Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  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
       end
  

Archive 2017 · Okay, now Canon USA is just trolling us!

  
 
garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Okay, now Canon USA is just trolling us!


PetKal wrote:
Gary, catalogue pictures like that are a vivid reminder of the inadequacy of my long lens collection: 400 DO II is missing, and the possession of 400 DO MkI does not mitigate the pain.
A collection is either perfect or it is not. Less than perfect means IMPERFECT, even if the collection is only one lens short of perfection. A girl can not be little pregnant. She is either pregnant, or not pregnant. Tertium non datur.


Haha! Well, my only problem is my collection remains not only "incomplete" but firmly in the 1st generation IS lens category. The thought of selling and reacquiring all of them (200, 300, 400, 500) makes me woozy. (Well, okay, the 200 hasn't been replaced yet... On the other hand, I *used* to own the 200 1.8 )



Apr 25, 2017 at 09:26 AM
ggreene
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Okay, now Canon USA is just trolling us!


I've never had the chance to use the 400 II and the 200-400 at once but have used them separately for a short time (20-30 mins) and I thought the zoom was better balanced and less front heavy. May not make much difference for longer periods as they are both heavy. That was just my quick impression.


Apr 25, 2017 at 09:28 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Okay, now Canon USA is just trolling us!


garyvot wrote:
Haha! Well, my only problem is my collection remains not only "incomplete" but firmly in the 1st generation IS lens category. The thought of selling and reacquiring all of them (200, 300, 400, 500) makes me woozy. (Well, okay, the 200 hasn't been replaced yet... On the other hand, I *used* to own the 200 1.8 )


Gary, I think I remember your "love affair" with 200 f/1.8.
The 1999 supertelephoto vintage is all excellent albeit a bit on a heavy side compared to the MkIIs. However, performance-wise I was very happy with them. The 400 f/2.8 IS MkI was hampering my handheld shooting style though. Loved the lens, but it was killing my left shoulder and arm.

The 200 f/1.8 has been and will be an iconic lens. I even wanted to get it in the early 2000s, even though I was not doing much photography before 2005, and then finally in 2006 made that purchase.



Apr 25, 2017 at 10:02 AM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Okay, now Canon USA is just trolling us!


I'm fairly fortunate that I do not fatigue that badly yet. Or rather, my level of budget is lower than my level of fatigue. tBH I've been thinking about the 400 2.8is version one regardless of its heavy weight.

But I have no problem shooting at the stadiums I shoot at at ISO 6400 so the f/4 isn't a deal breaker and I imagine the 200-400 focuses faster than the 300 with a tc.

PetKal wrote:
Yes, it is easier to handhold, although not by that much.
According to my personal handheld shooting hardship scale based on 2 hrs of busy action, I'd say 500 II is "fairly easy", and 400 II is "moderately difficult".
Now, regarding that difficulty, 200-400 is closer to 400 II than to 500 II.

In fact, other than its excessive price, my only disappointment with 200-400 has been its weight.....I was expecting/hoping for a 200-400 zoom a bit lighter.




Apr 25, 2017 at 10:53 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Okay, now Canon USA is just trolling us!


RobertLynn wrote:
I'm fairly fortunate that I do not fatigue that badly yet. Or rather, my level of budget is lower than my level of fatigue. tBH I've been thinking about the 400 2.8is version one regardless of its heavy weight.


When you get 400 f/2.8 IS MkI and use it for one hour of busy handheld shooting, please let me know how it feels.



Apr 25, 2017 at 11:02 AM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Okay, now Canon USA is just trolling us!


I routinely carry a 300, a 70-200, a 24-70, and 3 bodies on me for an entire game in the sun. while I'm no saying it's an easy feat, I'm saying my level of fatigue is not as high as the limit of my budget.

PetKal wrote:
When you get 400 f/2.8 IS MkI and use it for one hour of busy handheld shooting, please let me know how it feels.




