It was great on the older bodies, 1DMKII and MKIII, forget it on the newer ones, it just doesn't have the resolving power or focus accuracy on the higher rez bodies, and I was a huge fan of it on earlier bodies
For my uses the zoom range combined with the 1.4 option in a high image quality lens is exactly what I need for subjects that change distance from me often. In my case my primary use will be for air shows, where the subjects can change from 0.1 miles away to 2.0 miles away pretty quickly. The 200-400 is a good range to match with either the 1.3 crop of the 1D4 or the full frame of the 1DX, but when you add the 1.4 option that only takes two seconds to activate, you really have a 200 to 560. In addition to the 1.4 being fast to put in and out, the change will also not upset the front to back balance on a Wimberley. And since I still need to have the option to handhold for brief periods at an air show, I think this lens will still be just manageable by me for a few minutes of shooting, and the latest generation of IS will help a lot with the hand holding when light is low or a longer exposure is desired for effect. I also value the use of a drop in filter slot for quick adjustment of a polarizer, which is pretty easy to do on a Wimberly with big lenses.
The cost will be what it is. It will be a big gulp for me to start with, especially after getting a 1DX this year. But I expect many many years of successful shooting with exactly the lens I both want and need. Now, if we can only figure out a way to get Canon to actually sell these mythical beasts to us.
Derek wrote:
The Siggy doesn't cut it on a 1DX, nor a 1DMKIV
How do I know? I own two of them
It was great on the older bodies, 1DMKII and MKIII, forget it on the newer ones, it just doesn't have the resolving power or focus accuracy on the higher rez bodies, and I was a huge fan of it on earlier bodies
You get what you pay for...,, unfortunetely
You don't always get what you pay for, but you always pay for what you get! lol I guess I was praying for a miracle.
PetKal wrote:
I do not think it will be "light" either, in fact if it really turns out to be 4kg, that ain't light at all for a 400 f/4 lens (or 560 f/5.6) lens in my books. That kinda weight would be the price one has to pay for zoom versatility, I guess.
All depends on a person's view of what light is. When you compare the weight of equivalent lens Canon-Nikon, Canon has been a lot lighter. The question that arises is how much weight the builtin TC will be and what the internal lens structure is (How much glass and elements are contained inside). Given Canon being consistently lighter than the equivalent Nikon, I see no reason for this to change with the 200-400 even with the builtin TC. In otherwards I would say it will be less than 3360g. May not be a lot, but lighter.
This issue I have with it is the fact it's a f/4.0 lens. Yes you can still isolate sports action using f/4.0 but maintaining high shutter speed when the light leaves you is another condition all together. Higher ISO to compensate, sure you can especially with the "X" but on the lower light school fields even f/2.8 ISO 12800 barely gets you enough shutter speed.
Now for NFL fields and night game shooters, I'd bet not as much a problem
burningheart wrote:
All depends on a person's view of what light is. When you compare the weight of equivalent lens Canon-Nikon, Canon has been a lot lighter. The question that arises is how much weight the builtin TC will be and what the internal lens structure is (How much glass and elements are contained inside). Given Canon being consistently lighter than the equivalent Nikon, I see no reason for this to change with the 200-400 even with the builtin TC. In otherwards I would say it will be less than 3360g. May not be a lot, but lighter.
This will be a great safari lens - either in Yellowstone or Botswana - sometimes the animals are close and sometimes they are far. 200f4-400f4-560f5.6 provides a huge range and will be the driving around go-to lens.
The current canon drive around go-to lens is the 100-400. I presume the quality will be better on the 200-400 and the light ability will be way better to twice as good to 400mm. The downside will be cost and size and weight.
I will be getting one. I will have to build a rack in my jeep:
1) 600f4v2 with 1.4 on 7d for far away in good light
2) 200-400 on 7d for close in
3) 400 f2.8 on 5dii for low light
And lots of insurance.
Scott Stoness wrote:
This will be a great safari lens - either in Yellowstone or Botswana - sometimes the animals are close and sometimes they are far. 200f4-400f4-560f5.6 provides a huge range and will be the driving around go-to lens.
The current canon drive around go-to lens is the 100-400. I presume the quality will be better on the 200-400 and the light ability will be way better to twice as good to 400mm. The downside will be cost and size and weight.
I will be getting one. I will have to build a rack in my jeep:
1) 600f4v2 with 1.4 on 7d for far away in good light
2) 200-400 on 7d for close in
3) 400 f2.8 on 5dii for low light
And lots of insurance....Show more →
And maybe an upgrade on the Jeep's suspension to handle the weight of the 3 big whites.
