PetaPixel

A First Glimpse of the Canon 200-400mm f/4L IS Extender 1.4x

canon200400

Canon Singapore has published a first photograph of the long-awaited Canon 200-400mm f/4L IS Extender 1.4x, which, as its name suggests, includes a built-in 1.4x teleconverter. The photo was shared with this caption:

Be one of the first to check out the soon to be launched EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x at the EOS Experience Roadshow happening this weekend! We’ll be at Cathay Orchard Cineleisure this 4-6 January from 11am-10pm! See you there!

Sounds like the lens is indeed close to hitting store shelves after being announced in February 2011. It’ll reportedly cost around $11,000.

(via Canon via Canon Rumors)


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mateus-Augusto-Lopes/100001522722423 Mateus Augusto Lopes

    Awesome lens, not so awesome price…

  • http://wemetlastnight.tumblr.com/ Albi Kl

    Can someone explain to me why some lenses cost so much? I do not have the money to test such a luxury item and I can not see why the features listed warrant an almost 1,000% markup on my 55-250 f/4-5.6.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jonathan.maniago Jonathan Maniago

    We could mention stuff such as constant maximum aperture, built-in extender, IS, metal construction, the fact that it’s for full frame, and (hopefully) sharper images; but it all really boils down to the cost of the paint for the red ring.

  • http://wemetlastnight.tumblr.com/ Albi Kl

    I suspected the red ring may have something to do with it and yet the 24-70mm f/2.8 II currently retails for a fraction of this lenses price. Image stabilization and extra reach can’t possibly make up for 70%+ of the cost can it?

  • http://twitter.com/kylejbrady Kyle Brady

    For a quick rule of thumb, the price of a lens is positively correlated to the size of the diaphragm because that determines the amount of glass needed. So, the maximum focal length of 400mm with an f/4 max aperture means a 100mm physical diaphragm, which is very large. Your 55-250 only has a max diaphragm of 44mm, which still isn’t bad (that lens is an extremely good value for the money), while the 24-70L covers 25mm. However, your lens only covers an APS-C sensor, where this one covers a full frame. Add in the better IS, built-in teleconverter, weather sealing, and top-flight build quality, and you start to get the idea.

    Note that you can get a 400mm f/5.6 for only about $1200, which for many people is plenty good enough. This is a case of diminishing marginal benefit made available for those who demand it.

  • Jesse

    not to mention the production run.
    Canon spits out hundreds of thousands of certain lenses (thus making them cheaper to produce) where as this lens may only have a few thousand built.

  • ietion

    f4 @ 400mm is a lot of glass. And that’s expensive to make. Advantages of an ‘L’ lens: Contrast is a lot better, sharpness is a lot better and it is much more solid. Cons: They are heavy, and you are very easily spotted. That’s when you don’t want to be spotted, as this could be an advantage if you want to attract people’s sight. (its the white paint that does that). Sharpness, contrast, distortions can be improved of course in photoshop if you use ‘normal’ lenses. You can have a very decently close result to an L doing that. But if you are a pro shooting hundreds in a single event and you have to be very fast delivering your work, then not having to go though photoshop is an advantage. Plus if you shoot in low light, say sports, you need the extra stops. I use both L’s and non-L’s to be honest depending on the case. (i am not a pro). Each one has its advantages.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1494740476 Marco Mignano

    Don’t forget that white paint prevents overheating in direct sunlight. ;)