I, too, don't quite get the idea behind this lens.
Specifically, I'm having a hard time figuring out how it's better than the classical combination of a 400 f/2.8 on one body plus a 70-200 f/2.8 on another body. Most of the time you'd want to exclusively cover the range between 200 and 400 you'd be shooting with a 300 and only a 300. Most of the rest of the time that you want the flexibility of a zoom, you don't want to be stopped at 200 at the wide end -- and cropping from where the 70-200 ends to where the 400 begins isn't a problem. Similarly, cropping from 400 to what you get at 560 isn't a problem -- or, if it is, you slap on the 1.4x on the 400 and now you've got not a 560 f/5.6 but a 560 f/4. And pardon me if I don't exactly feel a thrill when I think of a 100-500 f/5.6.
And all of those crop considerations go double seeing how the stop of DoF shallowness you loose by shooting at f/4 is basically the same as what you get by shooting at f/2.8 and cropping. All you're left with by using the 200-400 is a few extra megapickles in a world where we're already swimming in megapickles to spare.
And, oh-by-the-way, with the two-body setup you've got your backup body right there at the ready. With the 200-400...do you still have a 70-200 on a backup body? If so, how is the 200-400 better than the 400 f/2.8?
I'm just not getting it, obviously....
But, still. I understand that it's got great image quality. But so does the 400 and the 70-200....
Maybe it's really just meant as a replacement for a 300 f/2.8? That I could see. But I'd still think that the preferred replacement for a 300 f/2.8 would be 70-200 plus 400....
I could also see this as a replacement for the 100-400 -- but not at ten times the price! (Not that the price for the 200-400 1.4x is unjustified; it seems quite reasonable. I just mean that though it's functionally a good candidate to consider as a replacement for the 100-400, financially it's in an altogether different league. Kinda like how the 400 f/5.6 and the 400 f/2.8 are functionally somewhat kinda sorta comparable but not at all financially comparable.)
I just don't get it....
b&
Specifically, I'm having a hard time figuring out how it's better than the classical combination of a 400 f/2.8 on one body plus a 70-200 f/2.8 on another body. Most of the time you'd want to exclusively cover the range between 200 and 400 you'd be shooting with a 300 and only a 300. Most of the rest of the time that you want the flexibility of a zoom, you don't want to be stopped at 200 at the wide end -- and cropping from where the 70-200 ends to where the 400 begins isn't a problem. Similarly, cropping from 400 to what you get at 560 isn't a problem -- or, if it is, you slap on the 1.4x on the 400 and now you've got not a 560 f/5.6 but a 560 f/4. And pardon me if I don't exactly feel a thrill when I think of a 100-500 f/5.6.
And all of those crop considerations go double seeing how the stop of DoF shallowness you loose by shooting at f/4 is basically the same as what you get by shooting at f/2.8 and cropping. All you're left with by using the 200-400 is a few extra megapickles in a world where we're already swimming in megapickles to spare.
And, oh-by-the-way, with the two-body setup you've got your backup body right there at the ready. With the 200-400...do you still have a 70-200 on a backup body? If so, how is the 200-400 better than the 400 f/2.8?
I'm just not getting it, obviously....
But, still. I understand that it's got great image quality. But so does the 400 and the 70-200....
Maybe it's really just meant as a replacement for a 300 f/2.8? That I could see. But I'd still think that the preferred replacement for a 300 f/2.8 would be 70-200 plus 400....
I could also see this as a replacement for the 100-400 -- but not at ten times the price! (Not that the price for the 200-400 1.4x is unjustified; it seems quite reasonable. I just mean that though it's functionally a good candidate to consider as a replacement for the 100-400, financially it's in an altogether different league. Kinda like how the 400 f/5.6 and the 400 f/2.8 are functionally somewhat kinda sorta comparable but not at all financially comparable.)
I just don't get it....
b&
Upvote
0
