p.2 #1 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
Bones74 wrote:
Trust me, I started to give the guy funny looks when he made these claims (for the RAW files)... He said "the 5Dmk2 has a two stop advantage over the 5D and the 5Dmk3 has a 2 stop advantage over the 5Dmk2 so the 5Dmk3 has a 4 stop advantage over the 5D" and then he grinned like he was personally responsible for this amazing feat of engineering that may or may not be true Time will tell.
hah so the 5d3 is 16 times more efficient than the 5D?
p.2 #2 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
Bones74 wrote:
Trust me, I started to give the guy funny looks when he made these claims (for the RAW files)... He said "the 5Dmk2 has a two stop advantage over the 5D and the 5Dmk3 has a 2 stop advantage over the 5Dmk2 so the 5Dmk3 has a 4 stop advantage over the 5D" and then he grinned like he was personally responsible for this amazing feat of engineering that may or may not be true Time will tell.
Considering that once you normalize for the way the 5D2 rates ISOs differently than the 5D, that it actually only has just barely 1/2 stop better SNR then applying that translation to his statement means that the 5D3 will be not quite 1/2 stop better in RAW than the 5D2. (although if it has less ugly banding and crap, from a real-world perspective you might be able to add on another 1/2 stop and end up with real world look of almost 1 stop better perhaps, even if it wouldn't measure that way). We will see.
My mate is friends with a few of the Canon reps so they let us have a few minutes with the 200-400. Flicking the extender into place didnt seem to slow the AF much, if at all and the sharpness still seemed excellent. Its a beast of a lens; It felt heavier than the 400 f/2.8 IS ii, which they also let me handhold and mount my own camera on. Certainly, for short periods of time, handholding the new 400 2.8 should be quite easy for some people, like Petkal
Thank you for your report, Stuart...that is very interesting. Zoom optics and its mechanism certainly add weight to a lens. If it feels as heavy as 400 f/2.8 IS MkII, then hand-holding 200-400L is certainly doable, but it will not be enjoyable for most people, including myself.
( I've never had any acquisition plans for 200-400L, since the zoom doesn't fit in with my other lenses.)
p.2 #6 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
RobDickinson wrote:
Any chance of a raw preview and even a raw HISTOGRAM! ?!? Please canon!?!
You can get pretty close to a raw histogram by creating a custom picture style with lowest contrast and some other tweaks. This is what I did for my 1Ds3 and 5D2 and it's within less than one f-stop of raw. The previews don't look very hot by themselves, but I don't care since I shoot raw for a reason.
p.2 #8 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
PetKal wrote:
Thank you for your report, Stuart...that is very interesting. Zoom optics and its mechanism certainly add weight to a lens. If it feels as heavy as 400 f/2.8 IS MkII, then hand-holding 200-400L is certainly doable, but it will not be enjoyable for most people, including myself.
( I've never had any acquisition plans for 200-400L, since the zoom doesn't fit in with my other lenses.)
You're welcome Peter The lens did feel like you were moving a lot of glass around inside. The 400 2.8 definitely felt more balanced on a 1Dmk4. As good as it might be when Canon do finally put it into production, it will probably the same price as a new mk2 prime. Most of the guys who could afford such a lens will go for the prime, I think. Cheers
p.2 #10 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
Bones, is the 200-400 f/4 physically longer than the 400 f/2.8 mk II? If so this could explain the impression of heavier weight; the lens will be placing a greater torque on your arm, meaning more fatigue sooner. Still unless it's noticeably longer, say 50mm+, it shouldn't be too bad, as the weight is considerably less.
p.2 #13 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Bones, is the 200-400 f/4 physically longer than the 400 f/2.8 mk II? If so this could explain the impression of heavier weight; the lens will be placing a greater torque on your arm, meaning more fatigue sooner. Still unless it's noticeably longer, say 50mm+, it shouldn't be too bad, as the weight is considerably less.
Sorry, I cant say for sure. I've had a look around for 200-400 dimensions but haven't found anything yet. The extender adds a good 50-70mm so it could be longer than the prime.
p.2 #14 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
Pixel Perfect wrote:
200-400 3.1-3.2kg, 400 mk II, 3.9kg
I have a new Sigma 120-300 OS, and at 2.9kg it's very much hand-holdable for me. However, I believe some of the feeling of extra weight comes down to the need to zoom...my old 300 f/2.8 felt lighter than the Sigma, simply becasue all I had to do was put a hand under it and aim...with the Sigma that support hand has more to do, which is why the 200-400 might have felt heavier than the new 400. IMO.
p.2 #15 · Tried the 5Dmk3 and 200-400 at Focus (FOI)
gocolts wrote:
with the Sigma that support hand has more to do, which is why the 200-400 might have felt heavier than the new 400. IMO.
That is a very good point.
Weight distribution, as mentioned before, also plays a major role.
As an example, the 200mm 1.8 definitely feels heavier than it really is.
Time will tell.
