Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...

[sanj]

Thank you Elm for posting your lovely photos. I am in Thailand currently on work and my other photos from this lens are in my main computer at office. Will post after a month when I return.

 

[eml58]

Thank you Elm for posting your lovely photos. I am in Thailand currently on work and my other photos from this lens are in my main computer at office. Will post after a month when I return.

Hi Sanj, Look forward to it, enjoy Thailand.

And no more animal humping Images

Hope you've noticed the issues ongoing in Nairobi ?? I visited this Mall with my Son in March earlier this year while on the way to the Masai Mara, will be bypassing Nairobi in future, Fly in Fly out same day, Same for Dar Es Salam.

Attached Bear Yawning, 1Dx + 200-400f/4, Shot from the Deck of the Stockholm, Northern Svalbard

 

[Sella174]

Sella174 ?? Feel free to be yourself, witty, sarcastic & critical.

It seems you misconstrued my posts in this thread. I am sure the 200-400mm is an excellent lens, with a definite niche application. What I meant was that once a lens reaches a certain standard and does not inhibit the photographer through design defects, it is unimportant what lens is used to produce a good photograph ... just because the OP's three photos were taken with the newly introduced 200-400mm lens, doesn't mean we should now oooh and aaah and vwd. Ultimately, even though this is the CanonRumors forum, when evaluating photographs, gear should be unimportant.

 

[Northstar]

Hoping to see some super photos from this versatile lens! Also any reviews.
Sanjay

great photo of the cheetah sanj !

 

[Northstar]

Bob: "Look, a fish eagle! Hey, aren't you going to take a picture?"
Sella: "Nah, I took a picture of a fish eagle in 2004 in RAW format ... I just keep reprocessing that everytime Adobe upgrades Lightroom."

that's actually quite funny! ;D

 

[eml58]

It's always a possibility that I did misconstrue Sell174, and if I did you have my apology for my flippant remark.

I believe Sanj's motivation re this new Thread though may rather have been just to start a thread regards a new & very interesting Lens, the 200-400f4.

If you had taken the time to look at some of Sanj's other Posts, you would have found that Sanj doesn't look for the "Ohhs " Aghs", like most of us he's looking for positive critique and engagement regards the subject, the Lens, and to a lesser degree, the Images.

Your comments I've noticed Sella174 are often critical and acerbic, but definitely not always as I notice you have excellent technical input at times, I've not noticed any Posted Images (you may well have & I've simply not noticed), but that's fine of course just a little unusual that someone critiques an-others Images without first offering up some of their own for evaluation.

Saying "Sorry" when you dump on someones Images in the guise of being "helpfully critical" doesn't lessen the harshness of the criticisms, it's still painful to receive.

I'de like to suggest that you could have made the comments re "poorly cropped, angled etc etc" without being quite so offhandedly brusque.

But this is simply my opinion, feel free to ignore it completely, try though to keep in mind when your dealing with Peoples Images any critique aught to be considered, positive & thoughtful, just a view of course.

 

[eml58]

Svalbard August 2013
1Dx & 200-400f/4

 

[eli72]

It's always a possibility that I did misconstrue Sell174, and if I did you have my apology for my flippant remark.

I believe Sanj's motivation re this new Thread though may rather have been just to start a thread regards a new & very interesting Lens, the 200-400f4.

If you had taken the time to look at some of Sanj's other Posts, you would have found that Sanj doesn't look for the "Ohhs " Aghs", like most of us he's looking for positive critique and engagement regards the subject, the Lens, and to a lesser degree, the Images.

Your comments I've noticed Sella174 are often critical and acerbic, but definitely not always as I notice you have excellent technical input at times, I've not noticed any Posted Images (you may well have & I've simply not noticed), but that's fine of course just a little unusual that someone critiques an-others Images without first offering up some of their own for evaluation.

Saying "Sorry" when you dump on someones Images in the guise of being "helpfully critical" doesn't lessen the harshness of the criticisms, it's still painful to receive.

I'de like to suggest that you could have made the comments re "poorly cropped, angled etc etc" without being quite so offhandedly brusque.

But this is simply my opinion, feel free to ignore it completely, try though to keep in mind when your dealing with Peoples Images any critique aught to be considered, positive & thoughtful, just a view of course.

+1

 

[Eldar]

Sella174 ?? Feel free to be yourself, witty, sarcastic & critical.

