Canon 400 2.8 II v. 200-400

[CDD28]

I currently have the Canon 400 2.8 II and am considering selling it for a used 200-400. Can those who have used both weigh in on whether this would be a good decision? I've noticed the 200-400 is now the norm on sidelines as the 400 has been becoming a rare sight.

What's drawing me to the 200-400 is the versatility of the zoom. My current setup for field sports now is the 400, the 300 2.8 II and 70-200. With the 200-400, I'd need only that and the 70-200, eliminating the clumsiness of having to quickly change among three cameras.

The cons for the 200-400 for me are the f/4 aperture and the high price due to the built in convertor (a feature I'd never use). Is this lens sharp enough to shoot wide open at f/4 most of the time?

Thoughts?

 

[Eldar]

I have the 200-400f4L IS 1.4x and I had the 400 f2.8L IS II.

I loved the 400 and I still miss the f2.8 now and then. However, I am even more fond of the 200-400. Very versatile and fantastic optical performance. If you pixle peep, I am sure you´ll find that the 400 has the edge, but the quality of the 200-400 is still outstanding, including at f4.0.

The only problem I have with the 200-400 is handholding. It is smaller that the 400 (and 600), but operating the zoom on top of the weight is a issue. If you use a monopod or tripod, that problem goes away of course.

I highly recommend this lens, well worth the money.

 

[lion rock]

Benefits are many.
Drawbacks are 3:
1) Expense.
2) Up to f/4 only. But, the most use it for daytime shooting, not demanding of a larger aperture.
3) Weight. All the weight is concentrated towards the front, not easy to handhold. Use of a supporting device negates shooting fast moving wildlife or flying birds. Though, a rifle-type mount device may spread the weight onto the torso.
You'll love this lens.
-r

 

[AdamBotond]

I have rented the 200-400 1,4x for longer period, have never used 400 is II, though. What I can tell you is that the 200-400 is sharp wide open, you will not feel the need for stopping down. The built in extender is really something you won't appreciate until you try it out. I found myself using that lens mostly at 400 focal length natively and flipping the 1,4x switch, making it 560mm 5.6 most of the time.

I'm also aware of pro sport photographers that did sell their 400 F2.8 for 200-400 1,4 and they are happy with their decision.

By the way, it is my opinion that Canon should really consider making a super telephoto prime, with either one (1,4) or two (1,4+2) built-in extenders. Imagine a 300mm 2.8 prime, that you can make a 400 4.0 or 600 5.6 in a sec with no visible penalty in image quality. Or a native 400 2.8, becoming 640 4.0 or 800 5.6 in a blink of an eye.

 

[Nicolai.b]

I don´t find the 200-400 to heavy to handhold, this is taken handheld (I can´t remember the settings, lost the raw file to a HD headcrash....)



https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolaib/34385763561/in/dateposted-public/