Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              6       7       end
  

Archive 2013 · 200-400L prospects
  
 
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · 200-400L prospects


skibum5 wrote:
What about can't afford it option?


Affordability is often a flex term and it may link to justification. Here's an example touched upon already: I can not afford to buy 24-70 f/2.8 MkII now, because I might need that money for some other gear that I'd use and/or enjoy more.



Jan 16, 2013 at 06:17 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · 200-400L prospects


Will Patterson wrote:
I asked CPS if I could borrow one for the 24 hours of daytona (I'm shooting for one of the teams) and they said they're not available


Will, not available as a loaner, or not available to them to start with ?



Jan 16, 2013 at 06:18 AM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · 200-400L prospects


PetKal wrote:
Affordability is often a flex term and it may link to justification. Here's an example touched upon already: I can not afford to buy 24-70 f/2.8 MkII now, because I might need that money for some other gear that I'd use and/or enjoy more.


true as I did get a 300 2.8 IS and 24-70 II at one point....
and the 300 2.8 IS had at one time seemed out of the question and the latter only happened because I sold off other stuff of which there is now much left for further sales

that said, I think the 200-400 is too much for me, more than twice as much as the two lenses above, and all at once as opposed to half a decade apart



Jan 16, 2013 at 06:36 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · 200-400L prospects


Well, Skibum, having 300 f/2.8 IS (+ 1/4xTC, 2xTC) may not be as convenient when it comes to mounting TCs, however, the quality is there + you get f/2.8 at 300mm which 200-400L obviously can not do.

I really like my 300 f/2.8 IS MkI with the MkIII TCs, and that alone makes the 200-400L justification kinda difficult.



Jan 16, 2013 at 06:45 AM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · 200-400L prospects


PetKal wrote:
Well, Skibum, having 300 f/2.8 IS (+ 1/4xTC, 2xTC) may not be as convenient when it comes to mounting TCs, however, the quality is there + you get f/2.8 at 300mm which 200-400L obviously can not do.

I really like my 300 f/2.8 IS MkI with the MkIII TCs, and that alone makes the 200-400L justification kinda difficult.



Yeah it would be hard to justify, 300 2.8 weighs a lot less too and you get f/2.8 for when you need it. Anyway I did end up putting no need have the 300 2.8 +TCs option in the end. Zooming might be nice at times, but not exactly $14,000 extra in addition nice .




Jan 16, 2013 at 06:52 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · 200-400L prospects


* 300 f/2.8 IS MkI + TC is still a bit shy of 3 kg.
* Based on some reports, 200-400L might weigh closer to 4kg than to 3 kg.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be a major difference in favour of 300 f/2.8 IS for those folks who use those lenses handheld.



Jan 16, 2013 at 07:02 AM
dolina
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · 200-400L prospects


I couldnt vote for more than one so I chose no vote.

Rumor has it that the 200-400 will weight and cost the same as a 600/4 IS II. Which makes me wonder whether it be much more worth getting the 600/4 IS II instead as it is already readily available.



Jan 16, 2013 at 07:05 AM
the_cheetah
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · 200-400L prospects


I would prefer it if Canon added a TC to the 300 or 500 primes. Because if you got a TC on you cannot zoom out whereas the 200-400 does not really need it, except if the IQ is so great... a300 2.8 with built in TC... that would be a killer lens. No more fleeing wildlife cos you had to get your TC off and it sounds like a gun ebing loaded.


Jan 16, 2013 at 09:18 AM
Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · 200-400L prospects


I might be in the fortunate position of being to afford a supertele in the next few months so I'm kinda waiting with bated breath to see what happens with this 200-400. Knowing Canon's habit of merely exchanging the $ for while leaving the numbers the same it will probably retail for 10k. I'm hoping Canon charge absolute max around 7.5k- 8k for it including VAT. Nikon charge under 5k for their VR2 version, but obviously its been out for a while and doesn't have an extender. A D4 and 200-400 VR2 can be had for under 9.5k so forking out that for a just a lens wiill be hard to swallow.

The 500 ii is under 8k so its an option, but I'm a fan of versatility and that suits my shooting style. "Zooming with your feet" is not really a viable option when you're using a long lens It doesnt get much more versatile than a zoom with a built in extender. As brilliant as the 500 ii is, I cant help thinking if I bought it, I'd regret not buying the 200-400 or at least waiting to see how well it performs and how much it costs. d*mn these first world problems huh?

Edited on Jan 16, 2013 at 10:44 AM · View previous versions



Jan 16, 2013 at 09:48 AM
Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · 200-400L prospects


the_cheetah wrote:
I would prefer it if Canon added a TC to the 300 or 500 primes. Because if you got a TC on you cannot zoom out whereas the 200-400 does not really need it, except if the IQ is so great... a300 2.8 with built in TC... that would be a killer lens. No more fleeing wildlife cos you had to get your TC off and it sounds like a gun ebing loaded.