Apr 25, 2017 at 11:15 AM
garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Okay, now Canon USA is just trolling us!


RobertLynn wrote:
I routinely carry a 300, a 70-200, a 24-70, and 3 bodies on me for an entire game in the sun. while I'm no saying it's an easy feat, I'm saying my level of fatigue is not as high as the limit of my budget.


Not doubting your fitness level at all, but the 300 2.8 is a roughly 6 pound lens, give or take, while the 400 2.8 IS v1 is nearly 12 pounds, and is much bulkier. It is non-trivial to manage for the fittest individuals, especially when juggling other lenses and cameras.

The 2nd gen IS model is nearly 3.5 pounds lighter, which was by far the most important change to this particular lens, IMO.



Apr 25, 2017 at 03:30 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Okay, now Canon USA is just trolling us!


garyvot wrote:
The 2nd gen IS model is nearly 3.5 pounds lighter, which was by far the most important change to this particular lens, IMO.


I agree with that 100%. I mean, having 4 stop IS as opposed to 2 stop IS is nice too, but for me that was not a deal maker at all. However, when I first took the 400 II in my hands, I was just grinning like a fool in disbelief. The lens felt unbelievably light compared to its predecessor, and the "feel" of it went beyond my expectations based on reading the weight specs alone. That's what made the 400 f/2.8 IS II update worthwhile to me.



Apr 25, 2017 at 03:51 PM
Guest

Guest
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Okay, now Canon USA is just trolling us!


First world problems galore.
I'm shooting the Governor's annual report tomorrow at the city's legislature. Last year I found out (the hard way) that 200mm isn't really long enough, so I'm choosing between the 70-200/2.8 with the 1.4x extender and the 70-300. I even think of taking both and doing a little "comparison shoot" - a crazy idea since this time around I'm working alone, so I'll have to feed the information back to the office in addition to photographing. Problem is, the goddamn extender isn't working very well with the 70-200 - sometimes failing to lock securely, sometimes just producing less sharp pictures than would be desirable. Decisions decisions.



Apr 25, 2017 at 05:13 PM
garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Okay, now Canon USA is just trolling us!



Snopchenko wrote:
...sometimes just producing less sharp pictures than would be desirable.


I was surprised to figure out a while back that MFA needs to be performed independently with a TC mounted... This was not obvious to me at all, but the camera seems to treat the combination as a different lens. In case this has any bearing on your sharpness issue...



Apr 25, 2017 at 05:26 PM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Okay, now Canon USA is just trolling us!


7200 for a refurb, what 10k for a new one? Or buy the version one used for what, 3500?

I'm not Johnny atlas or anything like that, but for an almost 4000 dollar difference I can handle the is difference as well as the weight. If it was only a couple hundred we would be having a different conversation. I shoot sports so the extra is doesn't mean anything for me (I'm not knocking is either).

All I'm saying is for the price difference I'll deal with the weight for now.

PetKal wrote:
I agree with that 100%. I mean, having 4 stop IS as opposed to 2 stop IS is nice too, but for me that was not a deal maker at all. However, when I first took the 400 II in my hands, I was just grinning like a fool in disbelief. The lens felt unbelievably light compared to its predecessor, and the "feel" of it went beyond my expectations based on reading the weight specs alone. That's what made the 400 f/2.8 IS II update worthwhile to me.




Apr 25, 2017 at 06:58 PM
Guest

Guest
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Okay, now Canon USA is just trolling us!


garyvot wrote:
I was surprised to figure out a while back that MFA needs to be performed independently with a TC mounted... This was not obvious to me at all, but the camera seems to treat the combination as a different lens. In case this has any bearing on your sharpness issue...


Looks like the lens and extender combo is all right at 140 and 200mm but way off at 280mm in challenging light. I guess something has to be done about that (I would have preferred to get rid of both but the lens is unfortunately unsellable).



Apr 26, 2017 at 10:45 AM
1       2      
3
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.