Owning the Canon 200-400 f/4L Vs 400 f/2.8L II

[GMCPhotographics]

Does anyone know the MFD for the new 200-400 f4 L IS? I can't see a spec anywhere that states it.

 

[ferdi]

Does anyone know the MFD for the new 200-400 f4 L IS? I can't see a spec anywhere that states it.

Only 2 meter according to the focus limiter options.
To compare: 100-400 180cm, 300 f/4 150cm, 400 f/2.8 I 300cm, 400 f/2.8 II 270cm, 500 f/4 II 370cm.
Look like the 200-400 will have a pretty nice MM to go with that MFD.

 

[Moody Blues]

Is anyone here serious about buying the 200-400 if we see a release in the next few weeks?

 

[canon816]

Is anyone here serious about buying the 200-400 if we see a release in the next few weeks?

Absolutely. I do a ton of shooting from a Kayak with 300mm f2.8. I carry a second body and a TC for shorter and longer focal distances. I would LOVE to have that versatility all in one lens and not have to swap bodies or lenses while rocking in a boat.

I have said it before: I would sell my 300f2.8 and 600f4 to fund this lens if the IQ is comparable at 300mm and 560mm. The only thing that would hold me back is if the IQ doesn't deliver....

 

[Robic]

Brace of Canon 200-400 f4L lenses in use at the London 2012 Olympics

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30686359@N02/7764782698/#in/photostream

 

[bdunbar79]

Is anyone here serious about buying the 200-400 if we see a release in the next few weeks?

Absolutely. I do a ton of shooting from a Kayak with 300mm f2.8. I carry a second body and a TC for shorter and longer focal distances. I would LOVE to have that versatility all in one lens and not have to swap bodies or lenses while rocking in a boat.

I have said it before: I would sell my 300f2.8 and 600f4 to fund this lens if the IQ is comparable at 300mm and 560mm. The only thing that would hold me back is if the IQ doesn't deliver....

Well when I'm shooting sports I have to bring 200, 300, and 400 primes. Heck yes I'd buy one or two!

 

[Loswr]

Relative to supertele lenses in the same range, the 200-400 is a nice size. But, 560mm f/5.6 won't be enough for me on FF (although it probably would work on APS-H) - for the 1D X, I think the 600/4 II would suit me better. I'd be unlikely to carry both a 600 and a 200-400, but I'm looking forward to a replacement 100-400 for that range.

 

[KitsVancouver]

Is anyone here serious about buying the 200-400 if we see a release in the next few weeks?

I'm going to get either the 200-400 or the 400 2.8. I'm just a dad wanting to take photos so I don't think I can justify buying more than one big lens. If the IQ is as good as the 70-200 MK II then it will be enough for me to overlook the loss of speed from 2.8.

I'm worried about the QC a tad too as Canon has had many problems with new product launches lately so I might wait a year before buying.

 

[bdunbar79]

Is anyone here serious about buying the 200-400 if we see a release in the next few weeks?

I'm going to get either the 200-400 or the 400 2.8. I'm just a dad wanting to take photos so I don't think I can justify buying more than one big lens. If the IQ is as good as the 70-200 MK II then it will be enough for me to overlook the loss of speed from 2.8.

I'm worried about the QC a tad too as Canon has had many problems with new product launches lately so I might wait a year before buying.

Exactly. I don't think I can realistically replace my 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 though. In sports I need the AF sensor sensitivity as well as the wider than f/4 aperture. It would be an interesting lens though, for well-lit, outdoor sports. And, if you are a dad wanting to take photos, it would be an excellent alternative to the 100-400L zoom lens. We'll see what the price is.

 

[bdunbar79]

When the 200-400 lens becomes available I will be purchasing it or the 400 2.8 prime. The delima of which of these 2 lenses would be more effective is making me mad.

The versatility of the 200-400 with the built in ext will be excellent. To think, though, that with the 1.4X and 2X ext gives you 3 incredibly useful focal lengths is equally incredible.