Good to see ya NeilyB Still after selling body parts to fund the 200-400?

You say the 200-400 doesnt need the extender, but imagine you're sitting on the dusty Masai Mara with a max of 400mm. Flick a switch and you have 560mm without exposing your sensor to that nasty African dust... Imagine then you want to change your framing, flick that switch and/ or zoom. No mess no fuss, no changing lenses, no changing to a different camera and lens and losing the moment. This is why the 200-400 interests me... a lot



Jan 16, 2013 at 10:19 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · 200-400L prospects


I voted no because I have 500/4L. I also have 300/2.8L + 1.4x, 2x III Extenders.

OTOH, if it comes in lighter than expected, it might pop up high on my priority list. Do we know its weight yet?



Jan 16, 2013 at 11:35 AM
Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · 200-400L prospects


jcolwell wrote:
I voted no because I have 500/4L. I also have 300/2.8L + 1.4x, 2x III Extenders.

OTOH, if it comes in lighter than expected, it might pop up high on my priority list. Do we know its weight yet?


Possibly around 8.5lbs/3.9kgs, which I think is the same as 600mm ii...



Jan 16, 2013 at 12:00 PM
Ransome
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · 200-400L prospects


I'd love to have it, don't know if I can justify it. I am about half way there in saving the money for it though.


Jan 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · 200-400L prospects


If 200-400L turns out to weigh as much as 600 II, I do not think that is someting I'd want to write about to my mother excitedly.

Obviously, 600 II is so much lighter than 600 I, however, 600 II is still one fairly heavy lens. Its length as well as a large girth add to the awkwardness of its hand-held use. Granted, 200-400L is significantly smaller, thus it should be easier to hold and swing.

Frankly, as a photographer, I'd have a hard time justifying 200-400L purchase. As a collector, well, sadly, that is a different matter.



Jan 16, 2013 at 01:05 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · 200-400L prospects


Bones74 wrote:
You say the 200-400 doesnt need the extender, but imagine you're sitting on the dusty Masai Mara with a max of 400mm. Flick a switch and you have 560mm without exposing your sensor to that nasty African dust... Imagine then you want to change your framing, flick that switch and/ or zoom. No mess no fuss, no changing lenses, no changing to a different camera and lens and losing the moment. This is why the 200-400 interests me... a lot


Yes, Stu, that is exactly what people will go for......."at a flick of the switch", and, moreover, you will seldom find yourself too close to your target again.



Jan 16, 2013 at 01:19 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · 200-400L prospects


Peter, I like your Gangnam style!


Jan 16, 2013 at 01:29 PM
Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · 200-400L prospects


PetKal wrote:
Frankly, as a photographer, I'd have a hard time justifying 200-400L purchase. As a collector, well, sadly, that is a different matter.


Collect it I think in your position, as an owner of a few superteles it would be a "want" for sure. From my side it would be a one off purchase. If it was "reasonably" priced and very good I'd tolerate the 600 ii like weight. I just cant get on with the thought of not being able to zoom and change my framing. I know the 500 ii will outperform it optically, but if the 200-400 matches or slightly exceeds the 70-200 ii's IQ I'd be more than happy. The only thing though is that on a FF body 560mm isn't excessively long and unless you use a non reporting 3rd party 2 x ext (for 800mm for eg.) you're stuck F/L wise. (unless a Canon 2 x ext can be mounted?)



Jan 16, 2013 at 01:40 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · 200-400L prospects


jcolwell wrote:
Peter, I like your Gangnam style!


Thanx Jim.



Jan 16, 2013 at 02:16 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · 200-400L prospects


Bones74 wrote:
If it was "reasonably" priced and very good I'd tolerate the 600 ii like weight. I just cant get on with the thought of not being able to zoom and change my framing. I know the 500 ii will outperform it optically, but if the 200-400 matches or slightly exceeds the 70-200 ii's IQ I'd be more than happy. The only thing though is that on a FF body 560mm isn't excessively long and unless you use a non reporting 3rd party 2 x ext (for 800mm for eg.) you're stuck F/L wise. (unless a Canon 2 x ext
...Show more

YEs, those are some of the 200-400L challenges:

(1) price
(2) weight
(3) AF drive speed, bare and with 1.4x dialed in.
(4) AF tuning ("nervousness")
(5) IQ wide open thru the FL range: IQ drop with 1.4x dialed in.
(6) Acceptance of external Canon TCs.



Jan 16, 2013 at 02:21 PM
Will Patterson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · 200-400L prospects


PetKal wrote:
Will, not available as a loaner, or not available to them to start with ?



A guy named Frank's exact reply to me was:

"Sorry but that lens is not in the loaner program."



Jan 16, 2013 at 02:42 PM
1      
2
       3              6       7       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              6       7       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password