Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3

5 … 21 22 end

Archive 2013 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

Roland W
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

So I picked up my 200-400 today, and it was the only one that my dealer got. My local dealer in the Seattle area is Kenmore Camera, and they have always been very good to me for early delivery if I pre order early. In this case I pre ordered over 26 months ago, right after the first development announcement came out. For me it is too soon for any images, but I though I would report on a few details I have observed so far.

As a small note, my lens has a serial number that is 04000002xx, where the xx is between 60 and 99, so this is likely in the first 300 or so lenses in the US. My guess is that the leading 04 is a batch that might be lenses sold in the US, and it would be interesting to know if the Canadian lenses have a different prefix. If we can see examples of approximate serial numbers as more lenses show up, we can get a rough idea of how many of these critters there are out there.

I ordered and recieved the Really Right Stuff replacement lens foot last week, which they call an LCF-53. It mounts easily by removing 4 screws, removing the Canon long foot, and then mounting the RRS replacement with the same 4 screws. Wth the RRS foot on, I have checked the front to back balance in a few conditions, and it looks like the RRS foot will work great for achieving balance on a gimbal head for every logical condition you would configure things. Here are my results:

1. Canon 200-400, zoom setting 200mm, hood on forward, camera Canon 1DX, no L bracket on camera. Balance point is right under the center of the switch plate on the side of the lens for reference for other foots. Balance point is 2.75 inches from the back end of the RRS foot, and 3.0 inches from the front.

2. Canon 200-400, zoom setting 200mm, hood on forward, Canon 2XIII extender mounted, camera Canon 1DX, no L bracket on camera. Balance point is 1.75 inches from the back of the RRS foot.

3. Canon 200-400, zoom setting 200mm, hood on forward, camera Canon 5D3, no L bracket on camera. Balance point is 2.5 inches from the back of the RRS foot. Still about 2.25 inches of the foot in front of the balance point.

In addition, I checked as to how much the balance point shifts when you zoom, and was supprised to see that it is only about a 0.2 inch shift to the rear when you zoom from 200 to 400. So that is a very minor amount, which will be nice for gimbal mounted use. The built in 1.4 extender moves in from the side, so it will have no effect on the front to back balance.

In comparing the RRS replacement foot to the Canon foot, the RRS puts the lens about 0.6 inches lower than if you put a multipurpose plate on the canon foot. So the RRS is an improvement, but not a drastic one. With the RRS foot on, I was easily able to adjust my Wimberley original version up and down to achieve balance in the other axis. There looks to be about another 0.8 inches of adjustment on the Wimberley, so a generic plate on the Canon foot would also likely work out.

In looking at what to get for a carry case for this lens, I found lots of references to the dimensions of the bare lens, but could not easily find the information on the hood size or the size of the lens and hood combination. So I made the following measurements:

1. Hood on facing forward, 1DX camera mounted: 22.5 inches front edge to back of 1DX eyepiece.

2. Hood reversed and stowed, 1DX camera mounted: 17.5 inches front of lens to back of 1DX eyepiece.

3. Hood diameter 5.75 inches excluding the mounting screw knob. Hood size across at back 6.3 inches from tip of screw knob to the far side of the hood. Hood length 5.7 inches front to back.

My general impressions for build and handling and all around cool factor are great so far, but obviously it is very early. I hope I can have more experience accumulated and a fair number of shots taken by tomorrow, but I have a lot of other things going on this weekend too.

May 31, 2013 at 11:53 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

There's an explanation of the new lens code and how it's incorporated in the serial number here.

04 indicates it was made in April. My serial is very high 300s. What is also unknown is if the preproduction lenses are included in the serial number tally.

I may switch out the foot for an aftermarket version, but will wait for others to give those a try. I anticipate hand holding this lens a lot and found supporting it at the base of the hood with a finger curled around the mounting screw provided a pretty good grip and I can extend my thumb to the zoom ring and move through almost the whole range in one motion. Supporting it at the focus preset ring also works and allows a better grip on the zoom ring. Both positions allow easy reach to the function buttons around the front end of the barrel, which I use to start IS.

Jun 01, 2013 at 12:55 AM

Doctorbird
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

Vicarious pleasures, indeed!!

Jun 01, 2013 at 01:23 AM

dehowie
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

PetKal wrote:
Why not ? 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII is sure primelike when it comes to IQ. Some people say 24-70L MkII is also at least as sharp as 24L and 35L.

What I would find ridiculous is the acceptance of the 400 f/5.6 grade IQ in a $11,800 lens, be it a zoom or a prime.

