July 28, 2014, 06:52:09 AM

Author Topic: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x  (Read 9673 times)

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2558
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2013, 09:14:59 PM »
I'm a sports shooter and I still hesitate to lose the f/2.8 aperture for 1.  light and 2.  subject isolation.  But I'd really love to own the lens anyways... ;D
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2013, 09:14:59 PM »

neiseloine

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2013, 01:46:35 AM »
Yes, we need to take good card of the Designer iPhone 5S Cases and they are really good.

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2013, 05:36:41 AM »
I'm a sports shooter and I still hesitate to lose the f/2.8 aperture for 1.  light and 2.  subject isolation.  But I'd really love to own the lens anyways... ;D

I bet you could make good use of it.

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2013, 05:50:41 AM »
Justin, I hate to pick on you again, but your review is kind of all over the place.  (Don't fly off the handle on me, hear me out.)  I wanted to get more of a feel of how you specifically felt using the lens in specific situations...you know, take me there and let the reader feel like they are experiencing the lens.  Instead, it's just awkward to read, and feels more like it's just you stating random facts about the lens, rather than your impression of it.  Most important to me would be the autofocus performance and speed, as others who have bought this lens have discussed on here already, months ago.  The IS performance would also interest me, and how it compares to the other lenses you mention like the 600mm f/4, or 400mm f/4 DO, or any of the other superteles, even the f/2.8's.

I probably missed it, but did you use anything other than a 7D with the lens?  Just curious. 

However, I have to admit the result you got of the floats and slide, with the 1.4 TC III attached, while also I assume having the internal 1.4x switched in...It looks nice and contrasty, and is very likely quite sharp.  Nice job on that!  That is full frame equivalent of an 18MP camera at what, 1254mm?  That vastly beats the heck out of the results I got with a rented generation-1 500 f/4 with the 1.4x III attached to my 50D back in 2011 (and that was manual focus on a tripod with mirror lock in very bright Florida sun...since it refused to ever AF accurately no matter where I dialed the AFMA).  Think about it...you're going through two teleconverters in series there...and the lens is a zoom to boot.  Impressive stuff!

JVLphoto

  • Administrator
  • EOS M2
  • *****
  • Posts: 221
  • Whatever clicks
    • View Profile
    • JVLphoto
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2013, 08:43:51 AM »
Justin, I hate to pick on you again, but your review is kind of all over the place.  (Don't fly off the handle on me, hear me out.)  I wanted to get more of a feel of how you specifically felt using the lens in specific situations...you know, take me there and let the reader feel like they are experiencing the lens.  Instead, it's just awkward to read, and feels more like it's just you stating random facts about the lens, rather than your impression of it.  Most important to me would be the autofocus performance and speed, as others who have bought this lens have discussed on here already, months ago.  The IS performance would also interest me, and how it compares to the other lenses you mention like the 600mm f/4, or 400mm f/4 DO, or any of the other superteles, even the f/2.8's.

I probably missed it, but did you use anything other than a 7D with the lens?  Just curious. 

However, I have to admit the result you got of the floats and slide, with the 1.4 TC III attached, while also I assume having the internal 1.4x switched in...It looks nice and contrasty, and is very likely quite sharp.  Nice job on that!  That is full frame equivalent of an 18MP camera at what, 1254mm?  That vastly beats the heck out of the results I got with a rented generation-1 500 f/4 with the 1.4x III attached to my 50D back in 2011 (and that was manual focus on a tripod with mirror lock in very bright Florida sun...since it refused to ever AF accurately no matter where I dialed the AFMA).  Think about it...you're going through two teleconverters in series there...and the lens is a zoom to boot.  Impressive stuff!
No flying, I promise!

Sorry I didn't hit the mark on this one for you, I definitely tried to do better after all the valid criticism of my 300mm review. That said, I've never used a 600, 400 or any other tele other than the 300 so I'm currently unable to make such comparisons, the funny thing is as I move forward, in these "reviews" I have more experience than the last one.

I tested AF a bit on my kids (not a sports guy) and it was responsive and accurate, though it didn't feel as fast as the 300. I'm assuming some of this has to do with the sheer weight of glass it has to move.  My general impression, and usage, was also a lot more than the 300, despite it being heavier and larger, the versatility of the zoom gave me confidence to take it out more and try different situations.

