Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

Status
Not open for further replies.

Canon Rumors Guy

Canon EOS 40D
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
10,779
3,158
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13494"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13494">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>A great review</strong>
<a href="http://www.andyrouse.co.uk" target="_blank">Andy Rouse</a> has spent 6 months with the new <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x</a> and has posted a pretty extensive real world review.</p>
<p><strong>Says Andy….</strong>

<em>“It is no secret that I am in the Shakira fan club, you know that by now. Its even less of a secret that I am in the 200-400 fan club, in fact I am a fully paid up lifetime member. I just love this lens. As you have seen above, I have really used it hard in a variety of situations during the 6 months I have had it, and it has simply done everything that I have asked. No failures. Nothing to complain about. I have inspected all of the images that I have taken for any distortion, chromatic aberration or lick marks and I can say, hand on one of my two Vulcan hearts, that I did not find any. And remember I have been using a prototype, your production ones will be mint.”</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?page_id=174" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Preorder the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x: <strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a></strong> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA2004004.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CQGF8H6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00CQGF8H6&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
 
It seems like a very nice lens. I have to ask myself though, if his only other choice were using the 100-400 how much different would these shots look? Sure the ISO8000 shots wouldn't have been possible at f/5.6. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of money to gain one stop and IQ. This lens is 10x the cost of the 100-400, but is it 10x a better lens? It will be very interesting to see what an updated 100-400 will bring.
 
Upvote 0

max

Jul 20, 2010
92
27
bchernicoff said:
It seems like a very nice lens. I have to ask myself though, if his only other choice were using the 100-400 how much different would these shots look? Sure the ISO8000 shots wouldn't have been possible at f/5.6. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of money to gain one stop and IQ. This lens is 10x the cost of the 100-400, but is it 10x a better lens? It will be very interesting to see what an updated 100-400 will bring.

It gets more expensive than improvement in IQ all the time.

50 1.8 is 100, the 50mm 1.4 is 400 and the 50mm 1.2 is 1400... is it 14 times better? definetly not.
the 75-300mm is 100, the 70-300mm IS USM is like 500, the 70-300mm L is 1400 bucks... again, 14x better?
 
Upvote 0
Mar 25, 2011
16,848
1,835
bchernicoff said:
It seems like a very nice lens. I have to ask myself though, if his only other choice were using the 100-400 how much different would these shots look? Sure the ISO8000 shots wouldn't have been possible at f/5.6. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of money to gain one stop and IQ. This lens is 10x the cost of the 100-400, but is it 10x a better lens? It will be very interesting to see what an updated 100-400 will bring.

There is little doubt that each time you move to increased lens performance that the law of diminishing returns comes into play. Making larger diameter lenses with much smaller tolerances, hand assembly and extensive calibration make for a crazy price. They can't actually grind the elements accurately enough to just put them into a lens, the elements must be individually matched to each other by testing them. Its a very fine point, but its the only way to get the extra performance.

I'm sure I could tell the difference between one and my 100-400mmL, but it won't be night and day. I had a Tokina 400mm f/5.6 that I bought used for $125. It was only a slight downgrade IQ wise from my L, but the price was 10X less.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,351
22,524
Here is a comparison of the 200-400 mtfs at 400mm and 560mm with the f/2.8 300mm II + 1.4x TC at 420 mm, and the f/2.8 400mm II prime, and then the 200-400mm at 560mm with TC, the 300mm at 600mm with 2xTC, and the 400mm prime with 1.4x TC. I'll stick with the 300mm + TCs as the 200-400 is too heavy for me as well as too pricey. All these lenses seriously outgun the 100-400mm f/5.6, and you see it quite easily in the resolution of detail when you compare them in practice.
 

Attachments

  • 200-400vs2.8.jpg
    200-400vs2.8.jpg
    454.9 KB · Views: 3,061
Upvote 0
max said:
bchernicoff said:
It seems like a very nice lens. I have to ask myself though, if his only other choice were using the 100-400 how much different would these shots look? Sure the ISO8000 shots wouldn't have been possible at f/5.6. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of money to gain one stop and IQ. This lens is 10x the cost of the 100-400, but is it 10x a better lens? It will be very interesting to see what an updated 100-400 will bring.

It gets more expensive than improvement in IQ all the time.

50 1.8 is 100, the 50mm 1.4 is 400 and the 50mm 1.2 is 1400... is it 14 times better? definetly not.
the 75-300mm is 100, the 70-300mm IS USM is like 500, the 70-300mm L is 1400 bucks... again, 14x better?

