p.3 #1 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
PetKal wrote:
That's great, Stu........the loaner will allow you to make your selection based on the actual use....." suck and see".
Thanks Peter. I'm pretty excited. Hopefully the weather will play ball. The 500, in my mind at least, is the lens I'd be happiest dropping my money on. I'll let you know how I get on
p.3 #2 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
For those of you who are "Facebookers", Holko has a few shots of 200-400L, and a few more blurbs about it on his Fecebook page.
It would appear he's is saying in there that 200-400L "felt" lighter than 200-400 VR. Apparently he didn't have a proper scale to measure the lens weight "accurately".
(I guess stopping by his neighbourhood grocery store and asking them to weigh the lens for him didn't cross his mind. )
p.3 #3 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
PetKal wrote:
It would appear he's is saying in there that 200-400L "felt" lighter than 200-400 VR. Apparently he didn't have a proper scale to measure the lens weight "accurately".
(I guess stopping by his neighbourhood grocery store and asking them to weigh the lens for him didn't cross his mind. )
I know!
It would be easy to ask for a pound of salami and while the guy is busy cutting it, throw the lens on the scale!
p.3 #4 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
PetKal wrote:
For those of you who are "Facebookers", Holko has a few shots of 200-400L, and a few more blurbs about it on his Fecebook page.
It would appear he's is saying in there that 200-400L "felt" lighter than 200-400 VR. Apparently he didn't have a proper scale to measure the lens weight "accurately".
(I guess stopping by his neighbourhood grocery store and asking them to weigh the lens for him didn't cross his mind. )
Surely there's a smartphone app that can weigh the damn thing
p.3 #5 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Surely there's a smartphone app that can weigh the damn thing
The lady of the house (or the baker/cook of the family ) should have accurate scales to measure ingredients for baking... The 200-400L "may" be lighter than the 200-400VR, but it looks obese in comparison...
p.3 #6 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
I have a hard time believing the 200-400L units given to the London Oympics photographers were lighter than 200-400 VR. In fact, I am more inclined to trust Stu's judgement that the 200-400L weight felt similar to 400 f/2.8 IS MkII (i.e., about 4 kg).
p.3 #7 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
Baking scales: It depends. The digital one I have here tops out at 2kg. I suppose one could disassemble the lens... Since it's a prototype, it'll be junked by Canon eventually anyway.
Imagemaster wrote:
Certainly the price seems high, but some people seem to be missing the point that for many pros that just want to use one lens that will cover 200-560mm, it will be cheaper than buying two or three lenses. There is also the fact that they would not have to change lenses or TC's. That is a big plus when time is of the essence in capturing the shot when needing to change focal-lengths quickly.
Exactly. It will also mean I can remove 3 prime lenses from my inventory and about $25K in replacement cost coverage from my insurance schedule. If I was to replace either the 400 or 600 with the current version I'd be spending around $10K anyway. The flexibility of the zoom for what I cover is attractive. The built-in TC even more so, especially for inclement weather (combined with dual 64GB or 128GB CF cards and I never need to open up the rain cover, other than maybe the battery). I expect I'd probably use this lens mostly at 400mm, so it also needs to compare to the 400/2.8 IS versions for IQ.
Roland W wrote:
The early information about the Canon 200-400 did specifically talk about it NOT accepting the Canon extenders, so perhaps part of the delay and "adjustments" to the design included a change to allow the extenders. I am very happy that it seems we will be able to use Canon extenders, and this reviewer was reasonably pleased when using even the Canon 2X.
I agree this will add some welcome flexibility. IIRC, rumors about the production delay focused on teleconverter issues, which everyone assumed to be the built-in teleconverter. Perhaps there was a 'loss in translation' which originally meant delay due to teleconverter compatibility, since the external design of the TC hump doesn't seem to have changed at all, or other cosmetic aspects.
p.3 #8 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
rscheffler wrote:
Exactly. It will also mean I can remove 3 prime lenses from my inventory and about $25K in replacement cost coverage from my insurance schedule. If I was to replace either the 400 or 600 with the current version I'd be spending around $10K anyway. The flexibility of the zoom for what I cover is attractive. The built-in TC even more so, especially for inclement weather (combined with dual 64GB or 128GB CF cards and I never need to open up the rain cover, other than maybe the battery).
Wow, someone that actually understands the concept, importance, and flexibility of a high-quality zoom. Put into this correct perspective, it makes financial sense for some to pay a price that is very reasonable when compared to their other options.
p.3 #10 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm sure it really is worth 8x the price of the 100-400L or 2x the Nikon's 200-400 f/4 price. Seriously!
