• The Canon Rumors Forum has officially been shut down as of July 10, 2026.

    All data will be deleted on September 16, 2026.

    the ad free experience will return by July 17, 2026.

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
12,874
5,707
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.