April 23, 2014, 06:36:31 AM

Author Topic: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4  (Read 10998 times)

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1435
  • A Speedlight Junkie!
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2013, 02:40:09 AM »
How would the 400 2.8 with a 2XII stack up with the 200-400 @ 400 with a 2XII? Just curious.


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=741&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0


Thanks Neuro but I'm in a scotch induced semi-coma at the moment  ;) ... how would you compare it in practical use?

I don't have much experience of seeing images of test charts but the 200-400 @ 400mm + 2XII appears to be better ... the images off the 200-400 + 2XII appear (to me at least) to be sharper as opposed to the prime + 2XII at f/5.6 as well as f/8.


You did not ask me but as I have not opened my first beer of the day then I will take a shot at it.  ;D

For me this comparison of the 400 f/2.8 ii + 2Xiii at 800 f/5.6 with the 200-400 1.4X plus 2Xiii at 800 f/8.0 gives you a slightly better image on the latter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=741&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

However when I compare the 400 f/2.8 ii + 2Xiii at 800 f/8.0 with the 200-400 1.4X plus 2Xiii at 800 f/8.0 then it is the prime that seems to be quite a bit sharper. The difference here seems to be greater than in the other test.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=741&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=4&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

Does that make any sense?

What scotch btw? Cheers.  8)


Haha ... Cheers brother!

Yes you are right. Now that I am seeing the images on a proper screen the mid-frame sharpness of the prime is apparent. However, I'm kinda surprised by the corner sharpness of the 200-400 + 2XII which appears better than the 400 + 2XII.

Canon has delivered an almost perfect zoom lens here  :)
Light is language!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2013, 02:40:09 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12815
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #31 on: June 29, 2013, 12:56:46 PM »
Canon has delivered an almost perfect zoom lens here  :)

+1.  They're not afraid to charge for it, either...
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Apop

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 151
    • View Profile
    • Apophoto
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2013, 04:41:57 AM »
@bdunbar79

Sorry, but why even bother with people who make such comments?
Even if someone does not know exactly what he is talking about, by implying you are and then making such a cynical comment  should be a reason for people not to bite/comment on it.

I think he was just hoping for such a reaction.

OT, I think the 200-400 is a gem, but will probably only be bought by the real pros or people with enough budget to own 2-3 big tele's. Having it as your only big white because your ''budget limited'' would not work for me.

The 400/600 would make more sense from financial perspective.
Also 200-400 is 60-70% more expensive than the 300 2.8, while the latter has better/equal iq at 300-420 and 600 where the 200-400 goes to 560. Putting on converters all the time is not realistic.
With the money and weight you save you could get a 120-300 or 100-400 on a second body if flexibility is really needed.

Flexibility is worth it  that you lose 2.8 and little bit of IQ ( however slightly ), but the the increased price over the 300, and price equal to the 400/600 means it is a hard lens to justify(for me). *** Edit the 200-400 is equally priced to the 600 here, and 1100 euros more expensive than the 400 f2.8

The nikon 200-400 makes the choice a bit harder , it is 15-20% more expensive than the 300, yet the 400 2.8 is 40% more expensive than the 200-400. There i did decide to get the 200-400 for it's versatility and price!
If it was as expensive as the 400, I would have chosen the 300 or 400, not the 200-400.

If budget was less or no issue, I am sure the 300 2.8 , 200-400 and 600 would be with me.
Even then I would probably bring the 70-200, 300 2.8 and 600 on safari and leave the 200-400 home.
Switching between bodies is not that time consuming , situations where wildlife runes straight towards you is also rare , and as the cynical poster has suggested , the 200-400 with its bad servo tracking would probably miss such a shot ;) LoL

And a good guide + off roading ability will mean you are not in such a situation, because that is basically driving prey to predator and not very natural hehe
The times we did encounter chases/kills it was parallel to our position , or driving along(i.e) different directions while driving.( It is very hard to keep(or even get) a 400mm 3.6kg lens on target when driving 30-40km/h in the bush , for me it came down to luck to get a few shots in). If there were no seat belts it would have been impossible because if the driver hits an aardvark hole you and equipment will tend to go airborne !



« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 05:41:05 AM by Apop »

privatebydesign

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1629
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2013, 06:16:45 AM »
Before the comment from the digital picture gets too lost, whilst he did say he felt the tracking AF was slightly slower than the 2.8 primes he also pointed out that with the zoom he got a lot more keepers per event because of the flexibility it gave him in framing.

