p.1 #1 · Long lens experiences & recommendations...
Looking for recommendations and personal experiences from anyone who has owned the 200-400 alongside a 300/400/500/100-400… or any combination of these. Has anyone used them beyond sports/wildlife? What did you keep, sell, or upgrade & why? Tradeoffs? Gen 1v2v3 thoughts?
I've been experimenting with longer glass for the last 6 months in an attempt to find the right kit. Got a bit carried away and picked up a 100-400 II, 200-400, first-gen 300 & 500 IS. Found all 4 for incredibly good deals. All have their place, but tons of overlap so deciding what to do. Currently thinking that a 400 II is the best of all worlds (or maybe just a dream lens), so in the market for one. 1.4x III + 2x III also on hand. Primarily shooting runners and tight candids at large outdoor events.
p.1 #2 · Long lens experiences & recommendations...
I avoid human subjects but have most of those lenses. All of the EF IS II big teles are really nice and hold up well to RF adaptation, with some caveats like the continual IS. I have not used the original 300/2.8 IS and 500/4 IS for many years and the 200-400 not anymore since the MILS. I have a pair of 100-400 IS II lenses that are purely backups at this point. The 500/4 IS II and 400/2.8 IS II are strong, but I find 400 just too short for most species. The 500/4 IS II is my favorite. I don't use the IS III lenses since the RFs are the same and use the better RF teleconverters.
p.1 #3 · Long lens experiences & recommendations...
EB-1 wrote:
I avoid human subjects but have most of those lenses. All of the EF IS II big teles are really nice and hold up well to RF adaptation, with some caveats like the continual IS. I have not used the original 300/2.8 IS and 500/4 IS for many years and the 200-400 not anymore since the MILS. I have a pair of 100-400 IS II lenses that are purely backups at this point. The 500/4 IS II and 400/2.8 IS II are strong, but I find 400 just too short for most species. The 500/4 IS II is my favorite. I don't use the IS III lenses since the RFs are the same and use the better RF teleconverters.
I initially picked up the 500 on a whim for fun. 23 year old date code, some battle scars, and a bit dusty... but it's still tack sharp. Really enjoy the unique character in the images from old glass. The 300 & 200-400 see the most use at the moment so I wouldn't lose sleep over ditching the 100-400. Wondering whether a 400 will render the 200-400 as an expensive backup. I know the preset function on 500 doesn't work with R5 - what am I missing with the "continual IS" caveat?
p.1 #4 · Long lens experiences & recommendations...
I used the 500/4 IS for many years from 2004, and it looked good on the 22MP and lower MP sensors, but started to run out of gas with a 1.4x TC at 50MP. The IS II is at a whole other level. All of the 300/400/500 IS II lenses are more viable with better IQ and faster CPUs than the 1999 series. The 400/2.8 IS II is well above the 200-400/4 with the TC engaged. Some people feel that EF lens is better than the 400/2.8 RF though you have the extra weight to deal with.
The IS running all the time may or may not bother you, but it's a thing with the old lenses on adapters.
The age-old limitation with primes is finding the right-sized subject to avoid much cropping. The 2020s 45/50/61MP MILS bodies make that a less painful decision.
p.1 #5 · Long lens experiences & recommendations...
andbott723 wrote:
Looking for recommendations and personal experiences from anyone who has owned the 200-400 alongside a 300/400/500/100-400… or any combination of these. Has anyone used them beyond sports/wildlife? What did you keep, sell, or upgrade & why? Tradeoffs? Gen 1v2v3 thoughts?
I've been experimenting with longer glass for the last 6 months in an attempt to find the right kit. Got a bit carried away and picked up a 100-400 II, 200-400, first-gen 300 & 500 IS. Found all 4 for incredibly good deals. All have their place, but tons of overlap so deciding what to do. Currently thinking that a 400 II is the best of all worlds (or maybe just a dream lens), so in the market for one. 1.4x III + 2x III also on hand. Primarily shooting runners and tight candids at large outdoor events. ...Show more →
I've owned them all including the 600's and the RF 400 is my favorite lens. With that said, the 400II is a very sweet lens and I would rate it the same optically as the RF 400 (if not better) but it's just heavier than the new glass. In fact you don't gain much with the new lenses other than weight loss/portability and some fps in mechanical modes. I still consider the vII lenses to be just as good as anything out there, just heavier.
