Hi Peter. I mainly shoot wildfowl and red deer at the moment and I've found much of the time 400mm (520mm FOV on the 1D4) is enough. Small birds don't interest me much. I'm planning a trip to Africa next year. It will either be Kenya or a private reserve in South Africa, owned by the father of my brothers business partner. The Masai Mara is largely savannah and subjects can be a long way off. Reserves in South Africa tend to have more trees and bushes so most subjects you can see would be well within 500mm range. A 200-400 would be even better in this environment. I think if I'm going to buy a supertele within the next few months, the 500 ii is really the only option... The 200-400 is fast becoming a unicorn
Stu, 500 II with 1.4xTC III is very very good, in every way, on any 1D camera body.
However, while 500 II + 2xTC III can get you OK shots IQ wise, similar to 600 II + 2xTC III, the AF responsiveness is poor, again, like 600 II + 2xTC III, and that is the case even on 1DX.
Lastly, a note of caution: my 7D gives me a piss-poor AF performance with 500 II (and 600 II), with 1.4xTC III, even on stationary shots, let alone on any motion.
RobDickinson wrote:
200-400 looks like the ideal 2nd body lens for sports shooters.
1 * 600 f4
1 * 200-400f4
Hmmm, as a sports shooter myself I think a more ideal combo would be a 70-200/2.8 and a 200-400/4. That gives me a heck of a lot of versatility from 70 all the way to 560 to cover events.
You know the Nikon 200-400 is really not the dog that people made it to be (the version II of the lens). The reviews of it look pretty favorable; of course it does not have the built-in TC, though.
If the Canon is really priced at 2x that of its Nikon counterpart, and if I were in the market for one, I would seriously consider going dual-system. You can get a Nikon body + the lens plus a 1.4x TC for much less than the Canon lens alone.
I suspect the official release of this lens may in fact push the Nikon lens' price upwards.
I could probably afford it and I've already told my wife I want to get the 500 mk II, but I would be selling my mk I to soften the blow. But to me a zoom is used because it's versatile; something you want to take out when you aren't sure what to expect and don't want to lug the big beast supertele. But this is as big and possibly much heavier than a 500 mk II. As a supertele replacement it's just too short for birding even with built-in TC. 500 + 1.4x is often lacking. At 3kg and $5K it would be infinitely more tempting.
So I'd much rather Canon released a 100/150-500 f/4-5.6, which should be able to keep under 2.5kg quite easily, maybe a light as 2kg. I'd pay $4K for this.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I could probably afford it and I've already told my wife I want to get the 500 mk II, but I would be selling my mk I to soften the blow. But to me a zoom is used because it's versatile; something you want to take out when you aren't sure what to expect and don't want to lug the big beast supertele. But this is as big and possibly much heavier than a 500 mk II. As a supertele replacement it's just too short for birding even with built-in TC. 500 + 1.4x is often lacking. At 3kg and $5K it would be infinitely more tempting.
So I'd much rather Canon released a 100/150-500 f/4-5.6, which should be able to keep under 2.5kg quite easily, maybe a light as 2kg. I'd pay $4K for this....Show more →
+1
Go for 500 II.....that lens has become my new walk around.
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.
And why some of us hope the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is good with a TC as that will make a very nice 168-420 f/4, that's 1/3 the price and possibly several hundred grams lighter. The poor man's supertele zoom.
But 300 f/2.8L IS + TCs is a great combo, especially with the 1.4x
PetKal wrote:
Db, keep saying that you already have 100-400 for versatility.
I don't think that I have used the antiquated-technology 100-400mm since I purchased the Mark II Super Teles, mainly because of IQ - both AF ability and sharpness. I dubbed it my "zoo lens" and I haven't been to the zoo in a long time.
I doubt that the 200-400mm being a zoom will equal the IQ of the 500mm II even with the 1.4x III mounted on the 500. As for the versatility of the 200-400mm; unless Canon is retooling it with lighter materials to make it significantly more agile especially for bare handing, the present beastly weight tarnishes this aspect of it. So unless one's shooting style emphasizes the shorter focal lengths, one would be hard pressed to justify it. If I were to acquire it, I'm afraid that it may just adorn a trophy shelf.
PetKal wrote:
Stu, 500 II with 1.4xTC III is very very good, in every way, on any 1D camera body.
However, while 500 II + 2xTC III can get you OK shots IQ wise, similar to 600 II + 2xTC III, the AF responsiveness is poor, again, like 600 II + 2xTC III, and that is the case even on 1DX.