The worlds best sports pros were very happy to use the 200-400 at the Olympics, a four year event that can be a career builder or breaker, they wouldn't risk using them on a whim. The lens is a superb lens and anybody worrying about f2.8 vs f4 is worrying about the wrong thing.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1229
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2013, 07:00:29 AM »
Before the comment from the digital picture gets too lost, whilst he did say he felt the tracking AF was slightly slower than the 2.8 primes he also pointed out that with the zoom he got a lot more keepers per event because of the flexibility it gave him in framing.

The worlds best sports pros were very happy to use the 200-400 at the Olympics, a four year event that can be a career builder or breaker, they wouldn't risk using them on a whim. The lens is a superb lens and anybody worrying about f2.8 vs f4 is worrying about the wrong thing.

And this I have to agree with, half way through 4 weeks in Tanzania & South Africa (overnighting JoBurg), the 200-400 is just living up to every expectation I had, every one, this is simply a Superb Lens for Wildlife, nothing better, sports etc I cant comment as I don't shoot it, maybe in Sport the Primes will work better, I don't know, but I have the 300f/2.8/400f/2.8 both with me now, and I've pretty well left them at Camp after a week of shooting.

Early morning & night time shooting with a spotlight, the f/2.8 has a role, but as soon as you have light to shoot at f/4 to f/5.6, the 200-400 just doesn't have any competition, the ability to Track a subject at 560mm f/5.6 coming towards you then flick out the converter as it approaches and smoothly maintain the subject in focus then zoom back from 400 to 200, just changes the Game for me, previously I'de be juggling the 400 then the 300 then the 70-200, so 3 Bodies set to go, now I pretty well get away with 2 1Dx Bodies hooked up to the 70-200 and the 200-400.

I haven't compared the long end of the 200-400 @ 560 yet with the 600f/4 as I was already carrying too much gear, but Svalbard in August for Polar Bears will give me a chance to see how theses two compare.

I tried the 1.4 converter added to the 200-400 with 1.4 engaged, Image Quality is acceptable, not good, but usable, with the 2x converter installed with the 1.4 engaged, forget it, you can do it, but not sure why you would, Image Quality is Crap.

Focus tracking on two Cheetah Kills in the Serengeti was superb, the only time I lost Focus was if the Cheetah went completely behind a Bush, the Focus would begin to hunt, re acquiring was never an issue.

Weight, well I may now have the strongest right wrist I've ever had, this combo, 1Dx + 200-400 is no light weight, it's heavy, but perhaps half my shots to date have been hand held, i hand hold the combo much more than I ever did with the 1Dx + 400f/2.8 V2 Combo.

Attached shot 1Dx 200-400f/4, shot @ 236mm, f/7.1 & 1/1000th, ISO640
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 07:06:13 AM by eml58 »
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1229
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #35 on: June 30, 2013, 07:11:05 AM »
1st Cheetah Kill, Serengeti near the Grameti River, don't think this Lady was doing much more than 70-80Kph, so still had a gear in reserve, This mother Killed every single Day as she had 3 Cubs around 18 Months Old she was teaching & feeding as well as her self, Mothers, where would we all be without them.

1Dx 200-400, shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/1600th ISO800

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1229
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #36 on: June 30, 2013, 07:32:43 AM »
Being an Aussie who grew up on a Farm I always thought Sheep were the Dumbest thing on the Planet, now I know it's actually wildebeest, these Guys would stand 1 meter from a roaring fire on the Serengeti Plains, and keep munching grass until they started to smoke.

Large Grass Fires presented a unique opportunity to see how the wildlife were reacting in front of the burn, amazing stuff.

1Dx 200-400f/4, shot @ 232mm f/4 1/125th Iso1600
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #36 on: June 30, 2013, 07:32:43 AM »

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1435
  • A Speedlight Junkie!
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2013, 08:24:35 AM »
1st Cheetah Kill, Serengeti near the Grameti River, don't think this Lady was doing much more than 70-80Kph, so still had a gear in reserve, This mother Killed every single Day as she had 3 Cubs around 18 Months Old she was teaching & feeding as well as her self, Mothers, where would we all be without them.

1Dx 200-400, shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/1600th ISO800



Superb shots eml58 and I mean all of them. :)

Did you try out the 200-400 with the 2XII?
Light is language!

Darlip

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2013, 11:52:43 AM »
Being an Aussie who grew up on a Farm I always thought Sheep were the Dumbest thing on the Planet, now I know it's actually wildebeest, these Guys would stand 1 meter from a roaring fire on the Serengeti Plains, and keep munching grass until they started to smoke.

Large Grass Fires presented a unique opportunity to see how the wildlife were reacting in front of the burn, amazing stuff.

