Having met with Andy a few times, been on a couple of his workshops, and heard him be derogatory about other kit - he's pretty much as straight as they come - so I'd be surprised if he was affected by the Canon marketing machine - he may have kept quiet had he hated the lens but I don't believe, based on personal experience of him, that he'd mislead us all. The review is not politically correct in it's irreverent manner either, his enthusiasm really shines through, and that is Andy to a tee, when he loves something he goes bonkers about it - in this case both Shakira and the 200 - 400 lenseml58 said:
I don't know Andy well, having only met him a couple of times, but he certainly isn't one to hide his opinions. I also don't think he'd say something good about equipment just to get access to more. I attended a talk by him and Laurie Campbell (who is a totally different character) a couple of years ago and he was very vocal about Canon's "issues", particularly the IQ at high ISO, which he uses a lot and is one reason he like the D3 and D3s and pushes people to push the ISO. On the other hand, even though Laurie shoots with a D3(s) (and has always shot Nikon, even in the days of film), his mantra is always to use the lowest ISO possible for optimal IQ. Having said all that, I imagine that if he didn't like 200-400, he'd have simply kept quiet, rather than say how bad it was, purely because he has previously said how much he liked the 1Dx and has therefore comitted himself back to Canon (at least for now). Of course, when a lens costs that much, no company is likely to send out something that is less than what it could be. It probably won't be a match for the large primes, but I bet it's pretty close, to the point that only pixel peepers will notice the difference.DavidGMiles said:
eml58 said:
I guess I didn't have my notifications turned on - I had and loved the f/4 IS for years and it's a solidly built lens, but the 2.8 IS II is built like a tank. There is almost no plastic and the lens barrel feels really thick and sturdy. You have to hold the two side-by-side to get the true feeling, but it seems like the f/4 was built for outdoor photographers and the f/2.8 for war photographers. I'm not sure if it would be any tougher in practice, but it just feels really solid, like the 800mm f/5.6 I borrowed from CPS. I'm thinking the 200-400 will be a similar upgrade from the 100-400.insanitybeard said:
