p.1 #1 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
Roger Cicala just posted initial Imatest numbers on the new Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X, while comparing it to the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L, Canon 400mm f/2.8 IS II, and Canon 100-400 IS L lenses.
Here is an excerpt from this test:
"I can’t say whether it’s worth the price or not, but I can certainly say it’s the sharpest zoom lens I’ve ever seen, with image quality rivaling the most expensive primes." - Read entire blog post
Pre-order the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X. Priced at $11,799
p.1 #2 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
Well those certainly are pretty amazing test results!
400 2.8 is an insane beast and to get the same numbers is pretty insane!
That really is insane!!!!
Holy cow!
Now I just need a sherpa and someone to give me the lens.
p.1 #3 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
"To look at it another way, the highest MTF 50 numbers we’ve had for a zoom on 5DII cameras is the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II which has peak MTF50 of 875 LP/IH and average of 755."
Didn't he actually get much higher from the 24-70 II? (not for corners though, which were vastly worse, but center and average) It can be tricky to compare 70mm and under to 200mm and up results though due to certain testing factors.
p.1 #9 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
I could imagine the howls of derision if the 200-400L didn't get these sort of numbers. Given the immense size and weight negating most of the benefits of a zooms existence, then really it better be prime like and why are we surprised given the 24-70 mk II and 70-200 mk II have also delivered prime-like numbers.
p.1 #10 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
Andrew Welsh wrote:
even sharper than the 400/5.6, which is pretty darn sharp.
If I am not mistaken, the 400/5.6L is a 20 year-old-design. Its numbers hold up very well in this comparison.
...especially considering it's a real "400mm focal length".
Fred
p.1 #13 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
dolina wrote:
How does the 200-400 compare to say the 600/4 IS II?
I'll make it simple for you, pare: 200-400L is more than an effective stop of light slower, it is almost as heavy and as expensive, and it stops AFing beyond 784mm, whereas the 600 f/4 will AF at 1200mm and yield a very good IQ at that.
That is just a comparison of the material specs......there are probably more subtle differences which will become apparent in lens use.
p.1 #15 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
PetKal wrote:
I'll make it simple for you, pare: 200-400L is more than an effective stop of light slower, it is almost as heavy and as expensive, and it stops AFing beyond 784mm, whereas the 600 f/4 will AF at 1200mm and yield a very good IQ at that.
Out of curiosity, will the 200-400 take a 2X teleconverter without the internal 1.4X activated? If so, it can do 800 at f/8. Still a stop slower than the 400/2.8, and significantly shorter than the 600/4 + 2X, but not necessarily unimpressive.
p.1 #18 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
With numbers matching the 400/2.8 my question is why would you even consider a 500 now?
Ive pulled the pin on buying a 500 on the basis i already own the 400/2.8II and its IQ at 560 is beautiful and i have an 800 for real long stuff.
With all the flexibility offered by a zoom and even beating my expectations for IQ i think it will hurt 500 sales.
Remembering it is heavier but still lighter than the old 500 which for many many years people where very happy to carry around.
In other words its not that heavy..
Seems its a winning combination for all those except maybe people needing max focal length but it was never targeted at them in the first place.
p.1 #20 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
dehowie wrote:
With numbers matching the 400/2.8 my question is why would you even consider a 500 now?
Ive pulled the pin on buying a 500 on the basis i already own the 400/2.8II and its IQ at 560 is beautiful and i have an 800 for real long stuff.
With all the flexibility offered by a zoom and even beating my expectations for IQ i think it will hurt 500 sales.
Remembering it is heavier but still lighter than the old 500 which for many many years people where very happy to carry around.
In other words its not that heavy..
Seems its a winning combination for all those except maybe people needing max focal length but it was never targeted at them in the first place. ...Show more →
Why would you even bother buying a 500 II? Maybe because we can't afford a complete suite of superteles like you and I'd rather a 500 f/4 over 400 f/4 that needs a TC in place constantly any day for birding and wildlife in general.
