4Kg? Is there some plutonium in there?

EBH

rscheffler wrote:
Everyone will buy this lens because it's sharp.
It has a "different look" from the primes, because it's a stop slower and therefore somewhat different background rendering/depth of field look.

BTW, he was shooting with two super-teles... the 200-400 and the 400 2.8 II. When asked about this, he said it was because of point #2. IMO, a more logical pairing would be the 200-400 with the 600 or 800, but I'm sure he knows what he's doing.


Stadium sports shooters prefer f2.8s to isolate the subject from the busy BG (signs etc). The 200-400 does better in open field sports and is a killer safari/wildlife lens. Having shot the Nikon version for several years I predict the Canon version will be a big seller. If it's sharp enough the integrated TC will be a huge asset. I was especially pleased to see the MFD was 2 meters -- makes it a fantastic butterfly and dragonfly lens, if expensive.

I guess I'd better start saving!

Sports photographers preferred f/2.8 because until recently, the high ISO performance of digital cameras, and before those, film, made it pretty much mandatory. With recent cameras it's not a biggie to shoot ISO 3200-6400 to facilitate f/4 or f/5.6. Sure, there's the subject isolation factor as well, but IMO it's, to a degree, a secondary consideration to other factors such as convenience and versatility.

Regarding the weight: I guess to each his own. IMO, the versatility of the zoom and the built-in TC far outweigh the slight weight penalty vs. the 400 IS v.II, which to me is irrelevant, because it should still be lighter than the 5.3kg IS v.I that I own. Shooting on the sidelines, it's always from a monopod anyway. I guess the considerations are different for BIF...

rscheffler wrote:
Sports photographers preferred f/2.8 because until recently, the high ISO performance of digital cameras, and before those, film, made it pretty much mandatory. With recent cameras it's not a biggie to shoot ISO 3200-6400 to facilitate f/4 or f/5.6. Sure, there's the subject isolation factor as well, but IMO it's, to a degree, a secondary consideration to other factors such as convenience and versatility.



Ron, then, why not get 100-400 ?
It is much much lighter, much much cheaper than 200-400L, and also it has a broader FL range. Moreover, you can slap 1.4XTC on it and it will AF with your MkIV.

I have thought about that in the past, but I no longer have the IV!

And that's why I wrote, "to a degree." Subject separation is still a factor, but a one stop difference, going from f/2.8 to f/4 is not as significant as dropping two stops or the other gains offered by this lens. Besides, the 100-400 is an OK, but not great lens like the super-tele primes and hopefully also the 200-400...

Ron, I am just trying to help you save some big bucks.

As usual it's a "video" lens you can use for stills.......what's next a
built-in "Drive in" in the EOS-X2
I'm getting the idea that if I'm not into Video I should be shooting Nikon....

What? How is it a video lens first and not just a lens ?

PetKal wrote:
Ron, I am just trying to help you save some big bucks.

Thanks Peter, but it's a lost cause... I see another $17K in purchases coming... 200-400 & Leica's new M. I should have bought Apple stock 10 years ago...

rscheffler wrote:
PetKal wrote:
Ron, I am just trying to help you save some big bucks.

Thanks Peter, but it's a lost cause... I see another $17K in purchases coming... 200-400 & Leica's new M. I should have bought Apple stock 10 years ago...

Well, Ron, I have forgotten you are also a Leica shooter.....that can certainly strain most budgets.

I wonder what the general 200-400L consensus was by the photographers who were given the lens to use in the Olympiad. Unfortunately, they are not likely to share any negatives about the lens publicly, except perhaps feed them back to Canon.

I wIsh built-in extenders were standard in all Mark 2 super teles. I don't mind paying extra for the convenience and safety of gear.

I also wished that I bought Apple stock a dozen years ago.

The focus limiters has been established a long time ago but I find it interesting that Canon changed it to 5 to infinity instead of the original 6 to infinity.

dolina wrote:

The focus limiters has been established a long time ago but I find it interesting that Canon changed it to 5 to infinity instead of the original 6 to infinity.



Gwapo, are you saying that the original design has been changed ?
"5m to infinity" range sounds better than "6m to infinity", assuming there is no some sorta penalty elsewhere.

