rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
PetKal wrote:
There seems to be lots of unbraidled enthusiasm for 200-400L everywhere. Some of it is endorsements paid by Canon (shilling), parhaps also unquestioning faith in Canon's top echalon gear.
However, before we get independent and experienced reviews in, I'd maintain a cautious stance.
Let me also repeat something I wrote about 200-400L vs. 400 f/2.8 yesterday:
you can crank up ISO all you want, but that will not make the zoom perform on the level of faster primes in regards to:
(1) AF (particularly low light)
(2) bokeh/subject isolation
(3) AF responsiveness with 2xTC
My technical concerns revolve around several issues such as these:
(1) AF drive response on the full focussing distance range, i.e., 2m to infinity, with and w/o TC dialed in.
(2) IQ consistency thru the entire FL range.
(3) Copy-to-copy IQ variations.
(4) Mechanical/optical integrity after a year or so of frequent use.
(5) Resistance to dust penetration.
...Show more →
I have to admit I do feel I'm taking a slight leap of faith and there is the constant reminder of my 1DIII experience back in 2007. That said, since then Canon's releases have been relatively trouble free. I was initially going to hold out on the 1DX too, but its massive adoption by photographers covering EURO 2012 and the Olympics significantly eased my concerns. Along with the 1DX, the 200-400 seems to have had a popular following at the Olympics, which isn't an event one would normally use unknown/untested gear that doesn't live up to expectations.
It seems other than for those where price isn't the primary deterrent, the differences of opinion we see here seem to boil down to those who are frequently focal length limited vs. those who aren't (as much). Yes, if you're photographing distant wildlife, a 500/600 with TCs, or the 800, makes sense. For me, the action is usually within a 200x53 yard playing surface (or smaller), around which I can move to better position myself at my discretion, and where in the past, a fixed 400 has sometimes been too tight.
Regarding the first three points:
(1) We shall see. Most venues I cover are sufficiently bright. There will probably be a measurable difference, but the question is whether it will be noticeable in actual use. I am curious though how it will work in most hockey arenas I've worked in the past year, where baseline exposure has been in the ISO 3200 1/500 f/2.8 region.
(2) Not a huge concern. Again, as I've found with the 70-200/4, I rarely missed not having f/2.8. There is still good bg separation and I'll take the trade for zoom flexibility. For my purposes, I've found a two-stop jump to have a much more noticeable aesthetic difference. I.e. f/2 vs. f/4 or f/2.8 vs. f/5.6, but not one stop. Theoretically, the 100-400 should be sufficient, but here the two-stop difference does have a more noticeable affect on bg separation and is less practical for night/indoor venues. And at the long end, that lens just doesn't seem to be in the super-tele class of sharpness wide open. Maybe the new version, if it ever comes, will be closer? If the 200-400 is inline with what I get from the 400/2.8 IS mkI, I'll be happy.
(3) I don't anticipate shooting with the 2x TC.
We shall see about the other 5 points. The massive number of elements in this lens does give some pause for the possibility of optical misalignment, either during manufacture or during heavy use...
|
).