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       4       end
  

Archive 2013 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
  
 
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


arbitrage wrote:
And why couldn't he be more specific if he was talking about the 500 mkI or mkII when mentioning the weight?? Still seems lighter than previous estimates putting it at 400 f/2.8II or 600 f/4II type of weight.


Even if he had weighted the lens to provide a precise number, it is still a prototype and would not help us much.



Feb 04, 2013 at 12:23 AM
Pixel Perfect
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


arbitrage wrote:
And why couldn't he be more specific if he was talking about the 500 mkI or mkII when mentioning the weight?? Still seems lighter than previous estimates putting it at 400 f/2.8II or 600 f/4II type of weight.


The 500 mk I is the same weight as the 400/600 mk II, so ~3.9kg -/+ a few grams

This is exactly what we been hearing for a year now, that it's in the 4kg ball park. The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, which should be a similar weight to a standard 200-400 f/4 is just under 3kg and with a TC will be around 3.25kg, or about the weight of the 500 mk II.



Feb 04, 2013 at 12:24 AM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


Rob Dickinson -> Joshua Holko what does it weigh? About a 400mkII?
Joshua Holko closer to a 300mm - but i did not have scales accurate enough to weigh it properly.



Feb 04, 2013 at 12:25 AM
Pixel Perfect
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


RobDickinson wrote:
Rob Dickinson -> Joshua Holko what does it weigh? About a 400mkII?
Joshua Holko closer to a 300mm - but i did not have scales accurate enough to weigh it properly.


That's just delusional if he thinks a 200-400 f/4 zoom could weigh as little as 2.5kg



Feb 04, 2013 at 12:31 AM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


Its a pre production model he didnt accurately weigh, which would have been meaningless anyhow.

But whatever.



Feb 04, 2013 at 12:33 AM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


Pixel Perfect wrote:
That's just delusional if he thinks a 200-400 f/4 zoom could weigh as little as 2.5kg


Did he not say the weight was close to the 500 f4, which would be 3.87kg?

I don't know why anyone would think that a pre-production model near to production would vary that much in weight to the final product.



Feb 04, 2013 at 01:23 AM
vsg28
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


Why are so many here against video reviews? I prefer a good video review anyday- more info in the same time, a real "feel" for the product and can be more entertaining if that's what one desires.


Feb 04, 2013 at 01:34 AM
PetKal
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


RobDickinson wrote:
Its a pre production model he didnt accurately weigh, which would have been meaningless anyhow.

But whatever.


Why would the the weight alone be "meaningless" and anything else in the video would have some "meaning" ? Are we going to selectively pick features which we feel are "tentative", and then some others which we feel they will be frozen in the true production run ?

Of course we can not do that because we know squat about the whole process.
We are also totally ignorant of the engineering/design gap that divides the presumeably pre-production units lent to the Olympics photographers and the bona fide production lenses.

Therefore, all we can do is follow the review of the that fellow of the pre-production (?) lens he's got in his hands, and try to understand what is that he is saying about it, what is that he left out (such as AF performance), and why is that he is saying what he is saying, how come that no pictures of his taken with 200-400L were shown even as a rough illustration, etc.



Feb 04, 2013 at 01:35 AM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


Who knows, I assume he is under some kind of NDA.

I guess we can assume the production models will be optically as good and perhaps lighter than the preprod model. But who knows.



Feb 04, 2013 at 01:44 AM
PetKal
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


One piece of info from the review sounds quite credible to me, and that is the expected retail price given as $11,000-$13,000. I think the reviewer didn't come up with that price range on his own, but it was his Canon contact who probably suggested it. Therefore, that price range reflects Canon's thinking at the time when they reviewed and vetted the subject 200-400L review. Obviously, even that is not cast in stone. By the time those lenses hit retail shelves, Canon might change their minds and price them under or above the $11-13k bracket.


Feb 04, 2013 at 02:12 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


Pixel Perfect wrote:
That's just delusional if he thinks a 200-400 f/4 zoom could weigh as little as 2.5kg


Yes. My 200-400 Nikkor is listed as 3.36 kg and the internal TC should add some weight. If the overall size of the Canon is much larger than the Nikkor, it is not for me.

EBH



Feb 04, 2013 at 02:13 AM
howard
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


vsg28 wrote:
Why are so many here against video reviews? I prefer a good video review anyday- more info in the same time, a real "feel" for the product and can be more entertaining if that's what one desires.


Because it takes 7 minutes to find out it's useless Actually it took me about half of the time before I gave up.

Video reviews by nature are linear -- sure you can skip forward, but you don't really know where you are skipping to. With written reviews it is easy to get a gist of it by glancing over it; it usually takes less than a minute to find out if it's worth reading.



Feb 04, 2013 at 02:16 AM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


howard wrote:
Because it takes 7 minutes to find out it's useless Actually it took me about half of the time before I gave up.

