PetKal wrote:
I got a call from "my" camera store today. They said they were getting three 200-400Ls, two had been spoken for already, and they thought that I might have been interested in the remaining one. So I ordered it.
Now I have to go from one to another family member of mine, with a hat in my hand, begging for contributions towards the lens purchase cost.
I am also hoping that I will be able to sell my 200-400L evaluation report on line, as that would also help mitigate the $$ blow of the purchase.
Congratulations Peter! I'm anxious to read your evaluation of the 200-400. You're probably the only person I know who has the 400 II and soon the 200-400L. You're review of the 200-400L and hopefully a comparison to the 400 II will go along way to help me decide whether to get the 200-400 or the 400 II.
I'm taking a welcome break from the "Bots...". Congrats on the big purchase; it will be in great hands.... Really looking forward to your assessment from the shooters perspective, and your comparison to fixed focal lengths within the range, under "other than test-charts" conditions.
PetKal wrote:
Db, the chances that I'd recommend the lens to someone like you who owns the best, i.e., 500 II and 400 II, are very slim.
The 200-400 weight continues to bother me. In light of it, I can not even sell my 400 DO in order to offset the 200-400L cost, because weight and size wise, 200-400L is no substitute whatsoever for 400 DO, let alone for 100-400.
Yes this is a weighty matter. And the heft factor will be the major subjective component of any evaluation since I know not how much more of a brute you are than I.
PetKal wrote:
If IQ turns out to be kinda unremarkable, I'd probably end up selling it at some loss, because my store doesn't accept returns of non-defective goods.
Even if the iq is not as good as 600 but better than 100-400, it will be f4. Which means less motion blur in challenging light. Therefore it will be a success as long as it is equal or better to 100-400. My 100-400 is challenging in low light at f5.6. The internal 1.4x will only work well in the day time for me is my guess.
But I hope it is close to the 600. That would be great.
Peter are you going to modify the survey, “ I voted not to pre-order, but then it was my birthday. My local camera store called to wish me a happy birthday and convinced me to purchase my own gift that is unique just like myself.”
As far as a replacement foot for 200-400L goes, I plan to use the 4th Generation Designs' CR-80 which was originally developed for 800L.
However, in addition to 800L, I use CR-80 on 300 f/2.8 IS MkII, and at this time I can't see a reason why the same foot would not fit on 200-400L equally well.
In my experience CR-80 is the best replacement foot for those lenses that can take it, as it represents a perfect compromise between the low profile requirement and the lens carrying handle functionality.
Frankly, IMO no other replacement foot comes even close. However, please note that I am not concerned about on-gimbal balancing, because I will use the lens mostly handheld, and occassionally off a monopod.
(Needless to say, I derive no benefit from the promotion of this particular 4th Generation Designs' product. In fact, some of their stuff I have no use for, such as that Mongoose tripod head. )
The Canon 200-400L is too expensive. It's about $5000 more than the Nikon 200-400. The only thing it has that the Nikon does not is the 1.4x converter. Id rather get a $500 1.4x than pay $5000 for a built in one.
Also the Canon 300mm f2.8L IS II is an amazing lens. At a much lower price even when you add a 1.4x and a 2x.
Godfather and Sneakyracer, obviously 300 f/2.8 IS MkII is an excellent lens. The MkI was (is) an excellent lens too, and the improvements MkI ----> MkII are not dramatic at all in my view....there are a few enhancements, and they are minor. Incidentally, when it comes to AF performance, I actually prefer the MkI.
However, 200-400L is a zoom, and that is its main draw. If you do not need a zoom, then I think 300 f/2.8 IS MkII makes more sense. Moreover, from the performance/$ viewpoint, 300 f/2.8 IS MkI rules them all, although a nice 500 f/4 IS MkI might also represent a great value to some people.
I have to agree that the 300 f/2.8 MkI is great and fast, but I'm hoping that's Peter's latest acquisition only forces him to sell another of his "vintage" gems. Maybe to a repeat buyer...
Happy Birthday Peter!
Bob
PetKal wrote:
Godfather and Sneakyracer, obviously 300 f/2.8 IS MkII is an excellent lens. The MkI was (is) an excellent lens too, and the improvements MkI ----> MkII are not dramatic at all in my view....there are a few enhancements, and they are minor. Incidentally, when it comes to AF performance, I actually prefer the MkI.
However, 200-400L is a zoom, and that is its main draw. If you do not need a zoom, then I think 300 f/2.8 IS MkII makes more sense. Moreover, from the performance/$ viewpoint, 300 f/2.8 IS MkI rules them all, although a nice 500 f/4 IS MkI might also represent a great value to some people....Show more →
. Really looking forward to your assessment from the shooters perspective, and your comparison to fixed focal lengths within the range, under "other than test-charts" conditions.
