Owning the Canon 200-400 f/4L Vs 400 f/2.8L II

[DavidRiesenberg]

Check http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ for their review of the 400. They have an image comparing background blur.

[Moody Blues]

Ever since the 200-400 was announced, I've given this a lot of thought.  I have young kids that will be going into field sports very soon so I've been planning on a big lens for a while. 

I personally don't think I will ever shoot longer than 400mm so for me, it's the 200-400 or the 400.  Since both are going to be in the same range, price doesn't play a factor for me. 

I'm leaning towards the 200-400 because of the versatility.  If the IQ difference is too great, however, I'll get the 400mm.  If there is very little difference, then I think I can lose the light/speed and go for the 200-400. 

I guess what I don't have experience or knowledge on is the difference in background blur between the two lenses.  That could play a role so I'd love to see someone shoot the 400mm at both 2.8 and 4.0 and post the photos.

You and I are in the exact same boat... I too want to get a lens for my kids sports.

I don't know if I will get back into it, but I used to shoot some for the larger sportfishing mags and I used my 300 2.8 for jumping sailfish and marlin. I will say that the 200-400 would be an absolutely killer lens for that use since a fish can be 20-120 yds from a boat in a matter of seconds. Having the 200-400 on one body and the new 24-70 on another body would be a heavenly match.

[dlleno]

IQ of the Canon 200-400 will be interesting to see.  For kicks and giggles, go out to the-digital-picture.com and compare the Canon 400 f/2.8 at 560mm/1.4x  and the Nikon 200-400 f/4 at 560mm/1.4x.   not a fair comparison, to be sure, but the Canon sure spanks!

[FarQinell]

When the 200-400 lens becomes available I will be purchasing it or the 400 2.8 prime. The delima of which of these 2 lenses would be more effective is making me mad.

The versatility of the 200-400 with the built in ext will be excellent. To think, though, that with the 1.4X and 2X ext gives you 3 incredibly useful focal lengths is equally incredible.

Has anyone else given this much thought?

It all depends whether the 200-400 is usefully very sharp at 560/5.6.

From the ISO 12233 test charts we know that the new 400/2.8 is very sharp at 560 - even at f4 or half a stop beyond - with the 1.4 TC and it is  much lighter than the previous model. It is also likely to be substantially cheaper than the 200-400.

Close call! We'll know in a few weeks!

If the 560/5.6 works we may see the next models of the big whites all fitted with built in TC - with stratospheric price tags!

[Mick]

Same problem for me. I shoot motorsport and wildlife mostly. I  had to  sell the 500f4 and 300 f2.8 and  made a nice profit, sold some other gear and pared down what i own.

I studied my meta data and looked to see what i actually shoot at. What i discovered is, i used the 500 a lot, never used a converter for extra length, shot at f4 a lot mainly due to less than impressive high ISO performance from the 7D (bought a MK4) For the 300 i never used f2.8 a great deal, shot only motorsport with it, hand held, and on occassion used a 1x4 converter. So in looking for a new lens im after.....

A lens that covers 300 to 500, will be shot at f4 a lot but on occassion steped down a little, that i can attach a full frame 1DS3 to a MK4 or 7D also for extra length. The 200-400 fits the bill perfectly.

So id think what you take pics of, study the meta data, do you need that extra stop of light especially with the new cameras ISO performance, do you need a bit more bokeh, will your eye notice any slight differance in sharpness between the lens's at sizes you print, will you use converters. Lots of questions but for what i do, the new lens fits the bill perfectly. And i wont miss shots changing my lens. I can also bet my savings it will be pin sharp with the converter.

That said......if its to expensive ill buy a new 500 and a used 300 f4.

Mick

[GMCPhotographics]

Does anyone know the MFD for the new 200-400 f4 L IS? I can't see a spec anywhere that states it.

[ferdi]

Does anyone know the MFD for the new 200-400 f4 L IS? I can't see a spec anywhere that states it.

Only 2 meter according to the focus limiter options.
To compare: 100-400 180cm, 300 f/4 150cm, 400 f/2.8 I 300cm, 400 f/2.8 II 270cm, 500 f/4 II 370cm.
Look like the 200-400 will have a pretty nice MM to go with that MFD.

