The 100-400 has a minimum focusing distance (MFD) of 1.8 meters. So it is not so extraordinary that a lens with a range that is a subset would have about the same MFD. Also, remember that the Tele-Extender does not affect MFD; one of the lesser known benefits of them.
Monito wrote: The 100-400 has a minimum focusing distance (MFD) of 1.8 meters. So it is not so extraordinary that a lens with a range that is a subset would have about the same MFD. Also, remember that the Tele-Extender does not affect MFD; one of the lesser known benefits of them.
True, 100-400 is extraordinary re MFD.
However, looking at 200-400L MFD from a supertelephoto lens perspective, it is still extraordinary because 400 DO MFD=3.5m and 400 f/2.8 IS MkII MFD=2.7m.
The flip side of a very short MFD is its AF response when on full focusing distance range....it might turn out to be very poor.
Well, the Nikon counterpart has mfd 1.95m, so I'd be disappointed if not this was the same. But with the built in tc you actually get a decent magnification for small critters. I really hope the weight will be less than the new 500 though..
Monito wrote:
It has almost as many buttons and controls as a camera!
The only new control element is the TC on-off toggle.
The rest of controls is in accordance with the MkII standard. Mind you, an average user like myself doesn't have to fiddle with those switches much...thankfully. The only one that I have to operate relatively often is the focusing distance limiter switch, and that is not because I like to play with it.
"Power focus" and IS Mode III are totally unneccessary in my books, but obviously someone must have asked for those features.
kjetils wrote: Well, the Nikon counterpart has mfd 1.95m, so I'd be disappointed if not this was the same. But with the built in tc you actually get a decent magnification for small critters. I really hope the weight will be less than the new 500 though..
K
There you go, I didn't know that......then the Nikkor 200-400 MFD spec might have been a design target for Canon 200-400.
PetKal wrote:
The flip side of a very short MFD is its AF response when on full focusing distance range....it might turn out to be very poor.
Hence the distance limiter switch.
The mfd of the 100-400 is good, but the at mfd the lens is no where near 400nmm, it's actually ~330mm. Technically a 400mm lens @ 1.8m should have greater magnification than a 300mm @ 1.5m (300 f/4L IS), but the 100-400L is actually worse and the same as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II @ 1.2m.
It would be nice if a new 100-400L could do a bit better on the magnification at mfd, irrespective of what the number is for mfd.
PetKal wrote:
Yes, 5m to infinity is a very good upper range, compared to 500 II (10m to infinity which is just OK) or very restrictive 20m to infinity of 800L.
On its picture it is easy to see the 3 focusing limits:
PetKal wrote:
Yes, 5m to infinity is a very good upper range, compared to 500 II (10m to infinity which is just OK) or very restrictive 20m to infinity of 800L.
Fred Miranda wrote:
On its picture it is easy to see the 3 focusing limits:
Full
2m to 6mm
6mm to infinity
PetKal wrote:
I read that as "5" not "6", however, I trust your eyesight more than mine.
I'm not sure I trust either.
The focusing limits would definitely not be marked in millimeters!
I betcha a nickel to a doughnut that of all 100-400 users' shots, at least 99% are taken at 400mm FL. Do you think that 200-400L will be any different ? So much for zoom "versatility".
Besides, Markle, 200-400L will probably be too heavy for you to use handheld.
I can only address my shooting style which I will describe as spray and pray. I will often let go with a burst of 10, 20, or even 30 shots with my 1d4, often times at 400mm.
On the other hand I do a lot of chimping and frequently will zoom out for better framing.
The result is that most of my shots may be at 400mm, but I would bet a fair number of my keepers are at a focal length other than 400mm.
Back in the day the Photo 101 prof use to say expect to get 1 keeper out of a roll of 36 frames. With the decrease in cost using digital I expect 1 keeper out of 100 images I capture.