Owning the 70-200 f/2.8 II and using both ext's on it often, I think that the 200 to 280mm range of the 200-400 would go unused much of the time.

I have owed the 600 f/4 300 f/2.8 and the 200 f/2. Of all of those lenses, the 300 f/2.8 was my favorite.

Has anyone else given this much thought?

The 200-400 f/4L zoom lens cannot REPLACE the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 primes. For most sports shooters, f/4 isn't going to cut it and I've experienced this myself, especially night football where all you have are stadium lights. You also need access to all of the AF sensors in the 1DX and/or 1D Mark IV. All other purposes, yes, it's a great lens and would alleviate the need to buy a 300 and 400 prime perhaps.

 

[charlesa]

When the 200-400 lens becomes available I will be purchasing it or the 400 2.8 prime. The delima of which of these 2 lenses would be more effective is making me mad.

The versatility of the 200-400 with the built in ext will be excellent. To think, though, that with the 1.4X and 2X ext gives you 3 incredibly useful focal lengths is equally incredible.

Owning the 70-200 f/2.8 II and using both ext's on it often, I think that the 200 to 280mm range of the 200-400 would go unused much of the time.

I have owed the 600 f/4 300 f/2.8 and the 200 f/2. Of all of those lenses, the 300 f/2.8 was my favorite.

Has anyone else given this much thought?

The 200-400 f/4L zoom lens cannot REPLACE the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 primes. For most sports shooters, f/4 isn't going to cut it and I've experienced this myself, especially night football where all you have are stadium lights. You also need access to all of the AF sensors in the 1DX and/or 1D Mark IV. All other purposes, yes, it's a great lens and would alleviate the need to buy a 300 and 400 prime perhaps.

Although in theory I agree, it provides useful versatility. I am just back from shooting a waterpolo match, and although the 400 f/2.8 on a 1DX performed like a beaut, not having the second body with the 70-200 or the fisheye made me lose quite a number of shots (second body is being serviced). Just saying, 200-400 is useful versatility wise.

 

[dolina]

I'd go with 200-400 for the following reasons
- zoom range of 200-400 and 280-560
- convenience of a built-in extender
- price is reported to be lower than a 400
- if you want one super tele this would be it

I'd go with the 400 for the following reasons
- f/2.8 for when I need more light or more background/subject seperation
- weight as it is reported to be lighter than the 200-400
- physical length is more often a problem in shipping than physical width
- if you have more than one white prime this would be it

Dimension comparison between the 400, 200-400, 500, 600 and 800.

400's 13.5-inch
200-400's 14.5-inch?
500's 15.1-inch

Reported to be heavier than the 400 (3850g). So does this mean the 200-400 is lighter than the 600 (3920g)?

MFD is below

 

[kirispupis]

It depends on what you are shooting, but for most purposes the 200-400 will be much better. The reason is the magic fairies, the production of which explains why we have not seen the lens announced yet.

It is said for wildlife photographer the fairies will fly out of the lens and enchant the wildlife to stay still and in a good pose for your photo. Similarly for sports photos they will cause something interesting to happen exactly when the shutter fires.

Some of you may doubt this, but all of the production copies of the 200-400 I have seen clearly had fairies.

 

[PackLight]

So the intent and options in this thread are;

Wait for a lens that doesn't exist yet. Debate how great it will be compared to one of Canon's premier lens.

Or buy the great 400mm F/2.8.

I think I would go with the lens that you can actually take pictures with.

 

[Positron]

What's PF (on the AF/MF switch)?

 

[Loswr]

What's PF (on the AF/MF switch)?

Power focus. It's a video thing.

 

[vkiran]

I'd go with the 400 2.8. I shoot wildlife & birds and loathe the loss of sharpness a non prime with or without extender would bring. If reach is the thing 400, 500 and 600 primes are the best.