400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4

[SambalOelek]

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

 

[Eldar]

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 ...

 

[Dylan777]

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

 

[davidgator]

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]

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

 

[J.R.]

How would the 400 2.8 with a 2XII stack up with the 200-400 @ 400 with a 2XII? Just curious.

 

[Loswr]

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

 

[J.R.]

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.

 

[expatinasia]

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 ). 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.

 

[expatinasia]

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)

 

[J.R.]

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

 

[Loswr]

Canon has delivered an almost perfect zoom lens here

+1. They're not afraid to charge for it, either...

 

[Apop]

@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 !

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

 

[eml58]

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

 

[eml58]

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]

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

 

[J.R.]

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?

 

[Darlip]

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.

 

[Dylan777]

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