Pixel Perfect wrote:
I love the current 100-400L but it's AF speed for fast action is not as good as it could be and can't touch the 400 f/5.6L. That's a well known fact and should also be addressed with higher drive current motor. If they can get close to 400L I'll be very happy.
I agree it could be faster but comments like glacial do an extreme injustice to a still great lens.
There is no shortage of brilliant action stuff taken with 100-400s on the net but speed like the prime would be better.
EB-1 wrote:
Optically the 400/5.6 is very good, but not exactly that great compared to what can be achieved in a modern prime. Certainly the 400/5.6 could be improved at the right price. Realistically a new 100-400 could be near enough if not a bit better in the center than the 400/5.6 and is a much more versatile lens in the kit.
Regardless of the prices, the 200-400/4 is simply too large and heavy to be practical in many situations where a 100-400 would be the ideal choice. I expect that many 200-400/4 owners would also have a 100-400/5.6. Maybe a few would not buy a 200-400/4 if the 100-400 were better, but I don't see that as a big factor. Not that I'm typical, but a fine quality 100-400 might make me consider that paired with a 600/4.
EB-1 wrote:
Regardless of the prices, the 200-400/4 is simply too large and heavy to be practical in many situations where a 100-400 would be the ideal choice.
Tell that to all the pro sports photographers that use a 400 f2.8.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Wouldn't a 500 f/5.6L IS four-pounder be a killer lens?
YES INDEED !!!
One of these days, the 100-400L II will finally be released. It's been rumored to be announced at every Photokina event since 2002!
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I agree with this assessment and indeed I'd rather a 100-400 + 600 II combo than the 200-400
That's what I basically settled on - I need something I can carry around on a hike or easily take on a canoe with me. I'm pretty strong for a woman, but I just don't see myself doing that with a 200-400, so that's not a replacement for me.
Imagemaster wrote:
Tell that to all the pro sports photographers that use a 400 f2.8.
I suspect many sports pros will be using the 200-400 when it becomes more available. IMHO, its a no-brainer to have that zoom range + 1.4TC at the flip of a switch.
Unless conditions absolutely demand that extra stop of the 400 2.8, the 200-400 would be my choice hands-down.
As a former owner of the Nikon 200-400VR, I predict that IF Canon does their version "right" (i.e. without the shortcomings that the Nikon version had), it will be a very big seller.
But that's not going to be an easy task -- keeping "prime" quality sharpness in a 2x constant f4 zoom from MFD to infinity focus, then add the variability of a TC is one huge challenge. I, for one, will be very interested to see how it turns out.
Gary Irwin wrote:
As a former owner of the Nikon 200-400VR, I predict that IF Canon does their version "right" (i.e. without the shortcomings that the Nikon version had), it will be a very big seller.
But that's not going to be an easy task -- keeping "prime" quality sharpness in a 2x constant f4 zoom from MFD to infinity focus, then add the variability of a TC is one huge challenge. I, for one, will be very interested to see how it turns out.
At a 50% price premium over the Nikon, "big" will definitely be a relative term. Seriously the market for $10K+ lenses in a era of global meltdown seems very small. Canon have basically doubled the price of entry into the superteles. Even if I sold my 500 for a good price I'd still be out of pocket $7K for a 600 II and $4-5K for a 200-400!
Gary Irwin wrote:
As a former owner of the Nikon 200-400VR, I predict that IF Canon does their version "right" (i.e. without the shortcomings that the Nikon version had), it will be a very big seller.
Can you elaborate what are the shortcomings of the Nikon version?
ghozer wrote:
I've owned two copies of the 200-400 VR and I thought it sucked (both copies) shooting anything further away than 30 - 40 yards or so. Soft.
A short product cycle could mean that the product had flaws that needed a design fix.
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II
Announced: May 4, 2010
I share Gary's belief that Canon will correct Nikon's mistake. Canon has the advantage of breaking apart Nikon's design and go in a different direction that fixes Nikon's flaws.
In the same way Nikon can adjust their 800mm VR on the progress of Canon's 800mm IS.
cohenxa wrote:
Can you elaborate what are the shortcomings of the Nikon version?
. Very slightly soft at 400mm
. Very soft beyond 100 feet or so...essentially unusable if cropping to any extent
. T-stop of f4.5, not f4
. Relatively slow AF (especially on DX)
. Very slow AF when using TCs
. Limited to 1.4x TC only, and only at close distances
