LensRentals.com Tests the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

Status
Not open for further replies.

Canon Rumors

Who Dey
Canon Rumors Premium
Jul 20, 2010
12,624
5,441
279,596
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/2013/06/lensrentals-com-tests-the-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x/"></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/2013/06/lensrentals-com-tests-the-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>From LensRentals.com

</strong>Roger over at <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com" target="_blank">LensRentals.com</a> has taken some time to test a variety of Canon 400mm lenses, including the new EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x.</p>
<p><strong>Roger’s initial take…</strong>

<em>“I can’t say whether it’s worth the price or not, but I can certainly say it’s the sharpest zoom lens I’ve ever seen, with image quality rivaling the most expensive primes.”</em></p>
<p>He did note however, that the 200-400 is a bit shorter at the long end than the EF 400 f/2.8L IS II. They’ve come to the initial conclusion that it’s about 95% of the 400 2.8 primes focal length.</p>
<div id="attachment_13672" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/200400imatest1.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-13672" alt="IMATEST Results for Canon 400mm Lenses" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/200400imatest1.jpg" width="575" height="140" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">IMATEST Results for Canon 400mm Lenses</p></div>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/canon-200-400mm-f4-is-quick-comparison" target="_blank">Read the post at LensRentals.com</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><strong>Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x $11,799</strong>

</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong><strong>USA: </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> | <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> | <a href="http://www.normancamera.com/index/page/product/product_id/28468/product_name/Canon+EF+200-400mm+f4L+IS+USM+Lens+with+Internal+1.4x+Extender" target="_blank">Norman Camera</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><strong>Canada: </strong><a href="http://www.cameracanada.com/enet-cart/product.asp?pid=5176B002" target="_blank">Camera Canada</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><strong>Europe: </strong><a href="http://www.photocineshop.com/fr/vente/products/Canon-EF-200-400-mm-f-4L-IS-USM-Multiplicateur-1-4X-integre-WB0RS5?search=200-400&page=1" target="_blank">PhotoCineShop</a></strong></li>
</ul>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
 
Nice to see the data. I've been saying for years that the 400F5.6 is way sharper than the 100-400F5.6... Roger's test data certainly confirms that. I'm surprised at how close it is to the 400F2.8, I always knew it was a good lens.

That said, I still think a 400II lens with fluorite element and IS would be a fantastic update to the Canon lineup, even if it was in the $2500 range....
 
Upvote 0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
As usual, performance increase is not proportional to price increase. Its really difficult to get a significant performance increase.

At the upper end of lens design you can probably expect more than doubling the price for a less than 10 percent increase...
 
Upvote 0
This is just one set of measurements under sub-optimal conditions. It is remarkable how the data on the 400mm f/5.6 conflict with Canon's own MTF charts and measurements by Photozone.de and SLRGear.

Here is a collage of Canon's MTF charts, The 200-400 is pretty remarkable, to say the least.
 

Attachments

  • 400mm.jpg
    400mm.jpg
    411.4 KB · Views: 2,181
Upvote 0
AlanF said:
This is just one set of measurements under sub-optimal conditions. It is remarkable how the data on the 400mm f/5.6 conflict with Canon's own MTF charts and measurements by Photozone.de and SLRGear.

Yeah I always noted that the 400 f/5.6 MTF from Canon always looked solid but not amazing and yet over the years people have posted some sample shots, 100% crops, that looked pretty remarkably super-tele-like crisp.
 
Upvote 0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
AlanF said:
This is just one set of measurements under sub-optimal conditions. It is remarkable how the data on the 400mm f/5.6 conflict with Canon's own MTF charts and measurements by Photozone.de and SLRGear.

Yeah I always noted that the 400 f/5.6 MTF from Canon always looked solid but not amazing and yet over the years people have posted some sample shots, 100% crops, that looked pretty remarkably super-tele-like crisp.

It all depends on how much of the frame the subject fills. The big white prime superteles can get a sharp image from 700x700 pixels. I need about 1400x1400 pixels or more from the 100-400mm to get equivalent sharpness. If I then post a 100% crop at that level it can look stunning. But, I need to be at half the distance away that the 200-400 or the 400mm f/2.8 would have to be.
 
Upvote 0
AlanF said:
This is just one set of measurements under sub-optimal conditions. It is remarkable how the data on the 400mm f/5.6 conflict with Canon's own MTF charts and measurements by Photozone.de and SLRGear.

Here is a collage of Canon's MTF charts, The 200-400 is pretty remarkable, to say the least.

Looking at Roger's data compared to the Canon MTF curves for the 400 II vs the 200-400 @ 400mm, something doesn't add up - significant difference on Canon's MTF, no real difference in Roger's test...
 
Upvote 0
The 200-400 is a nice lens no doubt, but for that kind of money, I'll continue saving my pennies for the 400 2.8. With my 1.4 tc, I'll still be a stop faster. The 200-400 is, I'm sure a great lens, but I don't quite see the value per dollar, if it was ~5-7K, I would have been among the 1st to order one....
 
Upvote 0
AlanF said:
This is just one set of measurements under sub-optimal conditions. It is remarkable how the data on the 400mm f/5.6 conflict with Canon's own MTF charts and measurements by Photozone.de and SLRGear.

Here is a collage of Canon's MTF charts, The 200-400 is pretty remarkable, to say the least.

Wow, I just looked at the data a little closer. That is very strange! Not sure what to think now. No doubt a great lens but?
 
Upvote 0
Stone said:
The 200-400 is a nice lens no doubt, but for that kind of money, I'll continue saving my pennies for the 400 2.8. With my 1.4 tc, I'll still be a stop faster. The 200-400 is, I'm sure a great lens, but I don't quite see the value per dollar, if it was ~5-7K, I would have been among the 1st to order one....

Without the 1.4, perhaps under $9K. Nikon's is just under $7K but they were to re-introduce the lens it would be closer to $10K. Just look at the Nikon's new 800 at $17,900 ::)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.