Most of my shots were with the 5DIII, I only did the 7D + 1.4 (yes with the internal 1.4 activated) as a fun test... how far can we take the "zoom" and yeah, not bad considering all the glass we're going through on a crop sensor. I don't know the copy variance of the 1.4 teleconverter III, but I have had incredible results on it with the 200-400 and my 70-200.

Hope that helps!
« Last Edit: November 22, 2013, 08:38:54 AM by JVLphoto »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2013, 09:47:16 PM »
Justin, I hate to pick on you again, but your review is kind of all over the place.  (Don't fly off the handle on me, hear me out.)  I wanted to get more of a feel of how you specifically felt using the lens in specific situations...you know, take me there and let the reader feel like they are experiencing the lens.  Instead, it's just awkward to read, and feels more like it's just you stating random facts about the lens, rather than your impression of it.  Most important to me would be the autofocus performance and speed, as others who have bought this lens have discussed on here already, months ago.  The IS performance would also interest me, and how it compares to the other lenses you mention like the 600mm f/4, or 400mm f/4 DO, or any of the other superteles, even the f/2.8's.

I probably missed it, but did you use anything other than a 7D with the lens?  Just curious. 

However, I have to admit the result you got of the floats and slide, with the 1.4 TC III attached, while also I assume having the internal 1.4x switched in...It looks nice and contrasty, and is very likely quite sharp.  Nice job on that!  That is full frame equivalent of an 18MP camera at what, 1254mm?  That vastly beats the heck out of the results I got with a rented generation-1 500 f/4 with the 1.4x III attached to my 50D back in 2011 (and that was manual focus on a tripod with mirror lock in very bright Florida sun...since it refused to ever AF accurately no matter where I dialed the AFMA).  Think about it...you're going through two teleconverters in series there...and the lens is a zoom to boot.  Impressive stuff!
No flying, I promise!

Sorry I didn't hit the mark on this one for you, I definitely tried to do better after all the valid criticism of my 300mm review. That said, I've never used a 600, 400 or any other tele other than the 300 so I'm currently unable to make such comparisons, the funny thing is as I move forward, in these "reviews" I have more experience than the last one.

I tested IS a bit on my kids (not a sports guy) and it was responsive and accurate, though it didn't feel as fast as the 300. I'm assuming some of this has to do with the sheer weight of glass it has to move.  My general impression, and usage, was also a lot more than the 300, despite it being heavier and larger, the versatility of the zoom gave me confidence to take it out more and try different situations.

Most of my shots were with the 5DIII, I only did the 7D + 1.4 (yes with the internal 1.4 activated) as a fun test... how far can we take the "zoom" and yeah, not bad considering all the glass we're going through on a crop sensor. I don't know the copy variance of the 1.4 teleconverter III, but I have had incredible results on it with the 200-400 and my 70-200.

Hope that helps!

Sure thing, these comments were better than much of your review, haha, thank you!  Interesting that you're saying the IS reacts slower than the 300 f/2.8 ii (perhaps you also meant the AF was slower?).  Also interesting that you felt more confident taking it out because of the zoom versatility.  I know exactly what you mean there!  As for the 1.4x iii, I wasn't implying the problem was with it.  The problem was the lens it was attached to, despite what fanboys of that lens seem to think (and despite LR testing it and saying nothing was wrong).  Sure the camera's AF was less than fully capable, but that doesn't explain the problem when focused manually, with mirror lock.  Bottom line, that particular sample of that lens, was simply not sharp.  The TC just served to highlight the problem further.  They delayed the shuttle launch anyway so I didn't even get to try to shoot what I went to shoot...I saw it on the pad from 13 miles away...the top half of it anyway.  That wasn't even worth trying to shoot, either, especially into a 40 mph wind.  So I left the camera and lens in the car and just tried to look with binoculars, haha.

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1403
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #21 on: November 22, 2013, 01:38:46 AM »
Liked the review.

I've shot around 30,000 Images now with the 200-400f/4, mostly (perhaps 95%) on the 1Dx, a small amount on the 5DMK III, for a lot of reasons I think the 1Dx is the Body to work with on this Lens, but I guess i feel the same about all the "Whites" in this respect.

I've never noticed any difference in the IS between the 200-400f/4, 300f/2.8 II, 400f/2.8 II & 600f/4 II, none at all.

I've noticed a marginally faster snap onto Target when auto focussing only on the 300f/2.8 L II, but the 300 is quite possibly the all round best Lens that Canon have ever made I feel.