I do not know that photographer from Adam, but I think many of his 200-400L shots would have turned out better with a sharper and faster lens such as 400 f/2.8 IS. Quite a few of his shots have their quality diminished by lack of subject isolation.
A few hundred grams either way won;t make any difference to me. I'm flabbergasted at the enormous cost of this lens and really I was expecting it to be much lighter than Nikon's version even with 1.4x TC built-in given Canon's work in bringing down the weight of the mk II superteles.
My only 2 cents here is I owned the Nikon 200-400 on my then D3 and was less than impressed by its handling, less than stellar AF speed, and was rather front heavy. And I only paid approx 4k for it. 10k or more for the new canon version? Sheesh.
I have waited for this lens since the day I left the Nikon camp for greener (whiter, I guess) pastures. For the western big game shooter nothing compares to the versatility of this lens. The ability to take 1 moment in time, say the bugle of an Elk and shoot it several different ways, wide, tight, really tight (with the built in 1.4) will make this lens worth every penny they ask for it. If the performance of the newly released super teles is any indication of what we can expect from this lens then the wait will also have been worth it.
Why does Canon seem to drag their feet with the 200-400L introduction ?
(1) The delay is consistent with the overall trend with Canon which had started even before the Tsunami problem arose.
(2) Current supertelephoto lens production capacity is still unable to meet the initial ordering backlog of 500/600II.
(3) Performance problems might have been encountered with the pre-production 200-400L units.
They probably understand better than we do that the commercial success of such zoom will largely depend on its IQ......the potential buyers will expect something similar to 400 f/2.8 IS MkI (or II) which is a pretty tall order for a prime, let alone a zoom.
I think Canon's way of handling that challenge today is thru a high number of lens elements and a high design complexity which is augmented even more by the built-in TC. More glass elements and higher complexity generally means more lens weight, additional challenges in ensuring production consistency and higher production costs....all of those factors have an adverse affect on the commercial success of a new product.
burningheart wrote:
All depends on a person's view of what light is. When you compare the weight of equivalent lens Canon-Nikon, Canon has been a lot lighter. The question that arises is how much weight the builtin TC will be and what the internal lens structure is (How much glass and elements are contained inside). Given Canon being consistently lighter than the equivalent Nikon, I see no reason for this to change with the 200-400 even with the builtin TC. In otherwards I would say it will be less than 3360g. May not be a lot, but lighter.
Agreed. Weight distribution is also an important factor. I hand held the 400 f/2.8 IS ii with a 1D4 and then the 200-400L with a 1D4 and the zoom felt heavier. Maybe there are more internals towards the front? You would think though with the extender it would kind of even out the weight distribution. I dont know, I could be way out
PetKal wrote:
Why does Canon seem to drag their feet with the 200-400L introduction ?
(1) The delay is consistent with the overall trend with Canon which had started even before the Tsunami problem arose.
(2) Current supertelephoto lens production capacity is still unable to meet the initial ordering backlog of 500/600II.
(3) Performance problems might have been encountered with the pre-production 200-400L units.
They probably understand better than we do that the commercial success of such zoom will largely depend on its IQ......the potential buyers will expect something similar to 400 f/2.8 IS MkI (or II) which is a pretty tall order for a prime, let alone a zoom.
I think Canon's way of handling that challenge today is thru a high number of lens elements and a high design complexity which is augmented even more by the built-in TC. More glass elements and higher complexity generally means more lens weight, additional challenges in ensuring production consistency and higher production costs....all of those factors have an adverse affect on the commercial success of a new product....Show more →
I agree, the last thing Canon wants is to release a 200-400 that doesn't meet expectations.
1. Performance must meet the price point, and be of similiar IQ to the new big whites.
2. It's weight and weight distribution must be at a point that photographers feel comfortable with it's use, including hand-held. Otherwise why not just get a 400 2.8 MKII or 500 4 MKII.
3. Given the potential price it will largely be a lens used by pros and I am sure Canon is listening to all the comments made by those who used it, to do the necessary modifications to make it an acceptable product.
Like you said in a previous post that several of the shots by Jeff Cable would have been better with a 400 2.8, even he admitted that on his blog, but given the circumstances and shooting environment it allowed him to get done what he needed to without having to fumble with multiple lenses/cameras and missing some of the action. The 1.4 TC is a big benefit. But lets face it in a less intense shooting environment the 200-400 has to be close to what the 400 and 500 primes can do or the 200-400 will be passed over for the prime.
Robert, I agree, sometimes it is only owing to convenience and flexibility of the tool that people are able to get a shot that otherwise they couldn't have.
g Nikon 3360g