My next lens purchase...

[GTagami]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11020708canon200400mm.asp

[Diegos Aviacion]

Wow............. nice piece of glass!! I wonder how much this puppy will be???

[phantomphan1974]

I think Anthony or someone posted that on FB.  Petty interesting idea.  Guess it easier or better to put the converter in there instead of making it a 200-560mm?  And what would be the benifit over puting a 1.4 on a 100-400mm besides a lower f-stop?

[rander]

Wow............. nice piece of glass!! I wonder how much this puppy will be???

Wondering that myself.  Maybe a 2X extender instead of 1.4.

[Spectre130]

There is talk that this puppy will start off at about the $7K mark.
Too rich for my blood.  shoot, I couldn't even afford that much white paint much less the glass...
I'm still thinking about selling off one of my kids on the black market for a 300mm 2.8 IS.  this would take all three of my kids.

[SBGrad]

I'm still thinking about selling off one of my kids on the black market for a 300mm 2.8 IS.  this would take all three of my kids.

Nikon is on (IIRC) the 3rd version of its 300mm f/2.8 VR lens.  I found a used 300mm f/2.8, the last version before VR, that was about 1/2 the cost of the brand new VR3 version.  Still quite spendy, but it was doable for me (my employer lets us cash in vacation on a 1-1 basis, if you take a week, you can cash in a week, so I took 2 weeks last year and cashed in 2).

My $.02 on built in tcs-- I'd just as soon have a discrete TC, that way I can put it on multiple lenses. 

[GTagami]

I think Anthony or someone posted that on FB.  Petty interesting idea.  Guess it easier or better to put the converter in there instead of making it a 200-560mm?  And what would be the benifit over puting a 1.4 on a 100-400mm besides a lower f-stop?

You also lose AF if you use a TC on the 100-400.

[rammsteinmatt]

There is talk that this puppy will start off at about the $7K mark.

maybe, perhaps a little less.  The Nikon equivalent is ~$7k and I've tended to notice Canon lenses being slightly less expensive than their Nikon counterparts.


Does this mean Canonites will finally come to terms that the 100-400 is not the greatest thing to happen to aviation photography since airplances were invented? 
oh man do I love it when they look down on me because im using a lowly 200-400 and they're using THE 100-400.  shame on me, i didnt even bow to it.  now that at least half the board has it out for me, i say g'day







I really was just joking about, but a couple people I know (from school) say my 200-400 is a pretty good lens then go on to say how wonderful their 100-400 is and how dumb I am for shooting Nikon.  Left a bad taste in my mouth.

[Spectre130]

You also lose AF if you use a TC on the 100-400.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/TipsPage/#0 There is always the tape trick if you need it but my 100-400 is bad enough as it is, the TC would only make it worse.