On sharpness, again I've looked extensively at the Lenses I mentioned previously, I own (or owned) all of them, also had the Version I lenses in the 300 & 400 range (since sold the 400f/2.8 L II), and as mentioned i think by Eldar, you really do have to Zoom a long way into the Image to try and see where the Primes are sharper, the 300, yes I see a difference, very marginal, but it's there, the 400 & 600 ?? a lot harder to see.

Weight, the 200-400 is pretty well the same length & weight as the 400f/2.8 II, and therefore has the same Hand Holdability (new word I think) as the 400, short periods just fine, longer periods, bit of drag. The 200-400, just like the 400 & 600, are best attached to a Tripod or Monopod, or Eldar's Flag Staff Addaption, which I'm in the process of setting up, great idea I think.

I liked the older Nikon 200-400f/4, especially the newer version, I shot the Nikon on the D3x & D800 (a minor slide to the Dark Side for a comparison), and the Canon 200-400f/4 1.4x is simply at a different level, unfortunately that leads to the only negative view I might have of the Lens, it's price, still, you pay for quality, and the 200-400f/4 has loads of that I feel.



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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #21 on: November 22, 2013, 01:38:46 AM »

M.ST

  • Guest
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2013, 06:31:36 AM »
The EF 200-400 Extender lens cannot beat the EF 300 2.8 II IS lens IQ, but it is very good. At 200 mm it is close to the very good EF 70-200 2.8 II IS lens.

After Canon fixed the massive problems with the build in Extender (in the preseries lenses) it´s a very versatile lens if you get a good one. You don´t need to carry everytime two or three big whites with you and can do all the shots that you want with only one lens.

With the additional extenders you will see a small amount of CA´s shown up in the corners at the longest focal lengths. But that is not really a problem. If you use the internal 1.4 Extender and the additional 2.0 Extender the AF system fail, but that is very normal at f/11 and only a few people want use the lens at 1120 mm. 

The EF 200-400 Extender lens is very heavy and only usefull if you need the focal lenght, the possible aperture and the IQ. For travelling around the new 100-400 IS replacement will be a better choice, but cannot reach the IQ of the EF 200-400 Extender lens (it´s far away from it).

 
« Last Edit: November 22, 2013, 06:50:25 AM by M.ST »

JVLphoto

  • Administrator
  • EOS M2
  • *****
  • Posts: 221
  • Whatever clicks
    • View Profile
    • JVLphoto
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #23 on: November 22, 2013, 08:38:28 AM »
Justin, I hate to pick on you again, but your review is kind of all over the place.  (Don't fly off the handle on me, hear me out.)  I wanted to get more of a feel of how you specifically felt using the lens in specific situations...you know, take me there and let the reader feel like they are experiencing the lens.  Instead, it's just awkward to read, and feels more like it's just you stating random facts about the lens, rather than your impression of it.  Most important to me would be the autofocus performance and speed, as others who have bought this lens have discussed on here already, months ago.  The IS performance would also interest me, and how it compares to the other lenses you mention like the 600mm f/4, or 400mm f/4 DO, or any of the other superteles, even the f/2.8's.

I probably missed it, but did you use anything other than a 7D with the lens?  Just curious. 

However, I have to admit the result you got of the floats and slide, with the 1.4 TC III attached, while also I assume having the internal 1.4x switched in...It looks nice and contrasty, and is very likely quite sharp.  Nice job on that!  That is full frame equivalent of an 18MP camera at what, 1254mm?  That vastly beats the heck out of the results I got with a rented generation-1 500 f/4 with the 1.4x III attached to my 50D back in 2011 (and that was manual focus on a tripod with mirror lock in very bright Florida sun...since it refused to ever AF accurately no matter where I dialed the AFMA).  Think about it...you're going through two teleconverters in series there...and the lens is a zoom to boot.  Impressive stuff!
No flying, I promise!

Sorry I didn't hit the mark on this one for you, I definitely tried to do better after all the valid criticism of my 300mm review. That said, I've never used a 600, 400 or any other tele other than the 300 so I'm currently unable to make such comparisons, the funny thing is as I move forward, in these "reviews" I have more experience than the last one.

I tested IS a bit on my kids (not a sports guy) and it was responsive and accurate, though it didn't feel as fast as the 300. I'm assuming some of this has to do with the sheer weight of glass it has to move.  My general impression, and usage, was also a lot more than the 300, despite it being heavier and larger, the versatility of the zoom gave me confidence to take it out more and try different situations.