PetKal wrote:
dolina wrote:

The focus limiters has been established a long time ago but I find it interesting that Canon changed it to 5 to infinity instead of the original 6 to infinity.



Gwapo, are you saying that the original design has been changed ?
"5m to infinity" range sounds better than "6m to infinity", assuming there is no some sorta penalty elsewhere.
It appears to be the case pogi! I am guessing feedback from the Olympics sent the lens back to the proverbial drawing board if the report is correct.

dolina wrote:
PetKal wrote:
dolina wrote:

The focus limiters has been established a long time ago but I find it interesting that Canon changed it to 5 to infinity instead of the original 6 to infinity.



Gwapo, are you saying that the original design has been changed ?
"5m to infinity" range sounds better than "6m to infinity", assuming there is no some sorta penalty elsewhere.
It appears to be the case pogi! I am guessing feedback from the Olympics sent the lens back to the proverbial drawing board if the report is correct.

As a result of using the MkII supertelephoto lenses for a while now, I am becoming increasingly sceptical of their design process, particularly as it relates to Servo AF as well as extreme defocus handling. The issue of design targets and objectives, the AF behaviour modelling and then prototype verification......what kind of photographers are helping their engineers work on those ?

The MkII lens firmware update is an interesting example as well. I haven't been able to find out what is that the firmware is meant to achieve. Canon people I spoke to either didn't know, or were under a direction to keep mum, so they were feeding me generalities and platitudes. . After the firmware upgrade having been installed, I do not see any difference in my lens performance yet, and that is exactly what I have been anticipating all along because I do not know what is that I should be looking at.

Nowhere Man wrote:
That looks like an amazing lens and I already want one. But at $10,000 cost, it has to be taken off my Xmas list too.

looks like I'll be staying with the old 100-400

Dimension comparison between the 400, 200-400, 500, 600 and 800.



400's 13.5-inch
200-400's 14.5-inch?
500's 15.1-inch

Reported to be heavier than the 400 (3850g). So does this mean the 200-400 is lighter than the 600 (3920g)?

MFD is below

I covered one of the days of the PGA Tour Shriner's Open in Las Vegas this past weekend for the newspaper I work for and talked a bit with Getty's Scott Halleran who covers most of the golfing events, and he said he got to use it at the Ryder Cup and that it was absolutely great. Should've asked about the weight, but most sports photographers are used to the weight of a 400 2.8 or 600 f4 so it doesn't make much of a difference, and this will be heavily aimed at them anyhow.

CSStevens wrote:
I covered one of the days of the PGA Tour Shriner's Open in Las Vegas this past weekend for the newspaper I work for and talked a bit with Getty's Scott Halleran who covers most of the golfing events, and he said he got to use it at the Ryder Cup and that it was absolutely great. Should've asked about the weight, but most sports photographers are used to the weight of a 400 2.8 or 600 f4 so it doesn't make much of a difference, and this will be heavily aimed at them anyhow.
According to CNet (of all the websites, right?) the 200-400's focus is more sluggish than that of the 400/2.8. Something to do with the f-number perhaps?

I look forward to the final specs and price tag.

dolina wrote:
According to CNet (of all the websites, right?) the 200-400's focus is more sluggish than that of the 400/2.8. Something to do with the f-number perhaps?

I look forward to the final specs and price tag.
Well to be far, the AF on the 400mm is absolutely superb. But than again, for the price tag of the 200-400, it shouldn't really be anything less than superb, but it is a lot of heavy glass in there. And since the guy I mentioned who talked about it was only shooting golf, couldn't have gotten the AF tested out that well.

CSStevens wrote:
dolina wrote:
According to CNet (of all the websites, right?) the 200-400's focus is more sluggish than that of the 400/2.8. Something to do with the f-number perhaps?

I look forward to the final specs and price tag.
Well to be far, the AF on the 400mm is absolutely superb. But than again, for the price tag of the 200-400, it shouldn't really be anything less than superb, but it is a lot of heavy glass in there. And since the guy I mentioned who talked about it was only shooting golf, couldn't have gotten the AF tested out that well.
I hope they polish off these observations before they put it up for sale. Having to bring in a lens for a firmware update is a hassle.