p.3 #4 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
PetKal wrote:
My 50mm f/2.5 macro lens is "sharper" than 85L, but I still keep using 85L much more often.
About two years ago a similar operatic scenario played on internet fora: the new zoom 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII tested as the sharpest zoom ever, matching or even exceeding primes in IQ.
However, since that time I haven't seen too many people dropping their primes such as 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8 and 400 f/5.6 in favour of the zoom.
I realize you said "too many" but I for one did. Once I got the 70-200 II, I sold the 200 F2. There was just no need for it for my purposes. Yes, it was amazing, but the weight penalty ( I walked the "streets/hills of San Francisco with it for a week) wasn't worth the difference.
That said, you are right. Sharpness is not the be all and end all. Important, sure. But this for some, me included, is a real dilemma. I've been wanting the new 500 for a while now. This puts a huge kink in that desire. And I very much appreciate all the real world tests and especially your well thought out replies to the questions here.
p.3 #5 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
dehowie wrote:
I think thats the perfect reason to buy the 200-400.. You no longer "need" to buy an entire range of super teles to get super tele prime quality images.
One lens one outlay gets you a super tele quality image from 200-560.
So in one swoop you cover the 200/300/400/500 and a non converted 600 with only minor cropping.
Yes you lose a stop above 400 but if your shooting with a 5Dmk3 or 1Dx that doesnt hurt in increased ISO performance. Sure it cant shoot at 2.8 like the 200/300 and 400 but hey each of those lenses is locked to a single focal length and that is a far bigger penalty than 1 stop in most light conditions.
Ever needed less focal length for a few seconds..guess what one stop buys you that.
I could not count the number of images sitting on drives i have that are useless because of having to much focal length.
Fixed length lenses have been the goto for long range quality images and that quality has always been a double edge..the price you pay for quality is inflexibility.
That has now changed..
I mean for someone on a budget its the cheapest way to cover the most ground and you dont pay the price in IQ.
p.3 #6 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
stanj wrote:
Wonder how the 400 DO would fare in the comparison.
Certainly there are many lovers of the 400DO, but often I sense it is the lens underdog in that we accept it always fares the worst in charts compared to the big guns (it does as far as i know). However, it's still great!
I didn't calculate the corner or center mtf on this one with the 400DO!!
p.3 #7 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
MDJAK wrote:
I realize you said "too many" but I for one did. Once I got the 70-200 II, I sold the 200 F2. There was just no need for it for my purposes. Yes, it was amazing, but the weight penalty ( I walked the "streets/hills of San Francisco with it for a week) wasn't worth the difference.
That said, you are right. Sharpness is not the be all and end all. Important, sure. But this for some, me included, is a real dilemma. I've been wanting the new 500 for a while now. This puts a huge kink in that desire. And I very much appreciate all the real world tests and especially your well thought out replies to the questions here. ...Show more →
Markey, yes, 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII is more suitable as a walk around lens than 200 f/2 IS, I give you that.
Regarding your dilemma 200-400L vs. 500 MkII, it always obviously comes down to what you need the lens for. If we are talking about handheld use, 500 II is quite a bit easier to handle. It also seems to have a better AF response as well as IQ. (I've written "seems" because I haven't shot much with the zoom at all, therefore its performance assessment is still largely tentative in my mind.)
If you plan to shoot wildlife/birds, you are more likely to be short of FL, than having too much of it. In that regard too, 500 II is better than 200-400L.
For safaris, zoo and such photography the zoom will probably be the ticket. Also for sports, I guess, although I just can't see a massive switch from 400 f/2.8 IS to 200-400L by sports photographers.
p.3 #12 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
gcuff wrote:
Wonder how long he will have to wait to get one!
Actually, getting one right now is proving as always to be somewhat of a problem for me. I will let you know how long it takes. BTW, I get to buy my gear .
p.3 #13 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
birdsasart wrote:
Why would you say that? artie
I think its a tongue in cheek reference to Canon's claim that this new zoom replaces several primes. You mentioned just selling your 500mm, not all your other Super tele primes
p.3 #14 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
Naturally, Canon as well as their major retailers favour their best customers and diverse associates when it comes to the new equipment deliveries. It is also the first come, the first served basis that they look after.