Most of my shots were with the 5DIII, I only did the 7D + 1.4 (yes with the internal 1.4 activated) as a fun test... how far can we take the "zoom" and yeah, not bad considering all the glass we're going through on a crop sensor. I don't know the copy variance of the 1.4 teleconverter III, but I have had incredible results on it with the 200-400 and my 70-200.

Hope that helps!

Sure thing, these comments were better than much of your review, haha, thank you!  Interesting that you're saying the IS reacts slower than the 300 f/2.8 ii (perhaps you also meant the AF was slower?).  Also interesting that you felt more confident taking it out because of the zoom versatility.  I know exactly what you mean there!  As for the 1.4x iii, I wasn't implying the problem was with it.  The problem was the lens it was attached to, despite what fanboys of that lens seem to think (and despite LR testing it and saying nothing was wrong).  Sure the camera's AF was less than fully capable, but that doesn't explain the problem when focused manually, with mirror lock.  Bottom line, that particular sample of that lens, was simply not sharp.  The TC just served to highlight the problem further.  They delayed the shuttle launch anyway so I didn't even get to try to shoot what I went to shoot...I saw it on the pad from 13 miles away...the top half of it anyway.  That wasn't even worth trying to shoot, either, especially into a 40 mph wind.  So I left the camera and lens in the car and just tried to look with binoculars, haha.

Sorry, yeah, I meant AF... must be drinking again ;)

Canon1

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2013, 10:03:48 AM »
Justin,

No offense, but there is really not much in this review that would make me consider it a "resource" when researching this lens.  You more or less just restate what canons website declares and then confirm that you thought it was accurate information and a quality lens.

Where are the efforts to put this lens through it's paces?  I recognize that you may not be a sports or wildlife photographer, but when you review a lens that is geared towards this audience you might consider making an attempt to produce some images that show how well this lens can perform (for that target audience).  You don't need to go on a safari but perhaps shoot a soccer game, or seagulls flying at the beach.  Something where you can draw a conclusion on how well this lens really does perform.  No one will use this lens to shoot a flower pot.  Even if you had shot a teddy bear and then shown full crops of the fur to showcase the sharp detail the lens was capable of (or not) would be more helpful.

Also, I know you have never used a 400, 500 or 600....   How can you give a critical review of a lens without comparing it to the other lenses in a lineup that a potential buyer would be interested in.

Maybe you don't want to spend the money on renting, or can't get your  hands on loaners, but if you want to take this equipment review gig seriously then you have to actually review equipment including comparables.  This includes actually using equipment and shooting with a plan (subjects, location, varying lighting conditions (front and back), subjects static and dynamic, etc.... Just mounting a lens on your camera and going for a short walk-about around your neighborhood hardly counts. 

I apologize if I am sounding too harsh, but this review comes across as rushed and in my opinion was poorly done.  Your images were poorly composed and exposure off, and subjects not well thought out.  (Can this lens help a camera body produce a nice image?)

I would applaud a follow-up review where you actually dig in and put this lens through it's paces.  Make these reviews a valuable resource!  You have a HUGE opportunity here with perhaps the largest canon audience on the web at your disposal.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 10:08:44 AM by Canon1 »

JVLphoto

  • Administrator
  • EOS M2
  • *****
  • Posts: 221
  • Whatever clicks
    • View Profile
    • JVLphoto
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2013, 11:33:16 AM »
Justin,

No offense, but there is really not much in this review that would make me consider it a "resource" when researching this lens.  You more or less just restate what canons website declares and then confirm that you thought it was accurate information and a quality lens.

Where are the efforts to put this lens through it's paces?  I recognize that you may not be a sports or wildlife photographer, but when you review a lens that is geared towards this audience you might consider making an attempt to produce some images that show how well this lens can perform (for that target audience).  You don't need to go on a safari but perhaps shoot a soccer game, or seagulls flying at the beach.  Something where you can draw a conclusion on how well this lens really does perform.  No one will use this lens to shoot a flower pot.  Even if you had shot a teddy bear and then shown full crops of the fur to showcase the sharp detail the lens was capable of (or not) would be more helpful.

Also, I know you have never used a 400, 500 or 600....   How can you give a critical review of a lens without comparing it to the other lenses in a lineup that a potential buyer would be interested in.

