| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
garrett
Conjurer of Colors
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 1335
Location: Santa Clara
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garrett
Conjurer of Colors
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 1335
Location: Santa Clara
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Note that the announcement was of the "development" of the lens. The new 500mm and 600mm lenses that were announced today also had a "development" announcement last August, so I don't expect the 200-400 to be available for at least six months.
The press release for the 500mm and 600mm is confusing regarding IS. It says, "shoot at speeds up to four times slower than normally required." This is the equivalent of two stops, but the chart on dpreview says, "4 stops claimed."
_________________
Garrett
http://www.pbase.com/garrettlau |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyz
Conjurer of Colors
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 2864
Location: Milpitas
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Canon badly needed this lens. Wish they also upgraded old 100-400L IS but now probably not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garrett
Conjurer of Colors
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 1335
Location: Santa Clara
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, Canon needs this because Nikon already has a 200-400 f/4 and Canon's only 400mm f/4 is the DO. The street price of the Nikon is $6800.
I was hoping for an upgraded 100-400 that would cost less than $2000. With the recent introduction of the 70-300 L and now this, an upgraded 100-400 seems unlikely.
_________________
Garrett
http://www.pbase.com/garrettlau |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalieaire
Conjurer of Colors
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 2382
Location: Milpitas, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
garrett, you forgot the 400Ls
_________________
stan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ibn
Conjurer of Colors
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 1691
Location: San Jose
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Garrett is probably referring to f/4s (as well as a zoomer), since the 400Ls are f/2.8 and are fixed.
_________________
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garrett
Conjurer of Colors
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 1335
Location: Santa Clara
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was talking about f/4 maximum aperture. The 400 L's are f/5.6 and f/2.8.
Another lens that I had been hoping for was a 400 f/4L, since I thought it would be less expensive than the 400 f/4 DO. However, that thought went away when the 70-300 L started shipping. It costs more than the 70-300 DO.
_________________
Garrett
http://www.pbase.com/garrettlau |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyz
Conjurer of Colors
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 2864
Location: Milpitas
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wish they had 100mm on low end. Very nice for outdoor day sports then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