Lastly, a note of caution: my 7D gives me a piss-poor AF performance with 500 II (and 600 II), with 1.4xTC III, even on stationary shots, let alone on any motion.
Hi Peter, interesting to hear that about the 7D af... Doesn't affect me though, I sold mine to a friend I'd probably only be using the 2 x ext on the 500 for moon shots off a tripod. I think I've made up my mind to purchase the 500 ii, but I'll have to wait until April. I've seen the the-digital-picture sample crops of the 500 ii with 1.4 x iii ext and it seems to be a match for the 800L bare... My set up could be 5D3 with 70-200 (with or without 1.4 ext) and 1D4 with 500 ii. Thats pretty good coverage. I'd still like to see holding my own 200-400 though instead of a canon demo model
I'm sure Peter is right and this will be superb lens, however outside of pro's can it really be said that anyone 'needs' this lens? That doesn't stop lots of people 'wanting' it of course!
Personally there is no way I can justify spending the kind of money this lens will cost in the UK so I'll be sticking with my Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 OS + TCs.
I look forward to seeing some wonderful shots taken with the new Canon 200-400mm on the N&W forum in due course.
waldr_p wrote:
I'm sure Peter is right and this will be superb lens, however outside of pro's can it really be said that anyone 'needs' this lens? That doesn't stop lots of people 'wanting' it of course!
Personally there is no way I can justify spending the kind of money this lens will cost in the UK so I'll be sticking with my Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 OS + TCs.
I look forward to seeing some wonderful shots taken with the new Canon 200-400mm on the N&W forum in due course.
Paul
It's certainly a "want" lens for me The idea of zooming and using the extender would be so much fun! I had considered the new Sigma 120-300 OS when it's released.
Doctorbird wrote:
I doubt that the 200-400mm being a zoom will equal the IQ of the 500mm II even with the 1.4x III mounted on the 500. As for the versatility of the 200-400mm; unless Canon is retooling it with lighter materials to make it significantly more agile especially for bare handing, the present beastly weight tarnishes this aspect of it. So unless one's shooting style emphasizes the shorter focal lengths, one would be hard pressed to justify it. If I were to acquire it, I'm afraid that it may just adorn a trophy shelf.
Db
Since you already own two most excellent long lenses, i.e., 400 II and 500 II, naturally, you are less likely to be blown away by 200-400L.
Bones74 wrote:
Hi Peter, interesting to hear that about the 7D af... Doesn't affect me though, I sold mine to a friend I'd probably only be using the 2 x ext on the 500 for moon shots off a tripod. I think I've made up my mind to purchase the 500 ii, but I'll have to wait until April. I've seen the the-digital-picture sample crops of the 500 ii with 1.4 x iii ext and it seems to be a match for the 800L bare... My set up could be 5D3 with 70-200 (with or without 1.4 ext) and 1D4 with 500 ii. Thats pretty good coverage. I'd still like to see holding my own 200-400 though instead of a canon demo model
waldr_p wrote:
Personally there is no way I can justify spending the kind of money this lens will cost in the UK so I'll be sticking with my Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 OS + TCs.
I look forward to seeing some wonderful shots taken with the new Canon 200-400mm on the N&W forum in due course.
Paul
Paul, the new yet to be released 120-300 f/2.8 could be very close to Canon in performance?
Sigma seems rather serious about upping their game.
I have no doubts that there will be one or two regular N&W members who will get 200-400L right away, and within a day of ownership they will proclaim that the zoom blows them all outta water.
PetKal wrote:
Stu, indeed, 500 II + 1.4xTC outperforms 800L in several important ways.
That picture of yours holding 200-400L is making rounds on the net.
I come up on google image search now It does link to the Canon Rumour forum though I could probably pay a whole less to buy a used 500 v1, but the extra weight is a problem. I cycle to shoot in Richmond Park so the added weight would be very tiresome...
Bones74 wrote:
I could probably pay a whole less to buy a used 500 v1, but the extra weight is a problem. I cycle to shoot in Richmond Park so the added weight would be very tiresome...
The weight difference is 0.8 kg. It is surprising how much handling improvement/ease results from such weight reduction. However, if you can cope with that extra weight, 500 MkI makes a super buy. Its IQ is pretty close to the MkII, and AF is less twitchy but slower, so it's a mixed blessing. I do prefer 500 MkI AF response though. Then, lastly, 4 stop IS makes a difference too.
Also, I am not sure if 500 MkI works equally well with 1.4xTC III as 500 MkII does.
I could probably pay a whole less to buy a used 500 v1, but the extra weight is a problem. I cycle to shoot in Richmond Park so the added weight would be very tiresome...