October 22, 2014, 08:08:36 PM

Author Topic: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4  (Read 14859 times)

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2013, 08:59:56 AM »
If you have one camera, and it's just an occasional night game, the lens sounds awesome.  For wildlife you better believe I'd be using it, if it made sense economically.  I've seen plenty of guys using Nikon's 200-400 during day sports.  I don't really believe the bokeh would suffer much from f/4 to f/2.8. 

I enjoyed eml58's wildlife shots with the lens.  IQ-wise it is as expected:  oustanding.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2013, 08:59:56 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14720
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #16 on: June 14, 2013, 09:06:09 AM »
The 200-400/4+1.4x seems like the perfect safari lens, and I do like the convenience of a zoom.  The other day, I was a little too close to some herons/egrets I was shooting, zooming out would have been nice.  But I just removed the 1.4x from my 600 II, framing was plenty loose enough, and I was still a stop faster and had better IQ than the 200-400 @ 560/5.6.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #17 on: June 14, 2013, 03:20:54 PM »
Question to Canon CPS?Why?  Like you ask, you will get a answer.
The ultimate zoom for hockey worldwide football indoor sports, handball etc  have included  the 200-400 from Nikon a long time and the lens has replaced a variety of lenses for the photographers. The quality are now so good from the cameras  that a stop do not give much benefit and  if  Canon can show that their  lens is a good as a couple of heavy fixed lenses  then it is not much to discuss?
Your own choice that you have a 300 or 400/2,8 ?
For a newspaper or magazine there are no difference if the american football has been shooting with a 400/2,8 or 200-400/4 at F-4

No difference between ISO 5000 and ISO 10,000 for a newspaper or magazine?  Maybe,

But:

I'M NOT SHOOTING FOR NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES, I'M PRINTING 8X10'S OR LARGER
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC


eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1504
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2013, 06:48:31 AM »
The 200-400/4+1.4x seems like the perfect safari lens, and I do like the convenience of a zoom.  The other day, I was a little too close to some herons/egrets I was shooting, zooming out would have been nice.  But I just removed the 1.4x from my 600 II, framing was plenty loose enough, and I was still a stop faster and had better IQ than the 200-400 @ 560/5.6.

Yep, I agree, it's where the 200-400 does loose out, when your shooting the 200-400 @ 560 & f5.6 (1.4x engaged) when compared to the 600 @ f5.6 no converter, IQ in this situation with the 600 is clearly better.

I'm off to Tanzania for 3 weeks starting the 18th, so I'll be Posting on the 1Dx site some Images & my view of the Lens, I'll also be taking the 400f/2.8 v2 & 600f/4 v2 & 70-200f/2.8 L IS II so I'll be able to do some reasonable real world comparisons, at least where wildlife/safari type Shooting is compared.

The Chap I'm going with is a Pro & shoots a Nikon D3x & D3s with the Nikon 200-400f/4, so that will be interesting to see how the two lenses work side by side.

In the meantime I'm sitting on my front Porch with the 200-400 waiting to see if I can shoot some Squirrels.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

SambalOelek

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2013, 07:11:48 AM »
I wonder if the 200-400 breathes and what T value it has.
It would still be the dream lens for safari if one has an unlimited budget, otherwise the primes look a little more interesting due to the very high price of the 200-400

According to TDP, the lens has a 0.15x magnification without the built-in extender. Presumably this is at 400mm with a focus distance of 2.0m. However, looking at the 400mm f/2.8 II, it achieves a larger magnification (0.17x), even though the MFD is 0.7m further away! That's a tell-tale sign right there  ;)

Investigating further, we see that the 300mm f/2.8 II has the exact same MFD, but a higher max magnification (0.18x). In other words, when the two lenses are focused at 2.0m, the 300 II will frame the subject more closely than the 200-400@400mm.

This implies that the 200-400's effective focal length is less than that of the 300 II at the MFD. According to my calculations, at the MFD, the 200-400 has a similar FOV as an ideal lens with a focal length of ~200mm.

Looking at the numbers for the big primes, they also do have reduced focal length at MFD (but less severe), so the 200-400 may still be a dream lens for safaris :)


« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 07:15:13 AM by SambalOelek »
1D X, 1D IV, 5D III, 6D, 7D, M. Assorted lenses.

Eldar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1647
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2013, 02:59:20 AM »
Interesting read, with many good reasons to stay with the 400 or go for the 200-400. Most of the talk has been on flexibility with the zoom and f2.8 vs. f4. An additional thing is AF speed and performance. To gain full advantage of the 1DX and 5DIII you need f2.8 or faster. The review at The-digital-picture.com did say that AF was slower, but apparently fairly accurate. This is on top of the consequences of loosing one stop, double your shutter speed or double your ISO. The DOF and second-to-none bokeh you get with the 400/2.8 is of course also an issue.

I have not tried the 200-400 myself yet, but I am sure I would find it very tempting. For wildlife and birding I use the 600/4 IS II. And I would not concider swapping that for the 200-400. But on a safari, where your distance to the animals will vary a lot, where you will be restricted to the car most of the time and the lighting conditions will be good. I am sure it will be a winner. But I already carry an extra body with the 70-200/2.8L IS II and I would probably continue to do that and accept the need for some extra cropping.