[Moody Blues]

Is anyone here serious about buying the 200-400 if we see a release in the next few weeks?

[canon816]

Is anyone here serious about buying the 200-400 if we see a release in the next few weeks?

Absolutely.  I do a ton of shooting from a Kayak with 300mm f2.8.  I carry a second body and a TC for shorter and longer focal distances.  I would LOVE to have that versatility all in one lens and not have to swap bodies or lenses while rocking in a boat. 

I have said it before:  I would sell my 300f2.8 and 600f4 to fund this lens if the IQ is comparable at 300mm and 560mm.  The only thing that would hold me back is if the IQ doesn't deliver....

[Robic]

Brace of Canon 200-400 f4L lenses in use at the London 2012 Olympics

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30686359@N02/7764782698/#in/photostream

[bdunbar79]

Is anyone here serious about buying the 200-400 if we see a release in the next few weeks?

Absolutely.  I do a ton of shooting from a Kayak with 300mm f2.8.  I carry a second body and a TC for shorter and longer focal distances.  I would LOVE to have that versatility all in one lens and not have to swap bodies or lenses while rocking in a boat. 

I have said it before:  I would sell my 300f2.8 and 600f4 to fund this lens if the IQ is comparable at 300mm and 560mm.  The only thing that would hold me back is if the IQ doesn't deliver....

Well when I'm shooting sports I have to bring 200, 300, and 400 primes.  Heck yes I'd buy one or two!

[neuroanatomist]

Relative to supertele lenses in the same range, the 200-400 is a nice size.  But, 560mm f/5.6 won't be enough for me on FF (although it probably would work on APS-H) - for the 1D X, I think the 600/4 II would suit me better.  I'd be unlikely to carry both a 600 and a 200-400, but I'm looking forward to a replacement 100-400 for that range.

[KitsVancouver]

Is anyone here serious about buying the 200-400 if we see a release in the next few weeks?

I'm going to get either the 200-400 or the 400 2.8. I'm just a dad wanting to take photos so I don't think I can justify buying more than one big lens. If the IQ is as good as the 70-200 MK II then it will be enough for me to overlook the loss of speed from 2.8.

I'm worried about the QC a tad too as Canon has had many problems with new product launches lately so I might wait a year before buying.

[bdunbar79]

Is anyone here serious about buying the 200-400 if we see a release in the next few weeks?

I'm going to get either the 200-400 or the 400 2.8. I'm just a dad wanting to take photos so I don't think I can justify buying more than one big lens. If the IQ is as good as the 70-200 MK II then it will be enough for me to overlook the loss of speed from 2.8.

I'm worried about the QC a tad too as Canon has had many problems with new product launches lately so I might wait a year before buying.

Exactly.  I don't think I can realistically replace my 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 though.  In sports I need the AF sensor sensitivity as well as the wider than f/4 aperture.  It would be an interesting lens though, for well-lit, outdoor sports.  And, if you are a dad wanting to take photos, it would be an excellent alternative to the 100-400L zoom lens.  We'll see what the price is.

[bdunbar79]

When the 200-400 lens becomes available I will be purchasing it or the 400 2.8 prime. The delima of which of these 2 lenses would be more effective is making me mad.

The versatility of the 200-400 with the built in ext will be excellent. To think, though, that with the 1.4X and 2X ext gives you 3 incredibly useful focal lengths is equally incredible.

Owning the 70-200 f/2.8 II and using both ext's on it often, I think that the 200 to 280mm range of the 200-400 would go unused much of the time.

I have owed the 600 f/4 300 f/2.8 and the 200 f/2. Of all of those lenses, the 300 f/2.8 was my favorite.

Has anyone else given this much thought?

The 200-400 f/4L zoom lens cannot REPLACE the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 primes.  For most sports shooters, f/4 isn't going to cut it and I've experienced this myself, especially night football where all you have are stadium lights. You also need access to all of the AF sensors in the 1DX and/or 1D Mark IV.  All other purposes, yes, it's a great lens and would alleviate the need to buy a 300 and 400 prime perhaps.