Maybe you don't want to spend the money on renting, or can't get your  hands on loaners, but if you want to take this equipment review gig seriously then you have to actually review equipment including comparables.  This includes actually using equipment and shooting with a plan (subjects, location, varying lighting conditions (front and back), subjects static and dynamic, etc.... Just mounting a lens on your camera and going for a short walk-about around your neighborhood hardly counts. 

I apologize if I am sounding too harsh, but this review comes across as rushed and in my opinion was poorly done.  Your images were poorly composed and exposure off, and subjects not well thought out.  (Can this lens help a camera body produce a nice image?)

I would applaud a follow-up review where you actually dig in and put this lens through it's paces.  Make these reviews a valuable resource!  You have a HUGE opportunity here with perhaps the largest canon audience on the web at your disposal.

"No offense" - Rarely is the follow-up to this good.

"but there is really not much in this review that would make me consider it a "resource" when researching this lens.  You more or less just restate what canons website declares and then confirm that you thought it was accurate information and a quality lens." - Never read Canon's website, but then yes, you're right, I can confirm that.

"Where are the efforts to put this lens through it's paces?" - 1 month with it and the review, as best I could anyway.

"I recognize that you may not be a sports or wildlife photographer, but when you review a lens that is geared towards this audience you might consider making an attempt to produce some images that show how well this lens can perform (for that target audience)." - I agree.

"You don't need to go on a safari but perhaps shoot a soccer game, or seagulls flying at the beach.  Something where you can draw a conclusion on how well this lens really does perform.  No one will use this lens to shoot a flower pot.  Even if you had shot a teddy bear and then shown full crops of the fur to showcase the sharp detail the lens was capable of (or not) would be more helpful." - Sorry you don't like my flower pot example, it was more about the exposure difference than anything else, I'll find some teddy bears next time. Watch for it!

"Also, I know you have never used a 400, 500 or 600....   How can you give a critical review of a lens without comparing it to the other lenses in a lineup that a potential buyer would be interested in." - I can and I can't... I can because I did (sort of) but you're right, how can I review a 200-400 without using lenses in that range. How can I review lenses in that range without trying other lenses in that range? A bit of a chicken vs. egg scenario here. We all have to start somewhere, the 300mm was my first step into super-telephoto and that wasn't particularly well received either. It's a steep learning curve for a guy who mostly works indoors and in editorial.

"Maybe you don't want to spend the money on renting, or can't get your  hands on loaners..."  - Want and have are different things when it comes to financial resources, but loaners are accessible to me, though if I was send a 400, 500, 600 and a 200-400 at the same time I'd likely be overwhelmed and explode with lens envy/confusion of what to shoot.

"...but if you want to take this equipment review gig seriously then you have to actually review equipment including comparables.  This includes actually using equipment and shooting with a plan (subjects, location, varying lighting conditions (front and back), subjects static and dynamic, etc.... Just mounting a lens on your camera and going for a short walk-about around your neighborhood hardly counts." - You seem to have this review thing down. As always, I welcome your own input from use of this and other lenses here... the forum is an incredible place for everyone to flesh out the reviews *especially* in areas I lack. Seriously, I suck at lots of things, help us out! (and it was a very long walk)

"I apologize if I am sounding too harsh, but this review comes across as rushed and in my opinion was poorly done. " - No, I've had worse and at least you're articulating where I fell short, that gives me specific areas to improve - so thanks!

"Your images were poorly composed and exposure off, and subjects not well thought out.  (Can this lens help a camera body produce a nice image?)" - Okay that was a little offensive.

"I would applaud a follow-up review where you actually dig in and put this lens through it's paces.  Make these reviews a valuable resource!  You have a HUGE opportunity here with perhaps the largest canon audience on the web at your disposal." - I'd honestly love to, I'd love to be able to line-up some sporting events or kayakers, or motor sports. Access is certainly a problem and very few people seem to be willing to help me get it just because I have a "nice lens" to write about. It's also winter, and you *really* don't want me to find wildlife (I'll be as good as dead). I want to make them worthwhile, I think *some* people find they are, but you're right about one thing, it's hard to write for the $13,000 lens demographic when you're not in it yourself. I wouldn't be the person to review a Ferrari either, though I can appreciate it's a top-quality and beautiful automobile... but I'll never own one.

Keep an eye on this forum, undoubtedly others will add to it as they use their lens and hopefully be able to answer some of your more pressing questions. And who knows, maybe CRguy will feel like sending it to me again out of sheer generosity. Thanks for taking the time to read the post and, more importantly, express how you felt about it! Beats silently being angry at me like my wife.