One concern I have with the 200-400 is handholding. It is about as big and heavy as the 400, which I handhold a lot. But how easy/difficult will it be to handhold this and effectivly use the zoom?

So yes, very tempting lens, but tempting enough to get rid of my 400 f2.8L IS II?? Probably not. If I get it it will be an addition and give me another 6 months on water and bread ...
5DIII, 1DX, 8-15/4L, 16-35 f4L IS, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, 70-300/4-5.6L IS, 200-400/4L IS 1.4x, Zeiss 15/2.8, 17/4L TS-E, Zeiss 21/2.8, 24/3.5L TS-E II, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, Zeiss Otus 85/1.4, 100/2.8L IS Macro, Zeiss 135/2, 600/4L IS II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2013, 02:59:20 AM »

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4194
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2013, 09:19:22 AM »
If I have to pick one, I would take 400mm f2.8 IS II. You can always step down from f2.8, but not the other way around ;)
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

davidgator

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2013, 10:40:35 AM »
I will try to post some photos this weekend.  However, after just having the 200-400 on a safari for 2 weeks, I can't understate how incredible versatile this lens was.  During one shooting "session" I was photographing lions and cubs at 400 with the extender.  A couple of lions from the same pack took down a zebra about 150 yards behind our vehicle and, as a result, about 8 other lions stood up and started to work their way towards and then right past our vehicle to partake in the meal.   Without switching camera bodies or lenses or even really moving much from my original position in the vehicle, I was able to photograph each lion as it got closer and closer.  My other friends were fumbling to switch camera bodies back and forth (missing shots) or found themselves very limited in their composure options as the lions got closer to the vehicle.  The minimal focal distance was also a big advantage when we came up on wildlife very close to the vehicle. 

I'm not saying the 200-400 is better or worse than any other lens.  I am saying it definitely has its uses.  For those particular uses, I don't think it can be beat. 

pj1974

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
    • A selection of my photos (copyright)
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2013, 12:06:10 PM »
I will try to post some photos this weekend.  However, after just having the 200-400 on a safari for 2 weeks, I can't understate how incredible versatile this lens was.  During one shooting "session" I was photographing lions and cubs at 400 with the extender.  A couple of lions from the same pack took down a zebra about 150 yards behind our vehicle and, as a result, about 8 other lions stood up and started to work their way towards and then right past our vehicle to partake in the meal.   Without switching camera bodies or lenses or even really moving much from my original position in the vehicle, I was able to photograph each lion as it got closer and closer.  My other friends were fumbling to switch camera bodies back and forth (missing shots) or found themselves very limited in their composure options as the lions got closer to the vehicle.  The minimal focal distance was also a big advantage when we came up on wildlife very close to the vehicle. 

I'm not saying the 200-400 is better or worse than any other lens.  I am saying it definitely has its uses.  For those particular uses, I don't think it can be beat.

+1

That is what impressed me about the lens, the very versatile focal length - 200mm to 560mm. From all accounts it has very good image quality at all settings.   8)

As I don't do sports serious, I don't necessarily need f/2.8 - but as I DO wildlife photography - including BIF, and also love the 'tele-compression effect in various landscape settings', I would find the 200-400mm f/4 1.4x very useful.

Paul
I'm not a brand-fanatic. What I do appreciate is using my 7D and 350D cameras along with a host of lenses & many accessories to capture quality photos, and share with friends.

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2013, 01:44:45 PM »
How would the 400 2.8 with a 2XII stack up with the 200-400 @ 400 with a 2XII? Just curious.
5D3, 6D, 600D, RX100
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 18-55 II, 55-250 II, 600RT x 4
I come here to learn something new, not to learn how bad my gear is - I know that already ;-)!

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14720
    • View Profile
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2013, 02:24:08 PM »
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.
5D3, 6D, 600D, RX100
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 18-55 II, 55-250 II, 600RT x 4
I come here to learn something new, not to learn how bad my gear is - I know that already ;-)!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2013, 02:24:08 PM »

expatinasia

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 945
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #28 on: June 29, 2013, 01:09:38 AM »
Question to Canon CPS?Why?  Like you ask, you will get a answer.
The ultimate zoom for hockey worldwide football indoor sports, handball etc  have included  the 200-400 from Nikon a long time and the lens has replaced a variety of lenses for the photographers. The quality are now so good from the cameras  that a stop do not give much benefit and  if  Canon can show that their  lens is a good as a couple of heavy fixed lenses  then it is not much to discuss?
Your own choice that you have a 300 or 400/2,8 ?
For a newspaper or magazine there are no difference if the american football has been shooting with a 400/2,8 or 200-400/4 at F-4

At all the major int. sporting events I am at, I hardly ever see any zooms - Nikon or Canon. Most pros are using f/2.8 primes and operate a multi-camera system (two or more cameras each with different lenses). The only zooms you tend to see are the 70-200 f/2.8.

I can see the advantages of having a 200-400 1.4X and if they ever make a f/2.8 version, I will be one of the first to put my name down (although how much it would cost is a scary, scary thought  :o ). But at f/4 it is better suited for wildlife shooters etc rather than sport.

I still haven't tried it though but will be doing soon enough. Then I will know for sure.
1D X + backup + different L lenses etc.

expatinasia

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 945
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2013, 01:25:03 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)
1D X + backup + different L lenses etc.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2013, 01:25:03 AM »