It seems you misconstrued my posts in this thread. I am sure the 200-400mm is an excellent lens, with a definite niche application. What I meant was that once a lens reaches a certain standard and does not inhibit the photographer through design defects, it is unimportant what lens is used to produce a good photograph ... just because the OP's three photos were taken with the newly introduced 200-400mm lens, doesn't mean we should now oooh and aaah and vwd. Ultimately, even though this is the CanonRumors forum, when evaluating photographs, gear should be unimportant.

I disagree totally! One of the reasons for trawling forums like this is to seek other people´s experience with certain equipment. This is the Caononrumors, where Canon users meet. it is not the Outdoor photography forum, or the Sunrise and Sunset forum. We like the technology.

I read reviews, but I find the posted experiences from real users and the images they make very useful, especially when they post the images and not just write about them. Yes, we are probably too consumed in the technology from time to time, but that is part of the hobby. Knowing what body, lens, settings etc. used on a particular image improves my ability to imagine what the shutter-pushing-moment was like and thus helps me judge the picture and assess if the equipment is tempting or not.

As an example, I saw Nick Brandt´s exhibition of portraits of African animals. Phenomenal pictures, which you all should try to see, and I had to see it three times. But I am still a bit irritated that he does not reveal what equipment and the specific techniques he is using to get them, other than short focal lengths, medium format and film. I could tell from close inspection that he is using something close to a normal focal length tilt&shift lens to shoot a portrait of a wild male lion. That would be interesting to get the experience/technology/technique story around.

I hope elm58 will tell us some more of his experiences with the 200-400 lens, when he has been using it for a while. I am seriously thinking of buying it, but I need to hear more from the users and see more of their images first. So please guys, you lucky enough to have the lens, impress us with images and tell us if we should buy this baby

And Sanj, I really liked your cheetah and your lions. Keep more coming!

 

[Sella174]

Saying "Sorry" when you dump on someones Images in the guise of being "helpfully critical" doesn't lessen the harshness of the criticisms, it's still painful to receive.

I'de like to suggest that you could have made the comments re "poorly cropped, angled etc etc" without being quite so offhandedly brusque.

You are choosing too low a value in quality at your save as jpeg step.

It is called posterization and is very common, it has nothing to do with camera settings or your other processing. Do it again but save the jpeg at over 80% quality, sometimes you even need to use 100%.

??? ??? ???

 

[eml58]

I hope elm58 will tell us some more of his experiences with the 200-400 lens, when he has been using it for a while.

Hi Eldar, I'll give it a go, no review, but my experience to date.

On Nick Brandt, I agree, what an amazing Photographer, I've tried to replicate his work, no success, I've bought his Books and as you say, amazing Images but no indications on how he does what he does, although he does say he doesn't use PS to achieve the results.

I've had the 200-400f/4 from day of release, had a Pre Order in at Cathay Photo in Singapore a year prior to actual release.

To date I've had the Lens on 3 Trips/safaris, Northern South Africa (Mala Mala & Londolozi) Tanzania & The Serengeti and recently to Svalbard.

When I first picked up the Lens, I ran alongside Tests against 4 of the other lenses that I own/owned at the time, 200f/2 L, 300f/2.8 L II, 400f/2.8 L II & 600f/4 L II, I tested each Prime Lens at f/4 & f/5.6 and then shot the 200-400f/4 at similar lengths & f stop (i.e. 200f/2 @ f4 & f/5.6 against the 200-400f/4 @ f/4 & f5.6, 300/400 & 600 Primes same).

What I wanted to see was how the Primes compared against the Zoom for straight sharpness when shot at similar Length & f stop.

Not scientific in any way, just a hands on Test I could conduct at home, I shot the same subject all the way through (A flowering Plant) rather than a Test Sheet.

The results for me showed what I expected to see, The Primes are sharper, but I was surprised at how Marginal that sharpness was, the 200-400f/4 is a very sharp Lens even comparing against the Primes.

I next tried to compare the 200-400 ability to lock Focus when compared to the Primes, to evaluate this I simply had my Lads ride past the front of my House, for about an Hour while I compared the Focus Lock merits of Primes against Zoom.

The Standout Lens was my 300f/2.8 L II, nothing in the listed lenses Locks on as fast or as accurately as this Lens, among the remainder, the 200-400/200/400 & 600, there's really nothing between them, they are all excellent Lenses for Speed of Lock On and Accuracy.

I've now shot the 200-400f/4 on the 3 trips mentioned earlier, that's 30 thousand Images with the 200-400f/4, against that I've had either/and the 300f/2.8, 400f/2.8 or the 600f/4 alongside on a trip (not all Lenses on all trips), but the 200-400 + one of the other Lenses (although I always bring the 300f/2.8 ).

