When the 200-400 lens becomes available I will be purchasing it or the 400 2.8 prime. The delima of which of these 2 lenses would be more effective is making me mad.
The versatility of the 200-400 with the built in ext will be excellent. To think, though, that with the 1.4X and 2X ext gives you 3 incredibly useful focal lengths is equally incredible.
Owning the 70-200 f/2.8 II and using both ext's on it often, I think that the 200 to 280mm range of the 200-400 would go unused much of the time.
I have owed the 600 f/4 300 f/2.8 and the 200 f/2. Of all of those lenses, the 300 f/2.8 was my favorite.
Has anyone else given this much thought?
Ever since the 200-400 was announced, I've given this a lot of thought. I have young kids that will be going into field sports very soon so I've been planning on a big lens for a while.
I personally don't think I will ever shoot longer than 400mm so for me, it's the 200-400 or the 400. Since both are going to be in the same range, price doesn't play a factor for me.
I'm leaning towards the 200-400 because of the versatility. If the IQ difference is too great, however, I'll get the 400mm. If there is very little difference, then I think I can lose the light/speed and go for the 200-400.
I guess what I don't have experience or knowledge on is the difference in background blur between the two lenses. That could play a role so I'd love to see someone shoot the 400mm at both 2.8 and 4.0 and post the photos.