There is perhaps some logic in what those lads are saying: which gears would you rather carry on you to a shoot: eight copies of 100-400 or just one 200-400L ? See, 200-400L is much better/easier that way.
p.3 #12 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
PetKal wrote:
(I guess stopping by his neighbourhood grocery store and asking them to weigh the lens for him didn't cross his mind. )
I love those jokes on the weight, but we should consider that most likely he signed some sort of NDA imposing restrictions on the data that Canon was willing to share.
p.3 #13 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
PetKal wrote:
I have a hard time believing the 200-400L units given to the London Oympics photographers were lighter than 200-400 VR. In fact, I am more inclined to trust Stu's judgement that the 200-400L weight felt similar to 400 f/2.8 IS MkII (i.e., about 4 kg).
Skip along to 57 seconds to see a cross section of the 200-400L
p.3 #14 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
That's a great find, Stu.....perhaps the first time we see the lens cross section or a cutout. Looks like it has 24-25 elements (out of which two larger ones could be fluorite, thus lighter a bit) + 4 elements in the TC. (Nikkor 200-400 has 24 elements, but no fluorite).
p.3 #15 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
Massimo Foti wrote:
I love those jokes on the weight, but we should consider that most likely he signed some sort of NDA imposing restrictions on the data that Canon was willing to share.
No doubt, Massimo.
Canon let him use the lens for a few days, probably under the following kind of conditions:
(1) His feedback on lens performance, both good and bad, should be given to Canon only.
(2) Specific data on lens characteristics, such as weight or pictures taken with the lens, or negative aspects of lens performance, must not be shared with third parties.
(3) Should he wish to publish his lens "evaluation", the report has to receive a prior approval by Canon.
p.3 #16 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
Many intereting comments. At least the guy had the lense in his hands, many of the people making comments have not even seen the lense!
I also had the opportunity to "test" the lense for about 15 minutes at a Canon Expo 8 weeks ago. The product manager was at hand to answer questions.
1. The weight was ? the same as the 500 I, but more heavy than the 500II that I had in my hands just before I picked up the 200-400. I also played with the 600II and the weight felt nearly the same. The balance was different than the 500 II
2. The focus was brilliant-on a 1DX
3. According to the product manager the lense was the final if not the production model.
4. One of the preproduction problems that had to be fixed was the lever to switch on the converter-apparently to much play on the lever.
5. The lens is front heavy.
6. The product manager said ? Euro 11000
7. General questions were answered, specifics like weight etc were not answered
8. So-nearly the same info as the video, at least most people were right to state that not much new info is available and we'll have to wait patiently.
p.3 #17 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
Thank you, Ben, for that concise statement, which lines up well with the feedback by other guys like Stu who have also handled the lens.
A sort of a consesus has emerged as to the weight......it looks like we are indeed talking about 4kg for the units you guys have held. Will the final production units be any different, that remains to be seen. However, 4 kg is a lot for a 400 f/4 (or 560 f/5.6) lens, particularly if nose heavy.
p.3 #19 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
PetKal wrote:
That's a great find, Stu.....perhaps the first time we see the lens cross section or a cutout. Looks like it has 24-25 elements (out of which two larger ones could be fluorite, thus lighter a bit) + 4 elements in the TC. (Nikkor 200-400 has 24 elements, but no fluorite).
Hi Peter, I've got the 500 ii in my grubby paws It is amazingly hand holdable, very balanced with my 1D4. It's going to be a steep learning curve using it out in the field tomorrow morning. I'm going to start hand holding and then try the monopod. I'll use the 5D3 with it first to get used to the F/L.
I agree with Ben's assessments on the 200-400, being a fellow "handler ". A forum member on POTN said he had used the 200-400L for BIF; it focused well for a zoom and was about as sharp as the original superteles, was his opinion.
p.3 #20 · Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Video Review
Good show, the 500 II is quite nice for handheld photography, so much so that mine has never been on a pod ever since I've gotten it almost a year ago. When you support it by its foot, you will notice how rear heavy it is with a camera mounted. That "imbalance" is actually an additional asset for hand-held use...making it easier. Otherwise, there is nothing unique or special about it, except in AF responsiveness, but we might talk about that later.
". A forum member on POTN said he had used the 200-400L for BIF; it focused well for a zoom and was about as sharp as the original superteles, was his opinion.