MikeBrum.com

I’m finding that the 200mm focal length simply isn’t cutting it for me anymore. My longest lens is the 70-200 f2.8L IS – which I love… a lot. I’ve known for a while that I need more reach and 400mm – 500mm is what I’m aiming at. When I was shooting on a 30D, it wasn’t as big of a deal since the crop factor helped mitigate the shortness of 200mm. Now that I’m shooting on a 5D2, it’s just not enough. While I know I can crop the hell out of the 21mpx images from the 5D2, I try not to crop except when absolutely necessary.

The 400mm length offers two f5.6 options in the 100-400mm and the 400mm – both very good lenses by all accounts. But if you want to get down to f4.0 (say, to have the option of AF with a 1.4x), you have to go to the 400mm DO – which isn’t so popular and prohibitively expensive for many people.

400mm f5.6 is roughly $1150. The 4.0 DO then jumps to $5500. Awesome. I’m more than happy to take a bit more weight to have a reasonably priced 400mm non-DO f4.0. Too bad I don’t have that option.

500mm is equally frustrating because the only option is f4.0 – which is great for people that can justify spending $5800 on a lens. I would seriously consider sacrificing AF w/ a 1.4x with a sharp 500mm f5.6 option.

Why can’t we get a reasonably priced 400mm f4.0 and 500mm f5.6 from Canon? Given the prices of the above-listed lenses, I don’t see why both of these lenses couldn’t come in at around $2500. If this target could be hit, I know many people in the “prosumer” camp would willingly save up for these lenses. As it stands, a lot of people go third party (Sigma) for affordable 500mm with decent quality – but even that’s a compromise because they’re large zooms.

I don’t know why Canon doesn’t want our money and forces us to either compromise or go to other manufacturers. I spend a good deal on camera gear, but I simply can’t imagine being able to justify $5000 on a lens.

(prices referenced from B&H as of 20090322)