Robin if you want a cheaper lens wait 6 months after it first lands on shelves. Hopefully they'll reduce prices by $250-500.
There is the little matter of 20% VAT to be added (the US prices do not included taxes) making it a theoretical £1662 but I expect it to be more like £1800 (ish) in the UK.$2199, £1385 ruffly converted, price seems too good to be true...
It will be interesting to see the side by side comparison of this vs the Sigma 150-600 Sport considering they're both going to be in the same ball park, but with the Sigma having an extra 200mm.
Depending when it's launched in the UK, and also depending on favourable reports, I can wait 6 months but I'm 67yo and life isn't a rehearsal and so I wouldn't want to wait much longer. Methinks that this new 100-400mm v2 will be a perfect technological match with my 7D Mark II.
The Sigma won't be as well built and won't be as sharp.
No it isn't.Well, after a few years of false starts and rumours, at last it's announced!!
Then add VAT (US price is tax free) an d you get about £1700.$2199, £1385 ruffly converted, price seems too good to be true...
The Sigma won't be as well built and won't be as sharp.
How are you validating this comment? Just curious as given recent performance and announcements the 3rd party lens are performing very well.
Yep. So that's a decent indication of roughly where the price will settle down, long term, assuming that the price mentioned here is accurate. (Remember, it's still just a rumour - no official announcement yet.)Then add VAT (US price is tax free) an d you get about £1700.
The Sigma won't be as well built and won't be as sharp.
I'm not disputing the history of Canons lenses, I was just wondering what, other than historic evidence, there was to quantify the statement. Because by all accounts the Sigma is looking impressive.
....I think that such comments are valid generalisations based on Canon L lenses having more rugged and weatherproofed construction. In such a competitive market, you tend to get what you pay for. That doesn't mean that the Sigma referred to isn't a very good lens.
Chris, surely you're being a bit argumentative for the sake of it here. You KNOW there is no evidence, because nobody here has seen one of the new Canons, assuming they exist. (Remember, it's all still a rumour.)I'm not disputing the history of Canons lenses, I was just wondering what, other than historic evidence, there was to quantify the statement. Because by all accounts the Sigma is looking impressive.
Chris, surely you're being a bit argumentative for the sake of it here. You KNOW there is no evidence, because nobody here has seen one of the new Canons, assuming they exist. (Remember, it's all still a rumour.)
Hmmm... I've always been told that the Canon 400mm F/5.6L is a sharper lens than a Canon 100-400 zoom (excluding this latest one which we can't assess yet).
If the new 100-400 is sharper and isn't the type of zoom which creeps out like a horse's cock and also focusses down to just over 3ft (the 300mm F/4L IS does just under 5ft) then it might be worth selling both my 300L and 400L lenses.
It'll be interesting to see what the max magnification is like at the minimum distance compared with the 300mm f4. Internal focus zooms lose focal length at close focus which may not give the mag that a 400mm at 0.9m suggests.
Apologies if it came across that way, I wasn't meaning to be. Guess I must have been having a bad morning I took the comment as being a flippant as in "of course it's going to be better it's a Canon" and therefore responded accordingly. Apologies to anyone offendedChris, surely you're being a bit argumentative for the sake of it here. You KNOW there is no evidence, because nobody here has seen one of the new Canons, assuming they exist. (Remember, it's all still a rumour.)
....I think that such comments are valid generalisations based on Canon L lenses having more rugged and weatherproofed construction. In such a competitive market, you tend to get what you pay for. That doesn't mean that the Sigma referred to isn't a very good lens.
Looks like the price will be £1999 in the UK at launch, I believe.
You can't just do a straight conversion, firstly, unless you get it shipped out of state, there is a sales tax in the US. Secondly, I think there's a tax on lenses in the UK of 5%?...and of course VAT at 20%, and the pound is slipping vis à vis the dollar, probably only get about USD1.5 to 1GPB, so if you do this calculation the price comes out about £1850, which is where it will probably settle at.
Works with 1.4x & 2.0x Extenders / TCs
Official Tech Specs
Focal Length & Maximum Aperture 100-400mm 1:4.5-5.6
Lens Construction 21 elements in 16 groups
Diagonal Angle of View 24°-6°10'
Focus Adjustment Inner focus system / USM
Closest Focusing Distance 3.2 ft. / 0.98m
Zoom System Rotation Type
Filter Size 77mm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight Approx: 3.7" x 7.6" / 94 x 193mm
Approx: 3.46 lbs. / 1570g (lens only, including removable tripod mount)
3.62 lbs. / 1640g (lens + tripod mount)
I was wondering why you mentioned the 100mm Macro and saw the similar MFD. Their max magnification differs from 1x for the Macro while 0.31x for the Series 2 lens.
At current exchange rates, that would be around £600 more than the US price, or a bit more than £300 once VAT is added. You could almost pay for an air fare for an Xmas shopping trip to the US.
Hopefully the price will drop within 6-12 months of release, once the initial rush has subsided.
You could always fly back to the States and have it fixed there?
Looks like the price will be £1999 in the UK at launch, I believe.