Well for a start the laws of optics may have something to say about your desire to have a zoom that can out perform not one but several primes from 200 to 600mm.The zooms you mention have all been released in the last 3 years and even then the primes stepped down to 2.8 they out perform the zoom.
I mean my 24-70Ii and 70-200 are great lenses but i can find several primes in my collection better optically from sharpness to distortion.
I mean seriously do you really expect the 200-400 to be sharper than a dedicated single length lens?
I'd hope it gets close/really close but unrealistic expectations based off phsically unachievable optics aint going to happen.
Id be expecting 95%+ of the IQ of a super tele for the weight etc. placing expctations off price just does not work as using that flawed logic the new Nikon 800 should be between 35 and 50% better lens than the Canon one!
If its close to my 400/2.8 ill be very happy.
Unlike birders many people require shorter lengths with great quality and with no time for picking up a second camera or lens swap this lens looks like being the answer to many people dreams.
Id take 98% of the quality of my 400/2.8 with the option of zooming out to not clip a wingtip or tail anyday, is there anything worse than a stunningly sharp image ruined by clipping off part of the subject then struggling to process it to look reasonable?
For all its sharpness the 400/5.6 isnt much good when you need 300 because the target is to large in the frame...

Jun 01, 2013 at 04:21 AM

KatManDEW
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

First post for me. Thanks to Andrew for the examples. All the Canon 200-400 shots look significantly sharper to me on my NEC PA301WSV.

In the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX OS thread on POTN, all the comments about the Sigma seem to be positive. But there seems to be quite a bit of negativity here about the Canon 200-400. Is that because of the price, or are people thinking that the Canon isn't as good as it should be for the money?

I preordered the 200-400 but not until last week, so I don't know how long it will be to get it, which leaves me time to change my mind.

Jun 01, 2013 at 08:25 AM

burningheart
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

Thanks for the images Ron and for the info Roland

Jun 01, 2013 at 08:27 AM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

PetKal wrote:
Ron, you have had the lens in your possession for over 24 hrs, and we do not even have an elementary sharpness test shot yet ? Such as a shot of a wine bottle, a cereal box, or a dollar bill, taken at 400mm and 560mm, wide open, perhaps 12-15 ft focusing distance (so that you could do it indoors if need be). Show the original, and then 100% crop. As simple as eating a square pie.

A cat? Ha-ha!

Ron -- Thanks for those preliminary shots. The paint can is an excellent target with the label and text. I like the shot across the street -- the overall looks good, but it does suffer in the details. Hopefully, as you suggest, some brighter daylight conditions will make for sharper test shots. Congrats on the lens!

Jun 01, 2013 at 09:01 AM

mitesh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

KatManDEW wrote:
But there seems to be quite a bit of negativity here about the Canon 200-400. Is that because of the price, or are people thinking that the Canon isn't as good as it should be for the money?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would probably portray the "negativity" as more of apprehension or caution at this point. Understandably so, I might add, when you're talking about dropping $12k sight unseen on a new breed of lens that we have no performance benchmark for.

How happy one is with the lens is a function of his/her expectations. We have every right to expect outstanding performance from a pro-level optic that is so dearly priced. The question is simply what are we judging against and what are the criteria (sharpness alone isn't everything). At this point, we only have a handful of static samples from a few people. We need to see more tests and more types of tests (AF speed/stability, IS functionality, head-to-head vs. primes and Sigma's new zoom, etc.) and real-world results before we can fairly judge the lens.

For me, if the end results are similar to what prime lenses produce -and I've no reason to believe they won't be- the relative compactness, flexibility of zoom and the FL coverage are worth the additional premium.

This is just my opinion and others may certainly have differing views.

Jun 01, 2013 at 09:24 AM

KatManDEW
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

mitesh wrote:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I would probably portray the "negativity" as more of apprehension or caution at this point. Understandably so, I might add, when you're talking about dropping $12k sight unseen on a new breed of lens that we have no performance benchmark for.

How happy one is with the lens is a function of his/her expectations. We have every right to expect outstanding performance from a pro-level optic that is so dearly priced. The question is simply what are we judging against and what are the criteria (sharpness alone isn't everything). At this point, we only...Show more →

Thanks for the perspective. Image quality is very important, especially at this price. But flexibility seems important to me. I miss lots of shots because I have the wrong lens and/or TC combination installed.

My current thinking is that the only advantages of the Sigma is the price (obviously), and low light capability without a TC.

Jun 01, 2013 at 09:42 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

KatManDEW wrote:
First post for me. Thanks to Andrew for the examples. All the Canon 200-400 shots look significantly sharper to me on my NEC PA301WSV.

In the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX OS thread on POTN, all the comments about the Sigma seem to be positive. But there seems to be quite a bit of negativity here about the Canon 200-400. Is that because of the price, or are people thinking that the Canon isn't as good as it should be for the money?

