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

[charlesa]

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.

Although in theory I agree, it provides useful versatility. I am just back from shooting a waterpolo match, and although the 400 f/2.8 on a 1DX performed like a beaut, not having the second body with the 70-200 or the fisheye made me lose quite a number of shots (second body is being serviced). Just saying, 200-400 is useful versatility wise.

[dolina]

I'd go with 200-400 for the following reasons
- zoom range of 200-400 and 280-560
- convenience of a built-in extender
- price is reported to be lower than a 400
- if you want one super tele this would be it

I'd go with the 400 for the following reasons
- f/2.8 for when I need more light or more background/subject seperation
- weight as it is reported to be lighter than the 200-400
- physical length is more often a problem in shipping than physical width
- if you have more than one white prime this would be it

Dimension comparison between the 400, 200-400, 500, 600 and 800.



400's 13.5-inch
200-400's 14.5-inch?
500's 15.1-inch

Reported to be heavier than the 400 (3850g). So does this mean the 200-400 is lighter than the 600 (3920g)?

MFD is below

[kirispupis]

It depends on what you are shooting, but for most purposes the 200-400 will be much better.  The reason is the magic fairies, the production of which explains why we have not seen the lens announced yet.

It is said for wildlife photographer the fairies will fly out of the lens and enchant the wildlife to stay still and in a good pose for your photo.  Similarly for sports photos they will cause something interesting to happen exactly when the shutter fires.

Some of you may doubt this, but all of the production copies of the 200-400 I have seen clearly had fairies.

[PackLight]

So the intent and options in this thread are;

Wait for a lens that doesn't exist yet. Debate how great it will be compared to one of Canon's premier lens.

Or buy the great 400mm F/2.8.

I think I would go with the lens that you can actually take pictures with.

[Positron]

What's PF (on the AF/MF switch)?

[neuroanatomist]

What's PF (on the AF/MF switch)?

Power focus. It's a video thing. 

[vkiran]

I'd go with the 400 2.8. I shoot wildlife & birds and loathe the loss of sharpness a non prime with or without extender would bring. If reach is the thing 400, 500 and 600 primes are the best.