-
UPDATE
The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being. I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure. ------------------------------------------------------------
Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
- Thread starter sanj
- Start date
- Status
Yikes ... the look on that Lioness face is definitely more than an intent ... scary. In 2008, we had gone to Al-Ain Zoo in UAE, and while my youngest son & I were recording a few lions in the distance, with our camcorder, a lioness who we had not noticed suddenly jumped up at us from the pit ... she reached just short of 3 or 4 feet of our level ... I was scared sh!tless for a few seconds, coz I never expected it to jump that high ... so I can understand your anxiety when you say you "squeezed off pretty quick" ;Deml58 said:
Upvote
0
Rienzphotoz said:
They don't call them the silent killers for nothing, we do tend to become a little complacent around these Animals in Zoos or when we are in vehicles, we tend to think the Barriers, real or not, will protect us, of course the Animals have a completely different spin on the situation, for them the Barriers are just something between them and the next meal.
I'm glad though your Boy and yourself got away with nothing more than a scare, some don't.
We had an incident at Mombo Camp in 2011, the local Lion Pride, about 11 Females & Young Males, had taken to herding Impala into the Camp area using the Walkways & Buildings as a funnel to push animals onto an Ambush (happened 3 times in the 14 days we stayed there), My Eldest Son & I were caught in the gift Shop with a couple others while Lions roamed around up on the walkways and fed on 3 Impala they had killed inside the Camp area, my youngest son was still in our Room , fortunately our Guide grabbed a vehicle and went to the room and stayed with my Lad, we were trapped in the Gift Shop for 2 hours, and no credit card, worse, my Camera was in the Room, total bummer.
Upvote
0
For anyone contemplating a Longyearbyen Holiday, this is it, Svalbard in all it's Glory.
1 Bank, 1 Supermarket (quite good actually) & 8 Clothing stores for Cold Hiking/Climbing etc.
Clothing stores outnumber the Bars, which surprised me, seems the ideal place to get totally Bloto.
They do have a superb small Museum, absolutely worth an hour or two, do this before getting Bloto.
Neat, small and not the place to spend more than 48 hours I think, unless you enjoy being Bloto.
Only thing missing from this Image is the Airport, off to the right of the Image and about 3 Kilometres away.
1Dx & 200-400f/4, Shot from the Stockholm tied up at the Coal Dock opposite side of the Harbour, IS on to counteract being slightly Bloto.
1 Bank, 1 Supermarket (quite good actually) & 8 Clothing stores for Cold Hiking/Climbing etc.
Clothing stores outnumber the Bars, which surprised me, seems the ideal place to get totally Bloto.
They do have a superb small Museum, absolutely worth an hour or two, do this before getting Bloto.
Neat, small and not the place to spend more than 48 hours I think, unless you enjoy being Bloto.
Only thing missing from this Image is the Airport, off to the right of the Image and about 3 Kilometres away.
1Dx & 200-400f/4, Shot from the Stockholm tied up at the Coal Dock opposite side of the Harbour, IS on to counteract being slightly Bloto.
Attachments
Upvote
0
A good thing about living in Longyearbyen (By the way, "byen" means city or town) is that you don´t have to worry about your garden over growing while you´re awayRienzphotoz said:
Upvote
0
Frankly, I'm just not seeing excellent images from the 200-400mm: most images posted on the Internet taken with this lens could have been taken with a 100-400mm costing a tenth of the price and a fraction of the size/weight. The latest generation of Canon 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses, in comparison, deliver images that sparkle. If you need focal length versatility, go for a long prime and mid-range zoom. I'd be happy to be proved wrong!
Upvote
0
Then I believe you should look some more. There is absolutely no doubt that the 200-400 outperforms the 100-400 by a significant margin. It is much closer to the great white primes (300, 400, 500, 600) than it is to the 100-400.mikea said:
Most of the images you see on the internet are significantly reduced in size, with everything that goes with it. But I can assure you that if you take detailed tours of full size raw files, you´ll see how good this lens is.
Upvote
0
Eldar, I'd rather be shown than assured. 
My particular interest is in bird photography, which is one of the fields in which the 200-400mm is being touted as ideal.
So far, the bird images I've seen taken with this lens all have that 'zoom lens look', lacking the crispness, contrast, colour rendition and bokeh of a high quality prime.
In my experience of reviewing hundreds of thousands of bird images online, these qualities are visible even at web sizes.
If you had to make a living shooting bird images, would you seriously choose your 200-400mm over a 500mm or 600mm prime?