I preordered the 200-400 but not until last week, so I don't know how long it will be to get...Show more →

From what I've seen so far, the Sigma looks very good and they seem to be on a roll lately with their newest lenses. It's probably a more logical lens if you're working a lot around 300 and wider. Ignoring the cost differences, what the 200-400 gains is an edge at 400 and the ability to move to 560 with very good results.

I agree some of the 200-400 negativity is probably due to cautious expectations. This lens has been out as a prototype for a while and expectations have grown based in part on user comments, such as from photographers covering the Olympics. But, there hasn't been solid evidence to support these claims until now. This reminds me a lot about the hype around new cameras. We have months or more to debate the on-paper specs and gobble up tidbits from those who have leaked prerelease observations. Then the product ships and reality sets in that more often than not, the new camera is very good, but not the holy grail it was made out to be by the hype. Usually 'better' than its predecessors, but not dramatically so. What I'm seeing with the 200-400 so far is an excellent zoom lens. Is it optically superior to the primes? I think a clearcut answer is what many have hoped for, but once again, it's going to be shades of gray.

Whatever the case, I've figured out that I can pack it in a 20L waterproof backpack along with my rain gear, some supplies and can carry it comfortably. I couldn't have done this with the 400/2.8 - at least not as comfortably.

When I compared it at the store against their used 100-400 at 400mm, I could see that the 200-400 is optically better. But realistically, it's not a *huge* difference. There's obviously a reason why many who own super-teles also own this lens, despite it falling short in terms of sheer optical quality. I will be very curious to see how the Mark II version of this lens compares against the 200-400...

Jun 01, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

dehowie wrote:
I think even he most ardent Canon fan would be drawing the line there.

dehowie wrote

£12000.00. That's how much this lens costs in the UK (including 20% VAT). If its not prime sharp (or within a very very close margin to the original 400 2.8 IS). it is not worth that amount of money, built in 1.4 x tc aside. From what I've seen with and without the extender in place, this lens is very good, but it is a long way off £12000 worth of lens. If Canon expect people to part with this amount of money it needs to...Show more →

Jun 01, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

It cost US $ 18,000 in Sweden

Jun 01, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

PetKal wrote:
What I would find ridiculous is the acceptance of the 400 f/5.6 grade IQ in a $11,800 lens, be it a zoom or a prime.

Peter, take it as given that if I could "like" this comment unto infinity I would

From what I've seen the lens is good, and I'm sure its built to the highest standard, but it's horribly over priced for what it "seems" to deliver optically. As I've mentioned several times I prize versatility, but based on what I've seen the Sigma 120-300 sport at 1/3 rd the price is nearly as good, all be it without a built in TC and being a shorter F/L. If you take the £12000 UK price in isolation this lens should be a 400 ii (£8300) equaling zoom. I'm meeting a friend tomorrow morning who got a 400 ii earlier this week. Hopefully he lets me use it a bit with my 5D3 so I can pixel purve

Jun 01, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

Lars Johnsson wrote:
It cost US $ 18,000 in Sweden

$18238.48 direct conversion here (including VAT). It is what it is... (Shrug)

Jun 01, 2013 at 12:35 PM

andrewsk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

Here are some more SIGMA 120-300 vs CANON 200-400 examples. NO TC this time on the SIGMA. Both are at 300mm, F4.

The SIGMA holds up really well IMHO.

Jun 01, 2013 at 12:55 PM

andrewsk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

Here is a compare at a longer distance.

Jun 01, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #17 · p.4 #17 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

Thanks Andrew, really appreciate you bringing us these comparisons

Looks like you have two great lenses there. I guess it really depends on the individual and their needs as to whether the Canon represents good value for money or not. It's a very exciting lens though

Edited on Jun 01, 2013 at 01:31 PM · View previous versions

Jun 01, 2013 at 01:06 PM

robinlee
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #18 · p.4 #18 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

Thanks for the comparison Andrewsk. Based on recent Canon new release lenses, this 200-400mm is no doubt one of the finest in Canon's arsenal. However I think that Sigma has up its game very well there and that is a huge surprise for me.

Jun 01, 2013 at 01:15 PM

Stoffer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #19 · p.4 #19 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

andrewsk wrote:
Here are some more SIGMA 120-300 vs CANON 200-400 examples. NO TC this time on the SIGMA. Both are at 300mm, F4.

The SIGMA holds up really well IMHO.

Yep, and the 200-400 looks very good wide open at F4 though. Not that is a surprise by any means, but good to see that. Thanks for taking your time, Andrew.

Jun 01, 2013 at 01:30 PM

lowa2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #20 · p.4 #20 · Hands-on: EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

Bones74 wrote:
Thanks Andrew, really appreciate you bringing us these comparisons

Tht sigma is soon to be mine

Jun 01, 2013 at 03:29 PM

1 2 3 4 5 … 21 22 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 … 21 22 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.