The only place I find the f/2.8 an advantage, is Low Light, dawn/dusk, and the ability of the f/2.8 Lens to Lock Focus quicker than the 200-400f/4, and that makes sense as the Lens is Focussing wide open and doesn't shut down to the chosen f/stop until you actually take the shot, so the f/2.8 Lenses are able to focus using twice as much light.

But where the 200-400 absolutely murders the Primes, is it's sheer versatility, the ability to be at 560mm f/5.6 then begin zooming back all the time keeping the subject locked in focus, perfectly framed to reduce the need to crop, flip the converter out at 400 and Zoom back out to 200, all with the same Rig.

Previously to do this I had 3 Rigs set up, 1Dx + 600, 1Dx + 400 & 5DMK3 + 200 (or 300) and I found myself exchanging Rigs as the Subject moved closer, or farther away, workable, but a PIA.

For the style of Photography that I personally prefer, Wildlife, the 200-400f/4 is a must have Lens that is as Sharp as you need, Locks Focus amazingly well and the finished Images require less cropping etc.

I still use my Primes, the 600 + 1.4x Converter, the 300f/2.8 L II for those Dawn/Dusk shots, I'll be buried with my 200f/2 but I've sold my 400f/2.8 L II.

If I had to choose one of these Lenses to keep and use only that Lens ?? I wouldn't hesitate keeping the 200-400f/4, fortunately I don't need to make that decision.

But, if I was a BIF Photographer, it would be the 600 + 1.4x the 200-400 isn't long enough for small birds, and the 600 + 1.4x (840 @ f/5.6) is still slightly sharper than the 200-400 with 1.4x in place (560 @ f/5.6).

I've tried the 200-400 with built in 1.4x engaged + 1.4x Converter, Images are Ok, not great, Ok.

With the 200-400 with built in 1.4x Engaged + 2x Converter, Images are simply horrible.

If your into Sports Photography ? 200-400f/4 is a great Lens, but you may miss the f/2.8, 400f/2.8 may be a better choice.

Wildlife in General, my view the 200-400f/4 is the best Lens available.

BIF, maybe the 600f/4 plus the 1.4x

Hope this is of some use in any future decision making for you, I always liked the nikon 200-400f/4 and was amazed Canon just hadn't produced one, I'm glad they held of as I believe the Canon 200-400f/4 (1.4x) is a step beyond the Nikon Lens (and I have tried them side by side, 1Dx + 200-400f/4 and D3x + 200-400f/4).

 

[Eldar]

Thanks, much appreciated. It seems it is fulfilling the expectations and I´m getting closer to push the order button ...

 

[Eldar]

OK, ... I pushed it ;D :-X

 

[eli72]

OK, ... I pushed it ;D :-X

I don't think that you'll regret it! I haven't had much chance to use mine yet, but the several times I have I have been extremely pleased with the sharpness.

 

[eml58]

OK, ... I pushed it ;D :-X

I don't think that you'll regret it! I haven't had much chance to use mine yet, but the several times I have I have been extremely pleased with the sharpness.

Enjoy the Lens Elder, will be interested to hear your views on the Lens, and see some Images from it.

At times I still enjoy the Primes, and I completely agree with eli72, I don't believe you'll regret the 200-400 it's an amazing Lens.

One thing I didn't mention was weight, and in other reviews comments I've read some feel it's heavy, my own initial feel was I agreed, but while I was in Svalbard shooting primarily from a bouncing Zodiac in reasonable to awful Seas all my Images were Hand Held, it's heavy, but no heavier than the 400f/2.8 L II and because of the lighter front end (f/4 versus f/2.8 ), the weight distribution is more even which helps a lot for hand holding. It's not hand holdable like the 70-200f/2.8 L II, but it's quite good I feel for short sessions.

Enjoy.

