September 22, 2014, 04:44:24 PM

Author Topic: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x  (Read 13744 times)

insanitybeard

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2013, 05:40:22 AM »
In my own experience, I couldn't believe how much better the build of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is over my 70-200 f4 IS - made me realize that there was more to the extra cost than just a tripod mount and an extra stop.

I'm curious, what are the main differences between the build of the 2.8 IS II and the f4 IS in your opinion? I own the f4 IS and it's probably the best made lens I have- no complaints from me.
7D / EF-S 10-22 / 17-40L / 70-200 f4L IS / EF-S 60 macro

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2013, 05:40:22 AM »

MichaelHodges

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2013, 07:50:35 AM »
Yes, versatility is nice, but I need to see technical excellence that makes this worth going for over the 400 2.8 or the 500 F4.

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1084
    • View Profile
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2013, 09:36:53 AM »
Andy Rouse is such a great photographer that he would have got equally superb shots from the 100-400mm L as the lens wasn't being pushed to its limits of resolution.
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 720
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #33 on: May 15, 2013, 11:09:42 AM »
Yes, versatility is nice, but I need to see technical excellence that makes this worth going for over the 400 2.8 or the 500 F4.

Both the 400/2.8 and 500/f4 require a photographer to be in the right place to get a specific shot. This new lens offers more flexibility with composition due to the zoom. A 200mm f4 isn't that great for isolation, it'll be better at the longer end. But background isolation will be easier with the 400/2.8 and 500/4, but it requires the photographer to be at the right distance from the subject. The 400/2.8 and 500/4 are both lighter and are just as versatile with converters...it's just more fiddly and not so good on a windy beach chasing Grey Seals about in a hoewling sandstorm. The truth is that most wolde life photographers will make any of the big white lenses work. Its the more opportunist photographers who tend to require the flexibility of a zoom....I'm generalising here, please don't take offence.

If I wanted to replace my current 400mm f2.8 L IS, I would probably go for the new 500mm f4 L IS II....have you seen how light it is? It's amazing!
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 11:11:17 AM by GMCPhotographics »

Jeffrey

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #34 on: May 15, 2013, 11:47:11 AM »
I'm waiting for one of the lens rental companies to offer the lens for rent, after which I'll rent it for a week and shoot as much as possible. I'll then evaluate the images and determine if the lens is right for me. I prefer to spend say $250-$300 for renting the lens before I spend $11,000 and find out that I don't like it.  :)


CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2013, 10:57:48 AM »
I hate being cynical, but he has had the lens for 6 months and no doubt would like Canon's next toy for 6 months or so too. That does not tend to happen when one is too critical, or sometimes even negative towards the toys they offer.

Still, an interesting read, and I look forward to reading more from others.

Most definitely agree!

Andy Rouse wrote:
"To be truthful, a better method here is to take the 2x converter, place it gently on the ground so that it is bathed in lovely soft, evening light. Then paint your teeth red and smash it violently to pieces with a large baseball bat, cackling maniacally all the time at passers by. Go on do it, it will feel so good. Now before you think I have an issue against Canon 2x converters I don't! I hate ALL 2x teleconverters equally!!! I consider them a complete waste of space and money, it is always better to use a 1.4x teleconverter and crop. Of course that is just my view!"

That last sentence is opinionated twaddle from the Ken Rockwell school of creative writing.  The MTFs for the 2xTC III on the 300mm f/2.8 II are, as seen in the collage I posted, very good and the contrast etc excellent. None of the photos he has posted, as good as they are, show very fine detail as you would see on bird plumage at high resolution.  If he took such photos and compared a rezzed up 1.4 with a 2x he would see the advantage of the 2x - my 1.4x TC spends most of its time in its pouch.

It is really the previous series two, Canon 2x TC that has soured the "quick to make snap judgments and wax poetic a la Ken Rockwell" crowd against 2x teleconverters, in my opinion.  I got my series 2 for free, and that's probably closer to what it is worth.  I use it occasionally, but am thinking of selling.  I've not tried the new series 3 2x TC, but surely it must be a lot better optically.  My only experience with the series 3 1.4x TC, was terrible...I used it with a series 1 500 f/4.  The resolution was soft, the AF inaccurate.  But then that lens without a TC, was the same. 

