rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.12 #14 · Canon 200-400mm f/4L IS announced | |
Ok, here is my take on it as someone who shoots a fair amount of pro level sports, which means, indoor or at night in generally well illuminated stadiums, as well as outdoors during the day. A lot of what I do is football.
I love using the 600 f/4 when possible to get farther downfield by shooting from the end zone, but when action is nearer than the 50 yard line, it can quickly be too close. As a result, I'll shoot with a second body and a 300 f/4, which is a lens in dire needs of updating. On a third body I will shoot with a 70-200 f/4.
For most indoor stadiums, night games, or when I can only travel with one big lens, I'll use the 400 2.8 and a second body with the 70-200 f/4. The problem with the 400 on an APS-H body is that it is often too tight from the sideline when shooting near the line of scrimmage, such as the QB dropping back or a RB sweeping towards you. And 200 is too loose.
Since the Mark IV and its higher pixel density, I stopped using the 1.4x TC and just crop instead. One loses a lot of time swapping in/out the TC.
On the Mark IV I can see the new 200-400 become the new standard sports lens, IF it exhibits prime-like quality at 400mm and close enough to the 1999 600 f/4 IS quality with the TC engaged. Canon's recent excellent zooms, such as the 70-200 f/4L IS, the f/2.8 Mark II and the new 70-300 lead me to believe they can do it.
It would replace my 300 f/4, 400 2.8 and 600 f/4 and the hassle of switching bodies on the fly and potentially missing shots. It would allow me to travel much lighter and simplify my kit tremendously. I know 560 f/5.6 will not be an issue at day games, other than possibly slower AF, but we'll see.
Where I think the 200-400 will really take off will be once the Mark V hits the market. If the V is able to improve high ISO performance over the IV by 1-1.5 stops, there will be much less need to shoot f/2.8 at indoor venues. From my experience, I can already do that with the Mark III and IV in many locations.
The exception will of course be many smaller college, high school and community fields, but the 200-400 is a compromise solution, just as any lens is.
The 200-400 is a viable solution to both the APS-H sensor remaining in continuation, or, the adoption of a high fps full frame body. One negative for those of us shooting APS-H and going to FF is the need for longer lenses. If a future high fps FF body also maintains high pixel density, and coupled with the 200-400, will be an excellent combination.
My guess at price: around $8000 US.
When I first saw the announcement I kind of brushed it off, but after thinking about it, based on what I wrote above, I think I will consider the purchase based on three factors:
Proven image quality - that it can replace primes.
Price (if it's over $10K I will probably reconsider because it wouldn't be an even trade for my 600 & 400 combined).
Whether or not there is an NFL strike/lockout during the upcoming season.
Ron
|
What am I doing, wondering about this when the lens itself will be beyond my means or justifiable usage?