I wish Canon would make an ultra lightweight RF 300 like Sony has as I think that's the best Swiss army knife out there right now being a very sharp/compact 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, and 600 f/5.6. I love the RF 100-300 but I prefer primes and the 300 would be nice and compact gem.
As for now, the EF 300II, RF 100-300, and RF 400 all with TC's are my go to big whites. I own the RF 100-500 but rarely use it with its small apertures, but it's good for video. I would keep your EF 100-400II as it's a great lens when you need a zoom in that range.
p.1 #6 · Long lens experiences & recommendations...
artsupreme wrote:
I've owned them all including the 600's and the RF 400 is my favorite lens. With that said, the 400II is a very sweet lens and I would rate it the same optically as the RF 400 (if not better) but it's just heavier than the new glass. In fact you don't gain much with the new lenses other than weight loss/portability and some fps in mechanical modes. I still consider the vII lenses to be just as good as anything out there, just heavier.
I wish Canon would make an ultra lightweight RF 300 like Sony has as I think that's the best Swiss army knife out there right now being a very sharp/compact 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, and 600 f/5.6. I love the RF 100-300 but I prefer primes and the 300 would be nice and compact gem.
As for now, the EF 300II, RF 100-300, and RF 400 all with TC's are my go to big whites. I own the RF 100-500 but rarely use it with its small apertures, but it's good for video. I would keep your EF 100-400II as it's a great lens when you need a zoom in that range....Show more →
My only gripe with the 100-400 is that damn friction ring. I hit it every time.
Have seen a few vI 400's sell at the $2.5k mark recently and while tempting, this helps drive home a vII. It's unfortunate that service life apparently just ended on them. It is what it is. Big RF glass is out of my wheelhouse but I do agree the lack of an RF 300 is strange. I somehow managed to pick up the cheapest vI 300 I've ever seen - in as new condition with the original box - and it's mildly terrifying to use. It feels like using a collector's item at this point.
p.1 #7 · Long lens experiences & recommendations...
artsupreme wrote:
I've owned them all including the 600's and the RF 400 is my favorite lens. With that said, the 400II is a very sweet lens and I would rate it the same optically as the RF 400 (if not better) but it's just heavier than the new glass. In fact you don't gain much with the new lenses other than weight loss/portability and some fps in mechanical modes. I still consider the vII lenses to be just as good as anything out there, just heavier.
I wish Canon would make an ultra lightweight RF 300 like Sony has as I think that's the best Swiss army knife out there right now being a very sharp/compact 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, and 600 f/5.6. I love the RF 100-300 but I prefer primes and the 300 would be nice and compact gem.
As for now, the EF 300II, RF 100-300, and RF 400 all with TC's are my go to big whites. I own the RF 100-500 but rarely use it with its small apertures, but it's good for video. I would keep your EF 100-400II as it's a great lens when you need a zoom in that range....Show more →
The RF 100-300 f/2.8 takes both TCs so well. 200-600 f/5.6 is great for wildlife, as opposed to the RF 100-500 with 500 at f/7.1 and 700 at f/10 with TC. Forget the 2x on the 100-500.
p.1 #8 · Long lens experiences & recommendations...
Alan Kefauver wrote:
The RF 100-300 f/2.8 takes both TCs so well. 200-600 f/5.6 is great for wildlife, as opposed to the RF 100-500 with 500 at f/7.1 and 700 at f/10 with TC. Forget the 2x on the 100-500.
Yeah, the first thing I did when I got my 100-300 was throw the 2x on it and test it wide open at 600mm:
p.1 #9 · Long lens experiences & recommendations...
I have shot sports for a few decades. Back 10+ years ago, the 400/2.8 was my staple lens, particularly for field sports. I got the 200-400 when it was first released and in fairly short order sold off my 400 and 600 primes. Not because the 200-400 was technically better. Rather, it was a lot more flexible with very similar image quality on the sensors of the day (i.e. 20MP and lower). For my situations (non-wildlife) I'm rarely reach limited and with primes the difficulty was always when the action was too close, which the 200-400 effectively addressed. As soon as I started using it, I became significantly more productive because I could cover action at a wider range of distances than possible with the primes.
Jumping to the present day, I still use the 200-400 and generally prefer it over the 100-300 for field sports because it's natively a longer lens. But higher resolution sensors have revealed the 200-400's optical limitations. The 100-300 is sharper and with the 1.4x TC, is still optically better than the 200-400 without use of its internal TC. I just don't like not having an internal TC with the 100-300 after having had that 'luxury' for over 10 years with the 200-400.
