mm F2.8 IS, and the 70-200mm F2.8 IS.