But frankly, even the inferior series two 2x TC, is going to give more resolution than upscaling an image shot with a 1.4x TC, on the same lens.

What Canon really needs to do, is make a high quality 1.7x TC...and call it a series 4.  Then there might not be a need for either of the series 3...but especially not the 2x iii.  They might even sell more of them than the other two combined...because 1.7x is the real sweet spot for magnifying the image, in my opinion.  You get enough of a boost in reach, but also compromise sharpness less than a 2x TC does.

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1084
    • View Profile
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2013, 12:06:47 PM »
Carl
See my shots with the 2x TC III in http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14878.0

The combination with the Series II telephotos is fantastic.
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2013, 12:06:47 PM »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2013, 01:55:40 PM »
Carl
See my shots with the 2x TC III in http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14878.0

The combination with the Series II telephotos is fantastic.

Very nice shots Alan, although the kingfisher crop still looks a tad soft.  Let me borrow your lens for 10 months or so, and I'll see if I can do something with it... :P

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1084
    • View Profile
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2013, 02:57:19 PM »
Carl
The kingfisher is only 300 pixels high and 190 pixels at its widest! I didn't sharpen it at all. Here it is again with moderate sharpening with USM at 1 pixel and 100% at a 100% crop of 439x438 pixels^2. I made a mistake with the exposure for this and had it at 1/5000 s and iso 1000. At 1/500 s and iso 100 I could have sharpened it more with low noise. Attached is something more representative, a 739x534 100% crop of the head of a sparrow at iso 640, 1/1250 s and f/5.6 with the the 2x TC on the 300mm.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 03:22:31 PM by AlanF »
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1483
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2013, 07:33:03 PM »
I hate being cynical, but he has had the lens for 6 months and no doubt would like Canon's next toy for 6 months or so too. That does not tend to happen when one is too critical, or sometimes even negative towards the toys they offer.

Still, an interesting read, and I look forward to reading more from others.

I agree, I believe Andy may have been a little disingenuous, I have a few friends that are Professional Wildlife Photographers, they happen to all work with Nikon unfortunately, and they all Buy their own gear, there are probably very few Pros that Canon or Nikon supply free gear to, but two of these Pros are "loaned" equipment to try out & as long as they write up positive reviews, in this case for Nikon, the equipment loans are viewed as "long term".

I was in Africa in March shooting with one of these Pros, he currently uses a Nikon a pair of D3x Bodies and in particular the Nikon 200-400f/4, when I left to come home I lent him a 1Dx & the 300f/2.8 v2 & 400f/2.8 v2 Lens to try as he was considering flipping to Canon (because of the 1Dx), his views over the last couple of months of comparing were interesting, at 400 there is simply nothing to compare, the 1Dx + 400f/2.8 v2 combo "Murders" (his word) the Nikon D3x/200-400f/4 combo @ 400 (but to be honest the Nikon 200-400 has always been soft at 400), his view on the combo at 300, was the same if not more so, the 1Dx/300f/2.8 v2, "murders" the Nikon 200-400 @ 300.

But, and this is the kicker, his view was the straight up "flexibility" of the Zoom in fast action wildlife, still gave the Nikon 200-400 the edge in his opinion, as long as your Technique was excellent, he was prepared to give up better IQ for flexibility. Of course it's all debatable, and this chap is a long term Nikon shooter, but it was interesting view non the less.

My feel at the moment is that the Big White Primes are still going to have the IQ edge over the New Canon 200-400f/4 1.4x, at 200/300/400 & definitely at 600 (compared to 560 with a 1.4x), but i have little doubt the IQ of the Canon 200-400 will trump the much older Nikon 200-400, and that Nikon 200-400 isn't a bad Lens, the flexibility is what will be a decider for myself, the flexibility of the Zoom at these distances (200-560) will be just awesome & if the IQ is as good as I expect, and as good as Andy Rouse's Images show, it'll be a definite Lens in my Bag.

Now, I need to head out & sell the wife's Car before she comes Home, and then off to the Gym to build up those arm muscles.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

ddashti

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2013, 11:04:25 PM »
Brilliant review! I'm surprised he didn't have any cons about the lens!

