Pixel Perfect wrote:
There will always be a place for a 100-400L just for compactness and portability let alone the factor of 7 price difference.
One of these days Canon will update the 100-400 and happily reduce the price difference
PetKal wrote:
Stuart Harling (aka Bones74) had a chance to handle a prototype (?) a year ago ( see this thread from last August). In there he said that the zoom felt heavier than 400 f/2.8 IS MkII.
If the 200-400L weight is not reduced for the production units, then that will IMO become a significant drawback of that lens model. Zoom or not, why get a 400 f/4 lens which weighs as much, and is probably priced as highly, as the 400 f/2.8 IS MkII prime ? A built in 1.4xTC is a neat "novelty", but I can very quickly mount 1.4xTC or 2xTC on 400 f/2.8 IS MkII and thereby obtain a couple of very nicely performing options, i.e., 560mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6 combos....Show more →
Hi Peter, I did.. but I might have been tired from handholding the 400 ii on my 1Dmk4 The 200-400 definitely did feel heavier, but it could also have been the weight distribution. The prime felt more balanced and easier to hold (on the 1D body), but the zoom felt like there was more weight on the end (it's longer isn't it?). Zooming hand held felt very awkward as well. I remember thinking at the time that handholding and using this lens effectively was going to be difficult. I'd definitely buy one if I had the money and it was readily available, but it would spend most of its time on my monopod.
If the 200-400L weight is not reduced for the production units, then that will IMO become a significant drawback of that lens model. Zoom or not, why get a 400 f/4 lens which weighs as much, and is probably priced as highly, as the 400 f/2.8 IS MkII prime ? A built in 1.4xTC is a neat "novelty", but I can very quickly mount 1.4xTC or 2xTC on 400 f/2.8 IS MkII and thereby obtain a couple of very nicely performing options, i.e., 560mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6 combos.
Because it's a zoom and it will still be smaller (in diameter) than the f/2.8 prime. Also, while you can quickly mount a TC, the built-in one will still be faster to toggle, and with it being internal, will be great for inclement weather use.
Psychic1 wrote: "handholding the 400 ii on my 1Dmk4 The 200-400 definitely did feel heavier"
So, 9.5 lbs was an accurate estimate. I'll take the 500L II.
Same here, unless 200-400L ends up being 2.4 kg or something of that sort, it doesn't interest me.
The 500 II has become my walkaround lens.....I even do portraits with it.
Psych, two important 500 II accessories you should get is the RRS replacement foot and Zeck's cap.
Thankfully, a very comfy strap comes with the lens, and that is an important accessory as well for easy carrying and shooting with the 500 II.
The 500, for me, has become one of two main subjects of my dreams. My mind switches back and forth from Cindy Crawford to the 500. I've had Cindy on order for some 25 years now and she has not materialized. I've only had the 500 on order since May 25th of this year. I wonder which will come to me first?
There is room for both the 200-400 and 500, as they serve different applications. 200-400 will be extremely versatile for field sports in particular, but many other action events as well, where a fixed 500 would generally be on the long side, and thus somewhat restrictive. With higher MP crop bodies certainly in the future, the need for longer than 400mm for *some* photographers will be reduced. So at least in the areas where I circulate, the 500 is a rare sight. 400 2.8 is the most common. But there are plenty of Nikon shooters with the 200-400 and I expect that once this lens materializes, it will also become pretty common at events. Hopefully it lives up to the high expectations.
Cindy Lauper would be more of a nightmare! She looks like she's been down a very long and arduous road. But I, too, am not getting any prettier as I age.
If the 200-400L weight is not reduced for the production units, then that will IMO become a significant drawback of that lens model. Zoom or not, why get a 400 f/4 lens which weighs as much, and is probably priced as highly, as the 400 f/2.8 IS MkII prime ? A built in 1.4xTC is a neat "novelty", but I can very quickly mount 1.4xTC or 2xTC on 400 f/2.8 IS MkII and thereby obtain a couple of very nicely performing options, i.e., 560mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6 combos.
Well how about the prime will not give you 200mm to 399mm And you most certainly can't mount or unmount a TC on the prime as quickly as you can the built-in TC on the zoom. Neither of those may be important to you, but they may to many others.
Imagemaster wrote:
Well how about the prime will not give you 200mm to 399mm And you most certainly can't mount or unmount a TC on the prime as quickly as you can the built-in TC on the zoom. Neither of those may be important to you, but they may to many others.
I betcha a nickel to a doughnut that of all 100-400 users' shots, at least 99% are taken at 400mm FL. Do you think that 200-400L will be any different ? So much for zoom "versatility".
Besides, Markle, 200-400L will probably be too heavy for you to use handheld.
Count me in for a 200-400.
It replaces the 100-400 for around the airport.
It replaces the 300 500 and 600 for long range work and I have a 400/2.8 for low light.
Having a 200-400 a 400 and an 800 you ave complete razor shap coverage from 200-800mm and with only two bodies and you don't stumble around spotting your sensor with dust flipping converters on and off.
Oh and I have thousands of 100-400 images not at 400 primarily because it's IQ drops away at 360-380mm.
This is one lens I can't wait for!
PetKal wrote:
I betcha a nickel to a doughnut that of all 100-400 users' shots, at least 99% are taken at 400mm FL. Do you think that 200-400L will be any different ? So much for zoom "versatility".
And you could kindly lead an educational program to teach all the poor lost souls that buy 100-400's, 50-500's, 300-800's, Nikon 200-400's, etc., etc., because they obviously will use them all at the maximum focal-length 99% of the time.
