August 27, 2014, 03:34:51 PM

Author Topic: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x  (Read 13384 times)


  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2725
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #45 on: May 22, 2013, 10:35:24 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.
I guess I didn't have my notifications turned on - I had and loved the f/4 IS for years and it's a solidly built lens, but the 2.8 IS II is built like a tank.  There is almost no plastic and the lens barrel feels really thick and sturdy.  You have to hold the two side-by-side to get the true feeling, but it seems like the f/4 was built for outdoor photographers and the f/2.8 for war photographers.  I'm not sure if it would be any tougher in practice, but it just feels really solid, like the 800mm f/5.6 I borrowed from CPS.  I'm thinking the 200-400 will be a similar upgrade from the 100-400.

My goal for 2013 is to earn enough from my fledgling commercial photo business to afford this lens :)
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III


  • 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 #46 on: May 22, 2013, 11:11:45 AM »
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.

Not trying to nitpick Alan, it's a fine picture, just calling it as I saw it.

Bruce Photography

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 199
  • Landscapes, 5DX,7D,60D,EOSM,D800/E,D810,D7100
    • View Profile
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #47 on: May 22, 2013, 12:48:01 PM »
A really great review with wonderful photographs.  Thank you Andy for doing such a fine job.  However I am both a Canon shooter and a Nikon shooter. 

From the Andy article:

"A Pointless Comparison

This is a plea to the lens geeks. Please do not start comparing the Canon lens with the Nikon one, it is pointless. The Nikon 200-400 does a great job for Nikon photographers and the Canon lens will do a great job for Canon photographers. Comparing the two is just pointless, as no one is going to change camera system to use this lens are they? No they are not, so please don’t fuel the silly Canon vs Nikon debate anymore, it’s not what this lens or this review is all about."

I just bought the Nikon 80-400 and am now in the process of evaluating it.  In particular at 400 I'm not yet very happy.  So, right now I am considering BOTH 200-400 models as well 300, 400, and 500mm from BOTH vendors.  I only have money for one this year.  I'm sure that the Canon is better with the built in teleconverter but I'm having trouble mentally with paying over $10,000 for any lens.  So while I think the article is WONDERFUL, for me I need to see a comparison between brands.  At this pricing level of lens, the camera body is relatively cheap.  It is the lens where the value is.  I already have the 500mm Canon but the older, somewhat heavy model.  For Canon, I found the MTF of the 300mm F2.8 (I have the F4 version) interesting.  Since I already have the 1.4 and 2x III teleconverts for Canon the 300 might be a lighter weight alternative.  As other blog posts suggest, there is a real lack of true comparisions between brands of SuperTels.  Anyone know of any?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 08:08:16 PM by Bruce Photography »


  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #48 on: May 22, 2013, 01:01:23 PM »
It seems to be an excellent lens!
 Not something I'd likely be able to afford (hobbyist photog), but I could see myself renting it for some special shooting at times.
The belittling of others, won't make you greater.