 

[lion rock]

Eml58,
I read with delight of your view on the 200-400 f/4.
From your writing, I gather that you like the 600 prime + 2X iii, and can you describe the weight and dimensions of these two lenses? I went to B and H in May and they did not have the 200-400 then, so I wasn't able to try them out side by side.
I would like to hear of your trips with your collection of gear, particularly the 200-400 on airplanes.
My *Minister of Finance* has allocated funds for this lens and I am waiting to see if there may be a sales happening in the next few months as there is a plan to travel to The Land of the Kiwi in late 2014.
I look forward to hearing your view on these!
Thanks.
-r

 

[sanj]

Eml58,
I read with delight of your view on the 200-400 f/4.
From your writing, I gather that you like the 600 prime + 2X iii, and can you describe the weight and dimensions of these two lenses? I went to B and H in May and they did not have the 200-400 then, so I wasn't able to try them out side by side.
I would like to hear of your trips with your collection of gear, particularly the 200-400 on airplanes.
My *Minister of Finance* has allocated funds for this lens and I am waiting to see if there may be a sales happening in the next few months as there is a plan to travel to The Land of the Kiwi in late 2014.
I look forward to hearing your view on these!
Thanks.
-r

I travel with big lenses all the time. I put the lens in a soft case and then put the soft case in a hard top suitcase and check it in. No problems so far.

 

[lion rock]

My concern was due to an incidence that happened a few years ago. One of our graduate student travelled to San Francisco for a conference and on his return trip back to Virginia, he packed his gear in his check-in luggage. His 1D plus gear and memory cards were gone. TSA "reviewed" the tapes and did not see anything out of the ordinary. So, he lost his all his camera stuff. Sad.
I am very uncomfortable with checking in expensive equipment in my travel luggage, and now, traveling on airplanes are even more restrictive, both check-in and carry on. Some airlines restrict carry on to a certain weight and size.
-r

 

[eml58]

My concern was due to an incidence that happened a few years ago. One of our graduate student travelled to San Francisco for a conference and on his return trip back to Virginia, he packed his gear in his check-in luggage. His 1D plus gear and memory cards were gone. TSA "reviewed" the tapes and did not see anything out of the ordinary. So, he lost his all his camera stuff. Sad.
I am very uncomfortable with checking in expensive equipment in my travel luggage, and now, traveling on airplanes are even more restrictive, both check-in and carry on. Some airlines restrict carry on to a certain weight and size.
-r

Hi Lion Rock, I think your right to be concerned.

I find different airlines & different countries tend towards different standards, it's been a bit of a suck it & see.

I typically Carry On 2 x 1Dx Bodies, 1 x 5DMK III Body, 200-400f/4 + 300f/2.8 or 600f/4 + 70-200f/2.8 + 24-70f/2.8, Flashes, additional support gear I check In with my checked luggage, typical carry on weight is 16-18Kgs, a lot more than most allowance. If one of my Lads is travelling with me not such an issue, but on my own the only Airline that I NEVER have a problem with is Singapore Airlines.

Australia, the Nanny State, are hopeless, if it's carry on & over the allowed weight, even if your travelling 1st or Business, you check it, I've had to pull a 1Dx + 300f/2.8 out of a Bag & sling them around my neck to get through as Carry On.

Indonesia, if you state that it's Camera Gear most Airlines will allow you 12 to 15 Kgs, even on checked overweight, if you tell them it's Dive Gear, your generally Ok up to 30Kgs.

Africa, in South Africa they tell you at check in, do not check expensive Camera Gear, having said that I had my worst experience in Tanzania leaving Dar Es Salam on a SAA Flight, Business Class, they removed from me one of my Carry On Bags (I had my son with me so should have been allowed 2 Carry Ons), Long Story short, the Bag never made it to Johannesburg (+ 20k in Camera Gear), luckily 2 weeks later the bag "suddenly" was handed in, this was because I had Politically connected friends in South Africa that threatened Legal Action against the Airline, in Africa it's a real risk to check Camera Gear, very good chance it'll disappear.

My advise is always Carry On where ever possible, book an extra seat for overweight where ever possible (Internal flights in Africa), always always have your gear fully insured.

 

[lion rock]

Eml58,
I saw on a Cathay Pacific from New Zealand to Hong Kong, a passenger was pulled aside because his carry on looked heavy; their carry on limit was 8 kG (if memory serves correctly).

On another occasion, I saw a few guys, think they were pros, with serveral Pelican hardcases carrying video equipment (they claimed), and the airline staff was hassling them for size and weight because these guys only wanted to have the cases as carry on. I can fully symphasize with these pros and their valuable equipment.

I travelled with an Ape Case 1800 carrying 24-70 f/2.8 (I), 70-200 f/2.8 II, 2X (II), a 5D2 or 5D3 body and a laptop, plus various small items. Weights just over 7 kG. I went to HK, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore. So far no problem, with weight or size. Did have to refuse luggage compartment on regional hoppers.
Next trip is HK and then Vietnam in late November.
Hope to get the 200-400 super toy for the expected New Zealand trip in late 2014. Now, that would totally have a weight problem, just have to be creative.

-r