200-400 f/4 L IS vs 100-400 vII (hypothetical)

[FunPhotons]

I max out at 200mm with the 70-200 f/2.8 II and have been holding out for a 100-400 II which will come eventually, probably in the not too distant future would be my guess. I can wait however so no major problem either way.

Now we know Canon is coming out with the 200-400, and while it will be horrifically expensive I could swing it. I'm looking to use a longer lens for wildlife photography.

So I've not used any of the L telephotos, any thoughts on these choices versus any of their other tele's from folks more experience than me? Consider issues such as weight, usability (short and long focal lengths), etc. Thanks for your thoughts!

[neuroanatomist]

For the price, I'd strongly consider the 500/4 II or 600/4 II (depending on what you shoot), instead of the 200-400/4+1.4x.  Just my 2¢.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 100-400mm L has been coming for the last 7 or 8 years.  The new Nikon 80-400 may turn out to be excellent, or just another disappointment with better IS.  In that case, we won't see a 100-400mm MK II.
Do not expect a $3000 lens to be equal to a $11,000 lens.  However, a lens that can be hand carried rather than require a truck load of accessories will likely get a lot more use.
I sold my 600mm L and the Wimberly Head and heavy tripod in favor of the 100mmL for that very reason.

[FunPhotons]

Good thoughts. Thanks for the reminder NA - yeah I like the flexibility of the new zoom but for that coin getting a prime might make sense too.

And Mt Spokane - yes I should carefully consider whether I'll want to carry that thing around!

[DavidGMiles]

I handled the 200 - 400 L this weekend at Focus on Imaging - it is no way comparable to the 100 - 400, it's got the built-in TC which is smoot, it's way better for IQ, is faster focussing and much heavier, to the extent that you would not handhold it for more than a minute or three - it's a beast of a lens but is massively clever - thanks to handling it the lens is no longer on my "buy" list, but has moved to the top of my "hire" list when it comes out!

[FunPhotons]

I handled the 200 - 400 L this weekend at Focus on Imaging - it is no way comparable to the 100 - 400, it's got the built-in TC which is smoot, it's way better for IQ, is faster focussing and much heavier, to the extent that you would not handhold it for more than a minute or three - it's a beast of a lens but is massively clever - thanks to handling it the lens is no longer on my "buy" list, but has moved to the top of my "hire" list when it comes out!

What do you mean by clever, the built in TC? Also what do you mean by "hire"?

[bwfishing]

I think he is referring to the clever way they tucked a TC (teleconverter) into the lens.

"CP+ 2011: Canon has announced it is developing the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x lens, which features a built-in switchable 1.4x teleconverter. With the converter engaged, it becomes a 280-560mm F5.6 lens."

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/2/7/canon200400mm

I think hire is short for :"For hire" or "rent".

[neuroanatomist]

Elevator :: lift
Apartment :: flat
Rent :: hire

Queen's English and all that...   

[dilbert]

Elevator :: lift
Apartment :: flat
Rent :: hire

A flat is not the same as an apartment.

[neuroanatomist]

Elevator :: lift
Apartment :: flat
Rent :: hire

A flat is not the same as an apartment.

Oh.  Except...that's how the many colleagues I have who've relocated here from the UK refer to it.  Then there's Wikipedia, "An apartment (in American English) or flat in British English is a self-contained housing unit (a type of residential real estate) that occupies only part of a building," and Merriam-Webster includes in their definition of flat, "5. chiefly British : an apartment on one floor," and the the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language lists 'apartment' as the American English equivalent to the British English 'flat'. 

Now, if you want to state that a flat is not the same as a lens which is not the same as a camera, then I'll believe you... 

[DavidGMiles]

I think he is referring to the clever way they tucked a TC (teleconverter) into the lens.

Exactly - and it's a very smooth operation - you could operate it without taking your eye away from the viewfinder

Elevator :: lift
Apartment :: flat
Rent :: hire

Queen's English and all that...   

100% correct!

It's a lovely lens, but aside from price the other criteria are wrong for me, it's just too large for my regular kit

[RLPhoto]

$11,000 vs $3000 - That is the question.

[DavidGMiles]

Elevator :: lift
Apartment :: flat
Rent :: hire

A flat is not the same as an apartment.

PS - on this point - neuroanatomist is correct, in the UK, flat is apartment, a 'block of flats' in our 'speak' is the same as an 'apartment block' in yours

[RGF]

Elevator :: lift
Apartment :: flat
Rent :: hire

Queen's English and all that...   

OT - but: amazing how a small bit of water (i.e., the pond) can change a common language so we no longer can understand each other

[RGF]

I max out at 200mm with the 70-200 f/2.8 II and have been holding out for a 100-400 II which will come eventually, probably in the not too distant future would be my guess. I can wait however so no major problem either way.

Now we know Canon is coming out with the 200-400, and while it will be horrifically expensive I could swing it. I'm looking to use a longer lens for wildlife photography.

So I've not used any of the L telephotos, any thoughts on these choices versus any of their other tele's from folks more experience than me? Consider issues such as weight, usability (short and long focal lengths), etc. Thanks for your thoughts!

The 200-400 is fairly certain.  The fate of the 100-400 is unknown. 

If weight is of course stay away from the long glass - 400F2.8, 500F4, 600F4, 200-400F4, and maybe even the 300F2.8

All are very sharp and expensive.

Compromises might be the 300F2.8 (repeating myself) or the 400DO which sharpens up well.
For lighter class the 100-400 (current version) has mixed reviews and variation lens to lens.  Or consider the 70-300L, great lens, light weight but a bit shorter, and finally consider the 400F5.6.  Light weight but no IS.

Wait (for Godot) for replacement for the 100-400 (if it comes) or an update to the 400 F5.6.  All seem reasonable that Canon would replace so consider them definite maybes.

Bottom line is do you want long fast glass.  Then you will lighten your wallet and weigh down your camera bag.  If you can accept slower glass (perhaps not as sharp, but never-the-less good), look for a good copy of the 100-400, 70-300L (not quite as long) or the 400 F5.6