Also, here are some other images I took, they may not meet any of your needs but I enjoy them just the same :)
« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 11:36:02 AM by JVLphoto »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2013, 10:36:33 PM »
The Canon1 person seems to have taken a similar approach at criticizing Justin's review, to how I reacted to his review of the 17-40.  The difference being no one else seems to have attempted to climb up Canon1's backside, like they did mine!

There's already a quite nice thread about this lens on CR, mostly by people who seem to own the lens.

As for comparing owning this lens to owning a Ferrari...I disagree.  For one thing, most Ferrari models are priced very high above what many who would buy a $13k lens, could either afford, or justify spending (or have the desire to spend).  For another thing, there are a few older Ferrari models on the used market that don't cost much more than this lens.  So it mostly depends on which Ferrari you're talking about.  Certainly the new ones are pricey!  And then there are those collectible ones that even Bill Gates might think twice before bidding on!

Canon1

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2013, 07:47:02 AM »
Justin,

I honestly meant no offense.  Everything I wrote is an effort at constructive criticism.  You can be sarcastic to my criticisms if that helps you.  Regarding your followup images:  It is not a matter of whether or not your images are "good enough" for me, it is a matter of whether or not they convey some of the capabilities of this lens.  If this is the wrong time of year for you to be able to review this equipment, maybe waiting until springtime when you have more photographic opportunities would be appropriate (maybe this is a reason why your review feels rushed).

I will point out again that you have a wonderful opportunity to do something great here with your equipment reviews.  You have a captive audience of thousands of viewers.  What you do with this opportunity it is totally up to you.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2013, 07:47:02 AM »

JVLphoto

  • Administrator
  • EOS M2
  • *****
  • Posts: 221
  • Whatever clicks
    • View Profile
    • JVLphoto
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2013, 08:01:52 AM »
Justin,

I honestly meant no offense.  Everything I wrote is an effort at constructive criticism.  You can be sarcastic to my criticisms if that helps you.  Regarding your followup images:  It is not a matter of whether or not your images are "good enough" for me, it is a matter of whether or not they convey some of the capabilities of this lens.  If this is the wrong time of year for you to be able to review this equipment, maybe waiting until springtime when you have more photographic opportunities would be appropriate (maybe this is a reason why your review feels rushed).

I will point out again that you have a wonderful opportunity to do something great here with your equipment reviews.  You have a captive audience of thousands of viewers.  What you do with this opportunity it is totally up to you.

I was serious too! Thank you - honestly - I appreciate the feedback and have been thinking about it since. and yes, being half-sarcastic does help me take my medicine...

JVLphoto

  • Administrator
  • EOS M2
  • *****
  • Posts: 221
  • Whatever clicks
    • View Profile
    • JVLphoto
Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2013, 08:08:32 AM »
The Canon1 person seems to have taken a similar approach at criticizing Justin's review, to how I reacted to his review of the 17-40.  The difference being no one else seems to have attempted to climb up Canon1's backside, like they did mine!

There's already a quite nice thread about this lens on CR, mostly by people who seem to own the lens.

As for comparing owning this lens to owning a Ferrari...I disagree.  For one thing, most Ferrari models are priced very high above what many who would buy a $13k lens, could either afford, or justify spending (or have the desire to spend).  For another thing, there are a few older Ferrari models on the used market that don't cost much more than this lens.  So it mostly depends on which Ferrari you're talking about.  Certainly the new ones are pricey!  And then there are those collectible ones that even Bill Gates might think twice before bidding on!

Yeah, where are those Canon fanboys when you need 'em? :)

As for the Ferrari, I'm just saying some items, value-wise, are far beyond what most people are capable of affording if they "need it" for work or not. For some people, the value of this lens outweighs their net annual income. I'm expressing the difficulty in "reviewing" or even quantifying a purchase that is so far outside of my income bracket that I have nothing to compare it to. We can both agree the prospect of buying a car *or* a Camera lens is certainly a big decision.

But, as Canon1 said, the more time I take with it and others like it surely I must improve right? And, in the end, my reviews are highly subjective opinion pieces more than quantitative evaluations with MTF charts and sharpness spectrometers. It's why we're able to disagree on the 17-40... there's no wrong answer, just "right for you."

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2013, 08:08:32 AM »