I also use the 200-400 for event work, such as theater, or anything on-stage, like large corporate events with speakers at a podium, etc. The 100-300 is better here because it's a smaller, lighter lens that can be effectively hand-held for longer periods than the 200-400. With less need for a monopod, I found myself using it for grabbing candids during networking portions of these types of events and didn't feel like it was weighing me down as much as I would have expected. It's actually a really nice combo with the 24-105/2.8 Z.
Bottom line, IMO, the zooms are way more flexible across a range of situations.
p.1 #10 · Long lens experiences & recommendations...
rscheffler wrote:
I have shot sports for a few decades. Back 10+ years ago, the 400/2.8 was my staple lens, particularly for field sports. I got the 200-400 when it was first released and in fairly short order sold off my 400 and 600 primes. Not because the 200-400 was technically better. Rather, it was a lot more flexible with very similar image quality on the sensors of the day (i.e. 20MP and lower). For my situations (non-wildlife) I'm rarely reach limited and with primes the difficulty was always when the action was too close, which the 200-400 effectively addressed. As soon as I started using it, I became significantly more productive because I could cover action at a wider range of distances than possible with the primes.
Jumping to the present day, I still use the 200-400 and generally prefer it over the 100-300 for field sports because it's natively a longer lens. But higher resolution sensors have revealed the 200-400's optical limitations. The 100-300 is sharper and with the 1.4x TC, is still optically better than the 200-400 without use of its internal TC. I just don't like not having an internal TC with the 100-300 after having had that 'luxury' for over 10 years with the 200-400.
I also use the 200-400 for event work, such as theater, or anything on-stage, like large corporate events with speakers at a podium, etc. The 100-300 is better here because it's a smaller, lighter lens that can be effectively hand-held for longer periods than the 200-400. With less need for a monopod, I found myself using it for grabbing candids during networking portions of these types of events and didn't feel like it was weighing me down as much as I would have expected. It's actually a really nice combo with the 24-105/2.8 Z.
Bottom line, IMO, the zooms are way more flexible across a range of situations. ...Show more →
From a versatility perspective, I absolutely see how the 200-400 can be enough to get the job done. Versatility was my main driver for picking it up in the first place. It's been my favorite to use until the sun goes down. I had it for a while before getting the 300, but it's become a toss-up on which to grab now, as I really love the 300 wide open. I've found that IQ with both of them starts to fall off as the ISO gets bumped up, hence my thoughts on picking up the 400 vII for better optics & faster aperture.
p.1 #11 · Long lens experiences & recommendations...
andbott723 wrote:
I've found that IQ with both of them starts to fall off as the ISO gets bumped up, hence my thoughts on picking up the 400 vII for better optics & faster aperture.
All things equal, a faster lens will help somewhat in the image quality department by allowing either a lower ISO or faster shutter speed. But I'm not sure that if you're seeing a drop off with the 300 that a 400 will improve the situation. It's the same aperture and you'll be at the same ISO with the same compromises. Additionally, with it being a longer lens, you're more likely to see camera/subject motion blur. The 400 will be a better lens than the 200-400 when pixel peeping, if the versatility tradeoff is acceptable.
It's also a bigger lens than either of the two you have now, which will take some getting used to. But half the fun is in the learning experience.
p.1 #12 · Long lens experiences & recommendations...
rscheffler wrote:
All things equal, a faster lens will help somewhat in the image quality department by allowing either a lower ISO or faster shutter speed. But I'm not sure that if you're seeing a drop off with the 300 that a 400 will improve the situation. It's the same aperture and you'll be at the same ISO with the same compromises. Additionally, with it being a longer lens, you're more likely to see camera/subject motion blur. The 400 will be a better lens than the 200-400 when pixel peeping, if the versatility tradeoff is acceptable.
It's also a bigger lens than either of the two you have now, which will take some getting used to. But half the fun is in the learning experience. ...Show more →
Realistically, I'm pixel peeping when comparing my lens copies. The 200-400 and 300 vI IQ look about the same in all conditions. Primarily want to give the 400 a go for wide open running shots, with plans of finding more personal use for it. Would love to slow down and dive into wildlife.
I spent many years shooting concerts, architecture & high-end real estate full-time. Moved on to an engineering career but steady weekend photo work has allowed for reinvesting in the glass I dreamt about over a decade ago. It's been a very fun and rewarding challenge to learn long lens shooting. Reminds me of the days starting off, attempting to get sharp shots at concerts with average glass on a 60D.
