nah.. I'd rather wait for the reviews than assume that the addition of a built in TC is a good thing. It is good, compared to the conventional TC, that's a given.. but compared to bare.
Is this idea a first? I mean, adding a built-in TC. And is this part of Canon's goal of lightening the lens lineup?
Let us not use the word 'optimized' rather let us say that this is not an 'extender' as we know it rather let us just call it a 'two-in-one' lens. Where in the optical formula are two packed into one barrel.
Looked at another way this is a custom TC specific to a lens so no compromises has to be made.
I would not be surprised if the Canon 200-400mm IS with built-in extender engaged will outperform a Nikkor 200-400mm VR2 with separate extender attached. Not because either camera maker is better but because Canon does not need to consider possible issues on other lenses.
Foto: Italian magazine "Fotografare", april 1988. I am also told that this type of design is standard with video cameras and some rifle scopes.
As the last Canon telephoto zoom with a constant aperture of either f/2.8 or f/4 terminates at 200mm a super tele zoom that covers from 200mm to 600mm is needed. Shooting with primes is nice and all but in field sports like soccer, American football & baseball you just want the ability to frame the action as is without stepping back or cropping within the computer. Thus the only advantage I see with the 1999 or 2010 super teles are their large apertures of 1 or 2 stops of more light.
Some would say f/4 & f/5.6 are too slow especially at night but the timing of this product should shortly coincide with a 1-Series Mark V body with 1 or 2 stops more of ISO. If Canon or Nikon had made their 200-400mm a f/2.8 lens I have no doubt it would weigh more than 7kg and sell for more than $10,000
Sigma had the right idea to introduce a 200-500mm f/2.8 (without OS) but the size (236.5 x 726 mm), weight (15.7kg w/o case) and price ($25,999) made it impractical to use.
Let us assume that the Canon design will match the dimension & weight of the Nikkor equivalent of 124mm x 365.5mm @ 3.4kg it would look something like this.
L to R: Canon 500mm f/4.5L, Canon 50mm Macro, Nikkor 200-400mm VR II & Canon 800mm IS
size_compareNow if this were 2006/2007 the 200-400mm IS would be my first pick amongst the 1999 super tele lenses. And second choice after the 400/5.6 & 100-400mm IS.
Using the weight difference between the Canon & Nikon lenses below I tried to come up with the weight range of the 200-400mm IS. This assumes that Canon continues the trend forward.
2007-Today Nikkor Super teles
200-400mm VR II 3360g $6,799
200mm VR II 2930g $5,999.95
300mm VR II 2900g $4,635
400mm VR 4620g $8,899.95
500mm VR 3880g $8,499.00
600mm VR 5080g $10,299.95
2008-Today Canon Super teles
200-400mm IS
200mm IS 2520g $5,700
300mm IS II 2350g $7,000 by March
400mm IS II 3850g $11,000 by March
500mm IS II 3190g $9,499 by May
600mm IS II 3920g $11,999 by June
Formula:
a) (Canon / Nikon) * 200-400mm VR II = 200-400mm IS w/o Extender EF 1.4X III
b) (Canon / Nikon) * 200-400mm VR II = 200-400mm IS w/ Extender EF 1.4X III
a)
2,593-2,890g without the 225g of the Extender EF 1.4X III
b)
2,818-3,115g with the 225g of the Extender EF 1.4X III
MSRP should be above US$7,000 ($7700-8400)