1Dx 200-400f/4, shot @ 232mm f/4 1/125th Iso1600

Some really nice shots Eml, enjoy your new toy and your trip.  :)
70D | Sigma 17-70 | Canon 70-300L

Dylan777

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3162
    • View Profile
    • http://www.dylanphotography.phanfare.com/
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #39 on: June 30, 2013, 01:13:27 PM »
1st Cheetah Kill, Serengeti near the Grameti River, don't think this Lady was doing much more than 70-80Kph, so still had a gear in reserve, This mother Killed every single Day as she had 3 Cubs around 18 Months Old she was teaching & feeding as well as her self, Mothers, where would we all be without them.

1Dx 200-400, shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/1600th ISO800

eml58....I LOVEEEEEEEEEE this photo. Look forward to see more of your photos in the future ;)
Body: 5D III(x2) -- A7r
Zoom: 16-35L II -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 50L -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II -- Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1229
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #40 on: June 30, 2013, 02:13:00 PM »
1st Cheetah Kill, Serengeti near the Grameti River, don't think this Lady was doing much more than 70-80Kph, so still had a gear in reserve, This mother Killed every single Day as she had 3 Cubs around 18 Months Old she was teaching & feeding as well as her self, Mothers, where would we all be without them.

1Dx 200-400, shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/1600th ISO800



Superb shots eml58 and I mean all of them. :)

Did you try out the 200-400 with the 2XII?

Hi JR, I did Yes, not too impressed, you loose auto focus as soon as you fit the 2x converter, with just the 2x converter on 400, Ok, not bad but not great, about what I get on the 300/400/600 with a 2x converter, but if you enable the built in 1.4x plus the 2x it's not a pretty picture, usable yes, but not great. The built in 1.4x dropped in is about as much as I would like to use on this Lens, it's clearly built to provide best Images this way, and it really does work a treat.

After using this set up it makes me wonder why Canon don't build this 1.4x converter this way as an attachment to the other Long Whites, if they charged 3 times the price of the current converter I'de buy it just to use with the 300/400 & 600, in place all the time & just slot it into place as you require it.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1229
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #41 on: June 30, 2013, 02:14:13 PM »
Being an Aussie who grew up on a Farm I always thought Sheep were the Dumbest thing on the Planet, now I know it's actually wildebeest, these Guys would stand 1 meter from a roaring fire on the Serengeti Plains, and keep munching grass until they started to smoke.

Large Grass Fires presented a unique opportunity to see how the wildlife were reacting in front of the burn, amazing stuff.

1Dx 200-400f/4, shot @ 232mm f/4 1/125th Iso1600

Some really nice shots Eml, enjoy your new toy and your trip.  :)

Doing both Thanks Darlip
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1229
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #42 on: June 30, 2013, 02:16:43 PM »
1st Cheetah Kill, Serengeti near the Grameti River, don't think this Lady was doing much more than 70-80Kph, so still had a gear in reserve, This mother Killed every single Day as she had 3 Cubs around 18 Months Old she was teaching & feeding as well as her self, Mothers, where would we all be without them.

1Dx 200-400, shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/1600th ISO800

eml58....I LOVEEEEEEEEEE this photo. Look forward to see more of your photos in the future ;)

Thanks Dylan777, I'll post more on the 1Dx side when I get home in around 2 weeks, currently waiting to Fly out to Sand River area South Africa, back to the Leopard Country, cant keep away.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #42 on: June 30, 2013, 02:16:43 PM »

CarlTN

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 2173
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #43 on: June 30, 2013, 03:33:30 PM »
1st Cheetah Kill, Serengeti near the Grameti River, don't think this Lady was doing much more than 70-80Kph, so still had a gear in reserve, This mother Killed every single Day as she had 3 Cubs around 18 Months Old she was teaching & feeding as well as her self, Mothers, where would we all be without them.

1Dx 200-400, shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/1600th ISO800

I too like this one.  How much of the image is cropped, if any?

bdunbar79

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 2431
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #44 on: June 30, 2013, 06:14:41 PM »
Another issue is that the photogs for SI and people like Peter Read Miller can shoot at f/4.  They are allowed to bring in portable lighting, and strobes, and really whatever they want with as many people as they want placing the lighting and strobes.  And I'm not making this up, I know how this works from speaking with photogs from SI the The SN.  I won't speak for everyone, but I can't.  I'm not allowed to do so.  So I can't shoot at f/4 indoors or night outdoors.  Why do some want to tell everyone else what is best for them and what should work for them?  If I shot for SI or Sporting News, or whatever, I'd have the zoom lens already in my possession.  But I don't get those luxuries so I use my f/2.8 primes and even f/2 primes.  So again, it really hasn't anything to do with AF speed, but rather aperture, FOR ME.  The 1Dx takes care of any AF speed issues. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #44 on: June 30, 2013, 06:14:41 PM »