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1483
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #41 on: May 17, 2013, 12:38:57 AM »
Another review on the Lens from an Aussie Pro Photographer, Joshua Holko, some interesting comparison comments regards the 200-400 and the Series 1 300f/2.8 & 400f/2.8


http://blog.jholko.com/2013/05/14/canon-200-400mm-f4l-is-pre-production-sample-lens-review/
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

DavidGMiles

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
    • NaturesLens
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #42 on: May 17, 2013, 03:57:11 AM »
I hate being cynical, but he has had the lens for 6 months and no doubt would like Canon's next toy for 6 months or so too. That does not tend to happen when one is too critical, or sometimes even negative towards the toys they offer.

Still, an interesting read, and I look forward to reading more from others.

I agree, I believe Andy may have been a little disingenuous
Having met with Andy a few times, been on a couple of his workshops, and heard him be derogatory about other kit - he's pretty much as straight as they come - so I'd be surprised if he was affected by the Canon marketing machine - he may have kept quiet had he hated the lens but I don't believe, based on personal experience of him, that he'd mislead us all. The review is not politically correct in it's irreverent manner either, his enthusiasm really shines through, and that is Andy to a tee, when he loves something he goes bonkers about it - in this case both Shakira and the 200 - 400 lens
Workshops & Tours for Wildlife & Nature Photography - NaturesLens - http://natureslens.co.uk - often to be found shooting with a 1DX mainly coupled to an EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x or an EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #42 on: May 17, 2013, 03:57:11 AM »

Kernuak

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1108
    • View Profile
    • Avalon Light Photoart
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #43 on: May 17, 2013, 05:04:11 AM »
I hate being cynical, but he has had the lens for 6 months and no doubt would like Canon's next toy for 6 months or so too. That does not tend to happen when one is too critical, or sometimes even negative towards the toys they offer.

Still, an interesting read, and I look forward to reading more from others.

I agree, I believe Andy may have been a little disingenuous
Having met with Andy a few times, been on a couple of his workshops, and heard him be derogatory about other kit - he's pretty much as straight as they come - so I'd be surprised if he was affected by the Canon marketing machine - he may have kept quiet had he hated the lens but I don't believe, based on personal experience of him, that he'd mislead us all. The review is not politically correct in it's irreverent manner either, his enthusiasm really shines through, and that is Andy to a tee, when he loves something he goes bonkers about it - in this case both Shakira and the 200 - 400 lens
I don't know Andy well, having only met him a couple of times, but he certainly isn't one to hide his opinions. I also don't think he'd say something good about equipment just to get access to more. I attended a talk by him and Laurie Campbell (who is a totally different character) a couple of years ago and he was very vocal about Canon's "issues", particularly the IQ at high ISO, which he uses a lot and is one reason he like the D3 and D3s and pushes people to push the ISO. On the other hand, even though Laurie shoots with a D3(s) (and has always shot Nikon, even in the days of film), his mantra is always to use the lowest ISO possible for optimal IQ. Having said all that, I imagine that if he didn't like 200-400, he'd have simply kept quiet, rather than say how bad it was, purely because he has previously said how much he liked the 1Dx and has therefore comitted himself back to Canon (at least for now). Of course, when a lens costs that much, no company is likely to send out something that is less than what it could be. It probably won't be a match for the large primes, but I bet it's pretty close, to the point that only pixel peepers will notice the difference.
Canon 5D MkIII, 7D, 300mm L IS f/2.8 and a few other L's

ZoeEnPhos

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
  • ©­­®¹
    • View Profile
    • ZoeEnPhos
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #44 on: May 17, 2013, 06:09:52 AM »
Another review on the Lens from an Aussie Pro Photographer, Joshua Holko, some interesting comparison comments regards the 200-400 and the Series 1 300f/2.8 & 400f/2.8


http://blog.jholko.com/2013/05/14/canon-200-400mm-f4l-is-pre-production-sample-lens-review/

A short note - about the Joshua Holkos, comparison seems to be between the new Canon EF 200-400mm/4L IS USM vs "300mm F2.8L IS" and so I suppose he is comparing the new zoom with the version I 300mm F2.8L IS? The new 300mm F2.8L IS II USM is to a degree better than the version I according to Bryan C (the-digital-picture.com)
Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #44 on: May 17, 2013, 06:09:52 AM »