I can't, nor will I likely ever, be able to speak to the 200-400 1.4X, but the 70-300L isn't just 14x better than the non-L, it's like 140x better. So it's plausible.
 
Upvote 0
I like his photos ... awsome

AA117058c_andyrouse_200400.JPG

YTltxd
 
Upvote 0
Feb 1, 2013
2,169
0
bchernicoff said:
It seems like a very nice lens. I have to ask myself though, if his only other choice were using the 100-400 how much different would these shots look? Sure the ISO8000 shots wouldn't have been possible at f/5.6. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of money to gain one stop and IQ. This lens is 10x the cost of the 100-400, but is it 10x a better lens? It will be very interesting to see what an updated 100-400 will bring.

The law of diminishing returns. Surely no one who ever buys (or even uses) the new 200-400, will ever admit they could achieve similar results with a far less costly lens. Just as someone who has the 100-400, would never admit that a third party lens is optically as good as it, but for half the price. It's amusing to me that all the 100-400 fanboys are positively itching to their very souls, since Nikon's new 80-400 came out...counting the seconds to when they can rush to buy a new Canon "equivalent". When they do buy the "new 100-400", they will be quick to tout how much better it is than the old lens, and how it was worth the upgrade (even if Canon feels the need to offer it at or above $3k...to make sure it's priced higher than the Nikon...for that extra snob appeal and bling factor).

Not to say that the Canon 200-400 is not a fine lens, it looks like it is. For myself, I prefer to shoot wildlife in lower light, and am not currently a pro sports shooter. If I was, then this 200-400 and a 1DX would be the way to go, without a doubt. It's just a shame Nikon beat Canon by about a decade, with their 200-400 f/4. Obviously it does not look comparable in optical quality or performance ergonomics (especially the IS and the T/C switcher), to the Canon...

A similar cost/value comparison could be made between "supercars" and plain old "sports cars". Is the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport 10x better than a Ferrari 458 Italia? To some it might be...to others not. But let's face it. The only difference between the two, while driving legally on public roads, is the bling factor.
 
Upvote 0
What a cool write up to go with the launch - Canon should have him help all of their launches. The photos are incredible and his humor and honesty left me amused and impressed. I have been running the numbers in my head all day - what gear can I sell, how much can I put on my AMEX, etc., for this lens. Alas, I need to get A LOT more paying work before I can afford it.

As for the 100-400 comparison, it is an unfortunate reality that the cost between the great and greatest are so high and the differences so small in relation. This is true of all fine things, though, whether it's cars, watches, amplifiers/speakers, etc. I am sure the build quality is significantly higher, though. In my own experience, I couldn't believe how much better the build of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is over my 70-200 f4 IS - made me realize that there was more to the extra cost than just a tripod mount and an extra stop. I'm sure the same will be true of the 200-400.
 
Upvote 0

charlesa

I shoot with my eye!
Jul 1, 2012
341
0
42
Europe
www.charlespaulazzopardi.com
AlanF said:
Here is a comparison of the 200-400 mtfs at 400mm and 560mm with the f/2.8 300mm II + 1.4x TC at 420 mm, and the f/2.8 400mm II prime, and then the 200-400mm at 560mm with TC, the 300mm at 600mm with 2xTC, and the 400mm prime with 1.4x TC. I'll stick with the 300mm + TCs as the 200-400 is too heavy for me as well as too pricey. All these lenses seriously outgun the 100-400mm f/5.6, and you see it quite easily in the resolution of detail when you compare them in practice.

So basically MTF say 400 with a 1.4 is still sharper than the 200-400?
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,351
22,524
Andy Rouse wrote:
"To be truthful, a better method here is to take the 2x converter, place it gently on the ground so that it is bathed in lovely soft, evening light. Then paint your teeth red and smash it violently to pieces with a large baseball bat, cackling maniacally all the time at passers by. Go on do it, it will feel so good. Now before you think I have an issue against Canon 2x converters I don't! I hate ALL 2x teleconverters equally!!! I consider them a complete waste of space and money, it is always better to use a 1.4x teleconverter and crop. Of course that is just my view!"

That last sentence is opinionated twaddle from the Ken Rockwell school of creative writing. The MTFs for the 2xTC III on the 300mm f/2.8 II are, as seen in the collage I posted, very good and the contrast etc excellent. None of the photos he has posted, as good as they are, show very fine detail as you would see on bird plumage at high resolution. If he took such photos and compared a rezzed up 1.4 with a 2x he would see the advantage of the 2x - my 1.4x TC spends most of its time in its pouch.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.