Anybody here have a 200-400 with 1.4 tele? What you think of it?

[LovePhotography]

Is the sharpness worth the weight, size, and price?
Background- I just shoot for fun because it's safer than Prozac. And, I like sharpness. But, I also like money in the bank.
Any comments from owners/users appreciated.
Thanks

 

[mselby]

I have both a Nikon D4S and a Canon 1DX. For the type of action shooting that I do which is sports and action movie sets, I prefer the Nikon. For me the autofocus seems to be more accurate than the 1DX.
Having said that I find myself using the 1DX more and more because of the 200-400 Canon lens. Sharpness and focus speed are outstanding as is color balance and contrast. I have a wide range of Canon and Nikon lenses, but except for the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 and the Canon 200 mm f/2 they don't produce on the level of the Canon 200 - 400.
Mike

 

[FEBS]

The 200-400 is a real investment. But it is also an excellent lens. It's very sharp. Yes it's heavy. handholding is not possible for everyone. 200-400 + 1Dx is about 5kg. So, that really needs good technique to hold that lens. Focus speed on the 1Dx is also very good. I think that my 300 2.8 mk2 is a little faster, but don't have the feeling I will be missing shots by that. AF accurancy is top of the world for the 1Dx and 200-400. AF Speed is at least comparable with the 70-200 2.8 mk2. Background isolation is also very good. Of course the 300 and 400 2.8s might still do a little better. I never do movies with my dslrs, so only stills. I mostly use this lens for sports and wildlife.

I never owned the 100-400 but when I compare with friends with that lens then I love to carry and hold that weight and size. I'm very confident I will get the shot I want. Until now (only 3 weeks I have this beast), it never let me down. Always nice pictures. Will post photos in October when I'm back from safari with this lens.

Concerning price, that is another question. Yes I have the photo I want, yes in a good quality due toe sharpness and AF performance of that lens. Does this mean the price difference is OK. It really depends. I'm only a hobby photo shooter. From the other hand, that lens and a good insurances guaranties me also that the real investment is much lower as 12k because I will get a lot of money when this baby gets sold one day. Money on the bank is nice, as a security. However from financial point of view it is not worth to let your money stand on the bank right now. So, I decided to take that risk, and do enjoy now every day of that lens.

 

[LovePhotography]

Well, I dropped some mula yesterday, but despite getting a great offer below $10k on the 200-400 1.4, at the last minute I decided to get a new ef 300 2.8 II. (I've already got a 2 x TCIII to take it to 600mm).

Reason for 200-400- It's a zoom. Don't have to remove to add teleconvertor. Miss fewer shots when the action comes to your side of the field.

Reasons for 300- will be the highest DxO rating of any lens I've got, and higher than the 200-400.
Smaller than zoom.
Less expensive by $3000.
Seems by reports to work well with TC's.
f 2.8 so faster.

I really like zooms for framing, but I like resolution, too. So, we'll see.
Thanks for all the advice.