Video reviews by nature are linear -- sure you can skip forward, but you don't really know where you are skipping to. With written reviews it is easy to get a gist of it by glancing over it; it usually takes less than a minute to find out if it's worth reading.


You need to take a speed video-viewing course.



Feb 04, 2013 at 02:58 AM
PetKal
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


howard wrote:
Because it takes 7 minutes to find out it's useless Actually it took me about half of the time before I gave up.


That is a bit harsh. As an example, his review is much better than another Canon "sponsored" review by a European F-1 photographer I saw a year or so ago. His review of 400 f/2.8 IS MkII was not very good, just Canon's marketing pap and little else.

Even if they had the experience/knowledge to do a good review job, those guys are not at liberty to publish anything critical of the gear they are reviewing. One shouldn't bite the hand which feeds them.



Feb 04, 2013 at 02:59 AM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


The 'problem' with this and many video reviews is they're loosely scripted or simply ad-libbed and end up repeating the same points multiple times, which he did. Seven minutes could have been condensed to a couple minutes instead. Anyone interested in this lens knows it's a 200-400 f/4 with 4-stop IS, built-in TC... just show us how the TC swings into place, which he did. I agree he totally omitted any comment about AF performance. Given the ad-libbed nature, it might have been accidental, but you never know. As for his price prediction, it seemed completely speculative. He might be right, but the way he presented it offers no authoritative confirmation.

What I found most valuable was seeing how the TC moved into place, i.e. the impression that there is some friction/resistance involved, which seems good; that it will take external TCs; his impressions about image quality. Really, it's the IQ I care most about, since I essentially want this lens to replace a 400 IS v.1 and will probably be shooting it 99% of the time at f/4, meaning it needs to be quite close to the quality of the 2.8 lens wide open, at 400mm.



Feb 04, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


This review gives just a feel for the lens. Which is cool since there is not a lot of information available on this lens. Its obviously not meant to be a thorough technical review. So if you were looking for that, this is not it.

But, regardless of how good the lens is it's gonna come down to price. Nikon's excellent 200-400mm f4 lens costs about $6750. It's just absurd that Canon supposedly wants to charge $11,000-$13,000. That would be a huge mistake. $7000-$7500 seems like a sweet spot in that the lens would sell much more than the % difference in price. Also, at $11k+ id much rather buy the 300f 2.8 L IS II and converters for much less money. And I am professional. But this all remains to be seen since the lens is not for sale yet.



Feb 04, 2013 at 01:23 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


He said it was as sharp in the centre as a 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8. I believe he also said that at 560mm it was as sharp as at 300mm.

Certainly the price seems high, but some people seem to be missing the point that for many pros that just want to use one lens that will cover 200-560mm, it will be cheaper than buying two or three lenses. There is also the fact that they would not have to change lenses or TC's. That is a big plus when time is of the essence in capturing the shot when needing to change focal-lengths quickly.

As for comparing the price to the Nikon, I guess some might find the lens twice as good.



Feb 04, 2013 at 04:25 PM
Roland W
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


The early information about the Canon 200-400 did specifically talk about it NOT accepting the Canon extenders, so perhaps part of the delay and "adjustments" to the design included a change to allow the extenders. I am very happy that it seems we will be able to use Canon extenders, and this reviewer was reasonably pleased when using even the Canon 2X.

In spite of the expected price being very high, I am still planning to get one when they first come out, and have had my pre order in since the first announcement. The concept and range fit my needs very well, and with a 1DX the maximum aperture of F4 or F5.6 or even F8 with an external 1.4 extender should be very usable at somewhat lower light levels due to the improved autofocus and great high ISO performance the camera has.



Feb 04, 2013 at 04:26 PM
Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


PetKal wrote:
It's useful that he confirmed external TCs can be used on the lens.
He got a bit confused about the purpose of each of the IS Modes, but I do not blame him for screwing up the Mode 3, because it is still not clear in my mind who'd use that and why.

When it comes to the lens weight, I felt he sounded kinda vague..."it's heavier than 300 f/2.8 IS and lighter than 500 f/4" . Which 500 f/4.....MkI or MkII ? Besides, why didn't he weigh the lens, then he'd now for sure.



I have a loaner 500mm f/4 IS ii on the way from CPS and I get it for 5 days. I think I'm giving up on my dream of this 200-400.



Feb 04, 2013 at 04:53 PM
PetKal
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review


Bones74 wrote:
I have a loaner 500mm f/4 IS ii on the way from CPS and I get it for 5 days. I think I'm giving up on my dream of this 200-400.



That's great, Stu........the loaner will allow you to make your selection based on the actual use....." suck and see".



Feb 04, 2013 at 05:33 PM
1      
2
       3       4       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password