My particular interest is in bird photography, which is one of the fields in which the 200-400mm is being touted as ideal.
So far, the bird images I've seen taken with this lens all have that 'zoom lens look', lacking the crispness, contrast, colour rendition and bokeh of a high quality prime.
In my experience of reviewing hundreds of thousands of bird images online, these qualities are visible even at web sizes.
If you had to make a living shooting bird images, would you seriously choose your 200-400mm over a 500mm or 600mm prime?
Upvote
0
I got the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x for sports and wildlife. For this purpose I believe it is the ultimate lens (at the moment).mikea said:Eldar, I'd rather be shown than assured.
My particular interest is in bird photography, which is one of the fields in which the 200-400mm is being touted as ideal.
So far, the bird images I've seen taken with this lens all have that 'zoom lens look', lacking the crispness, contrast, colour rendition and bokeh of a high quality prime.
In my experience of reviewing hundreds of thousands of bird images online, these qualities are visible even at web sizes.
If you had to make a living shooting bird images, would you seriously choose your 200-400mm over a 500mm or 600mm prime?
For birds I prefer the 600 f4L IS II, often combined with the 1.4xIII extender. But that is not because of optical quality, but for reach. I had the 400mm f2.8L IS II also earlier, but I sold it a while after I got the 200-400, because it is that good. But the 600 stays, because it is a phenomenal lens and it covers a different need.
I don´t know what it takes to convince you, but I have attached the color version of my avatar, shot with a 1DX at 560mm, f5.6, 1/200s and ISO400.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Eldar said:I got the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x for sports and wildlife. For this purpose I believe it is the ultimate lens (at the moment).mikea said:Eldar, I'd rather be shown than assured.
My particular interest is in bird photography, which is one of the fields in which the 200-400mm is being touted as ideal.
So far, the bird images I've seen taken with this lens all have that 'zoom lens look', lacking the crispness, contrast, colour rendition and bokeh of a high quality prime.
In my experience of reviewing hundreds of thousands of bird images online, these qualities are visible even at web sizes.
If you had to make a living shooting bird images, would you seriously choose your 200-400mm over a 500mm or 600mm prime?
For birds I prefer the 600 f4L IS II, often combined with the 1.4xIII extender. But that is not because of optical quality, but for reach. I had the 400mm f2.8L IS II also earlier, but I sold it a while after I got the 200-400, because it is that good. But the 600 stays, because it is a phenomenal lens and it covers a different need.
I don´t know what it takes to convince you, but I have attached the color version of my avatar, shot with a 1DX at 560mm, f5.6, 1/200s and ISO400.
always a pleasure to view your wildlife photos. i really like your lynx shots also.
i know it's a lot of money for that combo and there may be some other setups that will give close to the same results in some circumstances but what you are getting is the assurance of superb results in a changing shooting scenario under any conditions.
i don't think there is any doubt that the 1dx and the 200-400 combo is the best there is at what it does. if i was getting paid to take wildlife photos in harsh conditions and every shot counts then this is what i would want to have with me
Upvote
0
mikea said:
Hi Mikea, you wouldn't be AvTvM or Michael in another life would you ?? I mean, your 3rd Post on CR & you come onto a Thread specifically set up for people to discuss the merits & or handling of the 200-400, post their Images etc, and dump on the Images & the Lens in question, not bad for a 3rd time Poster.
But, if we treat your Post with a modicum of respect, yes, almost all the Images you find taken with the 200-400f/4 could be to some degree emulated using the 100-400f/4-5.6 with a 1.4x converter (200-400f/4 of course isn't able to emulate the 100-400 at less than 200, clearly), I disagree though that in right hands you are going to get anywhere near the same IQ from the 100-400 that you will get from the 200-400, and having owned (and given away) the 100-400 & currently own the 200-400, I, unlike yourself, speak from experience.
If your serious (and I doubt you are) about wanting to discern the IQ difference between the two, it's simple really, hire both & go out and take some Images side by side & see if your prepared to make the financial commitment of the 200-400 over the 100-400, it just seems to me to be a smarter method of determining the Pros & Cons of each Lens prior to the commitment, than reviewing Photos on the Internet.
Fortunately for Canon there aren't too many people out in the real World that share your opinion, currently the 200-400f/4 is basically a back order almost anywhere you can find the Lens, and that's at US$16k compared to the 100-400f/4 at what ?? US1.6k, I wonder why all those Wildlife & Sport photographers are prepared to pay the huge premium to own the 200-400 over the 100-400, Oh yes I know, they clearly have no idea about how best to select gear, more money than Brains, didn't listen to mikea.