Yet, I somehow can not escape the impression that Canon initially drip ships new stuff such as 200-400L in order to create a sense of an overheated demand.
That obviously can not be sustained for long, but it does create a good sales momentum in the beginning.
Jun 11, 2013 at 09:23 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
PetKal wrote:
Naturally, Canon as well as their major retailers favour their best customers and diverse associates when it comes to the new equipment deliveries. It is also the first come, the first served basis that they look after.
Yet, I somehow can not escape the impression that Canon initially drip ships new stuff such as 200-400L in order to create a sense of an overheated demand.
That obviously can not be sustained for long, but it does create a good sales momentum in the beginning.
But remember that there are thousends of shops in 100 different countries that like to get the lens at the same time. I don't belive Canon suddenly have many thousend lenses ready for shipping when it arrive in the market.
p.3 #16 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
PetKal wrote:
Yet, I somehow can not escape the impression that Canon initially drip ships new stuff such as 200-400L in order to create a sense of an overheated demand.
This what I said to Andy Rouse when he said sales of the 200-400L were high and there was a long waiting list
p.3 #17 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
Bones74 wrote:
This what I said to Andy Rouse when he said sales of the 200-400L were high and there was a long waiting list
I was told the whole of Canada got so far eight lenses in the first shipment. Four major Canadian dealers I have spoken to very recently seem to have no idea as to the next delivery time frame. I've heard guesses ranging from "this week perhaps" to " in 6 months" they might have some.
p.3 #18 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
alundeb wrote:
Ah, Mr. Morris seems to have completely misunderstood the purpose of a zoom lens, replacing only one of three supertele primes with it
birdsasart wrote:
Why would you say that? artie
Bones74 wrote:
I think its a tongue in cheek reference to Canon's claim that this new zoom replaces several primes. You mentioned just selling your 500mm, not all your other Super tele primes
That is correct, the comment was not meant to be taken literally.
I find it interesting to see what tools others use. In a previous discussion about the 600 mm f/4 IS II and it's ability to more or less completely overlap the function of the 800 mm f/5.6 IS, I referred to birdsasart who ended up using the 600 mm with 1.4X TC and not the 800mm. On this board, there were some comments saying "Art always says that the newest lens is the best one ever, so you cannot listen to him". They sort of predicted that this new 200-400 was going to be the new "best lens ever" and replace the primes. So my comment was not only a tongue in cheek refernce to Canon, but to those comments. If anybody remembers
Clearly, birdsasart selects his tools based on performance, and this is rarely in conflict with excitement over new gear
p.3 #19 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison
alundeb wrote:
That is correct, the comment was not meant to be taken literally.
I find it interesting to see what tools others use. In a previous discussion about the 600 mm f/4 IS II and it's ability to more or less completely overlap the function of the 800 mm f/5.6 IS, I referred to birdsasart who ended up using the 600 mm with 1.4X TC and not the 800mm. On this board, there were some comments saying "Art always says that the newest lens is the best one ever, so you cannot listen to him". They sort of predicted that this new 200-400 was going to be the new "best lens ever" and replace the primes. So my comment was not only a tongue in cheek refernce to Canon, but to those comments. If anybody remembers
Clearly, birdsasart selects his tools based on performance, and this is rarely in conflict with excitement over new gear ...Show more →
Thanks. Those who read my blog post would clearly understand that I am keeping the 300 II as a much lighter, hand holdable, better flight lens for most situations. I had been thinking of selling my 500 II as I find myself using and traveling with the 600 II to the exclusion of the 500 II. As for discussions of folks believing that I tout every new lens as the best ever those are made out of ignorance and jealously (the latter having to do with my success).
My goal is to always have the best available tool for the job.
. 