Upload & Sell: Off
| p.4 #7 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review |
Thanks Ben and Stu for the additional info!
"About as sharp as the original superteles." - that's my criteria.
"The focus was brilliant-on a 1DX." - I take that to mean fast and precise/consistent - sounds great!
4kg might be heavy for all you 500/4 shooters, but it's a 1.3kg drop from my 400 IS v.1, and about par for v.2. I'll take the flexibility of the zoom! It's also narrower than the 400/2.8 so will fit better in the Pelican 1510. I'm less concerned about it being front heavy since it will be 99% monopod use, though actual use will be the final judge.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm sure it really is worth 8x the price of the 100-400L or 2x the Nikon's 200-400 f/4 price. Seriously!
I have only casually used the 100-400. My impression of it was it's not 'prime-sharp' w/o at 400mm and AF isn't super speedy. Not sure if this jives with those who own one? It would seem to be a great photojournalism lens with occasional sports use. While I can live with f/4 for indoor/night events on a 1DX, f/5.6 would be pushing it. Maybe the mkII version will be more prime-like, but will certainly cost over $2500.
I guess I could buy a Nikon 200-400 with a used D3s and still come out ahead for price, but have read the 200-400 is not so hot at 400mm at farther subject distances, which certainly must further deteriorate with TC use. But then, that doesn't seem to discourage its use at sports events I've covered... It would be interesting to see what Nikon would charge for a significantly revised version of the 200-400, in light of their 800/5.6...