Andy Rouse spent 6 months testing the just released Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x. He demonstrates the advantage of having a super telephoto zoom with built-in extender in the field.
Here is an excerpt from his final words:
"The flexibility of having an effective range of 200-560mm is a wonderful tool for the creative photographer. It has helped me get shots that otherwise I would have missed. It puts me in control of the composition, it makes me think about it. Having an IN-BUILT 1.4x teleconverter has not only helped me get more range, but I would warrant that the AF speed suffers very little slowdown compared to a normal converter." - Read full review
Pre-order the Canon EF 200–400mm f/4L IS 1.4X. Priced at $11,799
He is likely a very good wildlife photographer, but I just couldn't finish reading his rambling, repetitive and vague evaluation of the lens. OK, I could see there was also some sorta focus on Shakira in the article, which I thought was kinda odd and positively not funny.
Either way, I do not think one could consider him to be an independent reviewer.
The lens is probably excellent in many ways as all of the new long lenses are. However, I suspect the lens has a few imperfections too, like the rest of its big white siblings. Some of those imperfections could be quite important to some users, so it would be helpful to learn about them as well.
Im actually quite surprised by the review . Ive not read much of Andy's stuff (so things may well have changed) but I seem to remember he thru all his canon toys out of the pram a few years back (1D3) and he nailed himself firmly to Nikon's mast
PetKal wrote:
He is likely a very good wildlife photographer, but I just couldn't finish reading his rambling, repetitive and vague evaluation of the lens. OK, I could see there was also some sorta focus on Shakira in the article, which I thought was kinda odd and positively not funny.
Either way, I do not think one could consider him to be an independent reviewer.
Yeah? I must admit I really liked the review including all the British ramblings. Then I looked at some of those safari photos han had taken with it and I was in WANT mode. I can't possible afford one like ever, but I was surprised how much he loved it.
PetKal wrote:
He is likely a very good wildlife photographer, but I just couldn't finish reading his rambling, repetitive and vague evaluation of the lens. OK, I could see there was also some sorta focus on Shakira in the article, which I thought was kinda odd and positively not funny.
Either way, I do not think one could consider him to be an independent reviewer.
The lens is probably excellent in many ways as all of the new long lenses are. However, I suspect the lens has a few imperfections too, like the rest of its big white siblings. Some of those imperfections could be quite important to some users, so it would be helpful to learn about them as well. ...Show more →
You do realise he's a Nikon guy? That could also explain why he rambles
Maybe he needed some obligatory pidjun shots to spice up the article
An interesting review, somewhat informative, Andy's writing style is quite blogish, personal and is an example of a conversational nature; kind of casual talk. It's in stark contrast to the direct but dry technical babble mostly found these days, at least he equated his personal experiences, straying of point on occasion, with a splash of technical...enough for a junior tele user like myself.
His prose was a bit long; yes Peter, there was a bit of repeating; a lean vocabulary to a degree. However this guy is an enthuastic shooter...the dude is a photographer, not an English major I've no clue who this Shakira person is but will google just to see them thar hips, a tangent that has little to do with a lens review, unless you're going to shoot portraits with a 200-400; guess you'd get some serious subject isolation and Bokeh, bit I digress
As for the pricing, well kinda figured it would be high, the technical effort to design such a versatile lens is quite the achievement IMHO. Bravo Canon for providing another viable tool for the sports/wildlife/BIF shooters...
Youtube here I go, gotta see who this Shakira is
Update - She moves okay, voice is okay, the band sucks...kinda Justin Beiberish...not my old school style, back to 'Tull' I go
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Maybe he needed some obligatory pidjun shots to spice up the article
Bona fide pijun-in-fligh shots, good or bad, usually help to illustrate Servo AF (tracking) discussions, if there are any, that is . Also, addressing the difficulty/ keeper rate related to such shots is really required in order to understand the hardware performance.
However, some folks like to showcase their skill at the expense of objective hardware evaluation, thereby diminishing the value of their gear review.
Besides, I've got 400 f/4 DO, and I don't need no overweight/overpriced 200-400 f/4 zoom.
Peter...showoff
As always another crystal clear BIF shot...
Nearly grabbed a used 1D2N last week, it was really difficult to pass it by; those pixels are so nice/smooth at lower ISO's...tempting tho they be I hesitated and it was sold to another!
Jerry, for action 1DMkIIN is sure nice, although not much depth in those files....after all it's an 8 Mp camera. But it is quite responsive and agile, and its AF works rather well.
Wont be brutal but the quality if his images speak for themselves in showing the quality and flexibility of this lens.
Id love to go shooting with him as he certainly knows where the action is and looking at the multitude of gorgeous well composed shots speaks volumes for the usage of the zoom.
The single biggest weakness of any prime is just that..its a prime.
It looks like we now get the best of both worlds..prime quality zoom flexibility.
What else do you need?
Yep, match it up to a new 1dx and you have a sweet setup for a touch under $20,000. Come on guys, just skip your Starbucks for a few weeks and you'll save enough.
I can't possible afford one like ever, but I was surprised how much he loved it. 