I've seen very little on the web re the 200-400f/4 being the ideal Lens for BIF Imaging, I've seen a load on the Web about the 600f/4, 600f/4 + 1.4x, 800f/5.6 being the ideal BIF lenses. And my own experience supports this view, the 200-400 is an amazing Lens for Wildlife & I imagine Sports, but for BIF it can't compare to the 600f/4 + 1.4x, and I own & use that Combo as well, so again, I speak from experience.
Maybe instead of spending your time on the internet reviewing those Thousands if Bird Images you might take some time out & go take some Images yourself with the 100-400f/4 & the 200-400f/4 (Hire them for a few days) & Post them here so we can be convinced you have any idea of what your talking about, I mean this only in a respectful manner of course, I'de love you to be able to convince me, I'm really not interested in convincing you.
Upvote
0
Eldar said:
Really Eldar, I thought the B&W was lovely, this is Superb, pity you didn't use the 100-400, you could have saved yourself....$15k ??
I have to come up there some time for some of these Lynx & Wolf Image opportunities, really Lovely stuff.
Upvote
0
Absolutely lovely! Both the BW and colour versions are great.Eldar said:I got the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x for sports and wildlife. For this purpose I believe it is the ultimate lens (at the moment).mikea said:Eldar, I'd rather be shown than assured.
My particular interest is in bird photography, which is one of the fields in which the 200-400mm is being touted as ideal.
So far, the bird images I've seen taken with this lens all have that 'zoom lens look', lacking the crispness, contrast, colour rendition and bokeh of a high quality prime.
In my experience of reviewing hundreds of thousands of bird images online, these qualities are visible even at web sizes.
If you had to make a living shooting bird images, would you seriously choose your 200-400mm over a 500mm or 600mm prime?
For birds I prefer the 600 f4L IS II, often combined with the 1.4xIII extender. But that is not because of optical quality, but for reach. I had the 400mm f2.8L IS II also earlier, but I sold it a while after I got the 200-400, because it is that good. But the 600 stays, because it is a phenomenal lens and it covers a different need.
I don´t know what it takes to convince you, but I have attached the color version of my avatar, shot with a 1DX at 560mm, f5.6, 1/200s and ISO400.
Upvote
0
Ok, this isn't a Bird in Flight, I know the difference.
But this Female Cheetah is running down a Thompson's Gazelle at somewhere between 80kph & 100kph, I'm no BIF photographer in any way, I leave that up to People like Gary Samples who does an excellent job of it, but I don't think too many BIF are any more difficult to Photograph than this situation. And I don't for one moment say that this Image is an amazing Cheetah in Flight Image, but the 200-400f/4 does this amazingly well and in this Image you have the disadvantage of Tall Grass to get in the way of the Lenses ability to focus on the subject, not something you generally have to worry too much about with BIF.
To shoot this with the 100-400f/4-5.6, you would need the 1.4x converter attached and then your shooting an Animal running @ 100kph @ f/8, not an impossible task I admit but a lot more difficult than it seems, but the 200-400f/4 in this instance was on the 1Dx 560mm f/5.6 1/2000th ISO800 and just handled it supremely well, I don't think the 100-400 could have done it as well, but, I didn't have the 100-400 so it's conjecture, based on experience, mine.
Could the 100-400 have done it, I'm sure it could have, I'm just glad I had the 200-400 instead so I was more sure of getting The Shot.
But this Female Cheetah is running down a Thompson's Gazelle at somewhere between 80kph & 100kph, I'm no BIF photographer in any way, I leave that up to People like Gary Samples who does an excellent job of it, but I don't think too many BIF are any more difficult to Photograph than this situation. And I don't for one moment say that this Image is an amazing Cheetah in Flight Image, but the 200-400f/4 does this amazingly well and in this Image you have the disadvantage of Tall Grass to get in the way of the Lenses ability to focus on the subject, not something you generally have to worry too much about with BIF.
To shoot this with the 100-400f/4-5.6, you would need the 1.4x converter attached and then your shooting an Animal running @ 100kph @ f/8, not an impossible task I admit but a lot more difficult than it seems, but the 200-400f/4 in this instance was on the 1Dx 560mm f/5.6 1/2000th ISO800 and just handled it supremely well, I don't think the 100-400 could have done it as well, but, I didn't have the 100-400 so it's conjecture, based on experience, mine.
Could the 100-400 have done it, I'm sure it could have, I'm just glad I had the 200-400 instead so I was more sure of getting The Shot.
Attachments
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
