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

[Harry Muff]

Why is there a poll for the Nikon DF at the top?

 

[rpt]

He looks a bit like the family dog, doesn't he?

I suppose so, if your into keeping a Wolf as a Family Pet, Beautiful Animal & a Lovely Capture.

I was about to mention yesterday that he reminded me of our silver German Shepard that we got in 85. And yes, they do have wolf in them. They need space. The flat was not good for it so he went off to a sheep farmer when he was 4.

 

[Eldar]

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.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating ...

I wonder what this would look like with your newly acquired A7R ...

 

[eml58]

I wonder what this would look like with your newly acquired A7R ...

Ha Ha !! Not a chance on a Cold Day in Hell, I doubt the EVF could keep up even with the Animal strolling, but once the actions over, and you want that Beautiful Panorama where the only thing moving are the leaves in the breeze ?? Maybe. I bought the a7r because I've never been Happy with the Canon M, and now v2 M is ...... the same as V1 really, so a7r for the Walk Around Camera in downtown Tokyo etc, plus I have a couple of Zeiss Lenses and I do Love the Zeiss Lenses. And so we convince ourselves.

Why is there a poll for the Nikon DF at the top?

Yes, Good question, I guess I've never noticed it until now.

And yes, they do have wolf in them. They need space. The flat was not good for it so he went off to a sheep farmer when he was 4.

Have you checked lately that the Sheep Farmer is still around ??

In Australia the German Shepard (The Dog I mean) was an illegal Animal from after the 1st World War until the 50's, It was felt that if the German Shepard's (with their Wolf Genes) got into the Dingo population in outback Australia we would have an interbred animal that was capable of devastating the Sheep population, at some point someone decided it was a fanciful idea and allowed the Dogs into Aus. We've had little luck in Aus with introduced species, Rabbits (the long eared variety), Rats, Cane Toads, Fox's, English People (As against the Good Scots & Irish types ), long line of disasters.

 

[rpt]

And yes, they do have wolf in them. They need space. The flat was not good for it so he went off to a sheep farmer when he was 4.

Have you checked lately that the Sheep Farmer is still around ??

In Australia the German Shepard (The Dog I mean) was an illegal Animal from after the 1st World War until the 50's, It was felt that if the German Shepard's (with their Wolf Genes) got into the Dingo population in outback Australia we would have an interbred animal that was capable of devastating the Sheep population, at some point someone decided it was a fanciful idea and allowed the Dogs into Aus. We've had little luck in Aus with introduced species, Rabbits (the long eared variety), Rats, Cane Toads, Fox's, English People (As against the Good Scots & Irish types ), long line of disasters.

LOL!!! You forgot the Indians ;D But then you probably retired from Australia by then

 

[arbitrage]

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.

Even though you offered the concession that the 100-400 could have made that shot, I would argue that the 100-400 wouldn't be able to capture that shot. Why? Because the bokeh would look terrible as the 100-400 has a terrible time with grass/twigs in the background. Anyone who comes onto this thread and claims all pictures taken with the 200-400 could have been taken with the 100-400 are either delusional or just plain jealous.

 

[eml58]

Even though you offered the concession that the 100-400 could have made that shot, I would argue that the 100-400 wouldn't be able to capture that shot. Why? Because the bokeh would look terrible as the 100-400 has a terrible time with grass/twigs in the background. Anyone who comes onto this thread and claims all pictures taken with the 200-400 could have been taken with the 100-400 are either delusional or just plain jealous.

Hi arbitrage, I in fact agree with you, it's a long while since I owned the 100-400, I remember it was a pretty good Lens, not great, but good (hated that push pull thing though) and I've seen a load of very good Images taken with that Lens, Mine just didn't seem to be among them, my comments previously are a result of experience combined with a need to keep my cool when faced with "delusional" statements from 3rd time Posters.

Haven't heard anything more from mikea, so I guess my guess may have been correct, his objective was to inflame, not to educate or enter into amiable discussion.

I do know I absolutely enjoy the 200-400f4 and my Imaging has improved with the combo of the 1Dx + 200-400f/4, Some People can pull absolutely wonderful Images out of a Box Brownie, I'm just not one of them, I like the gear, I enjoy it, newer the better, I'm sort of hopeless when it comes to new gear, I even own the a7r, not sure I like it a lot, but I do know I like it more than my Canon M.

 

[sanj]

Why is there a poll for the Nikon DF at the top?

It went here by mistake. I am trying to delete it but do not know how. Could you guide?

 

[sanj]

Lunch

 

[rpt]

Lunch

Too rare for me than you!

 

[sanj]

Lunch

Too rare for me than you!

 

[eml58]

Keeping with the "Lunch" venue.

1Dx 200-400f/4, Shot @ 560mm f/7.1 & 1/400th ISO640

 

[eml58]

And for those that aren't too keen on the Blood etc.

Lunch of a different kind.

1Dx 200-400f/4

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Keeping with the "Lunch" venue.

1Dx 200-400f/4, Shot @ 560mm f/7.1 & 1/400th ISO640

Visually strong and compelling image. Perhaps not for Vegetarians.

 

[rpt]

Keeping with the "Lunch" venue.

1Dx 200-400f/4, Shot @ 560mm f/7.1 & 1/400th ISO640

Visually strong and compelling image. Perhaps not for Vegetarians.

And it looks like it is bloody good!

 

[winglet]

... my comments previously are a result of experience combined with a need to keep my cool when faced with "delusional" statements from 3rd time Posters.

Haven't heard anything more from mikea, so I guess my guess may have been correct, his objective was to inflame, not to educate or enter into amiable discussion.

I thought your rebuttal to the troll a few days back was masterful - for sure a lot more restrained than my own reply would have been! ;D It's fine to have and express an opinion, but I'm still waiting for him to post his own images taken with the two lenses he feels are comparable, side by side as you suggested. I have a feeling it could be quite a wait. Talk is cheap, especially on the internet - actually backing it up takes some effort.

If anything I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of many images from the 200-400 I've seen posted variously on the web, including your own. The quality speaks for itself! Some really great safari captures, I love the DOF in the cheetah pic.

My own copy of the lens is showing out for delivery today, can't wait! I mean, who needs TWO kidneys?!

 

[eml58]

My own copy of the lens is showing out for delivery today, can't wait! I mean, who needs TWO kidneys?!

Hi Winglet, Yes, it's the small downside to the Internet, fortunately 99% of what we see & read about on CR make the experience enjoyable & worthwhile, life has it's mike's, I agree, I doubt we'll see any Images.

You will I'm sure Love the 200-400f/4, I am certainly enjoying the experience and the Images I'm getting from the Lens. Having the 200f/2, 300f/2.8 II, 600f/4 & had the 400f/2.8 II I am of the opinion that at those particular ranges the 200-400f/4 is not quite as sharp, have felt that since I first purchased the Lens, but you really do need to zoom to perhaps 3:1 before you will see the difference in sharpness, Canon have certainly put all their smarts into designing an exceptionally good Lens.

the only thing lacking is the ability to shoot @ f/2.8, that would be perfect, but not sure I could carry the thing if it was f/2.8 it would be very heavy, so a back up lens that's f/2 or f/2.8 is always in the Bag as well.

Enjoy your Lens when it arrives and look forward to seeing your Images and more importantly hearing about your experiences of the Lens & how the Kidney removal went.

 

[eml58]

Of the many many Lions I've seen, this Guy was the most memorable, the Eyes I've never seen quite so intense as they were on this Chap, he was the Alpha Male in a Coalition of 4 Brothers, the only one with these Rich Pale Yellow eyes, most Lions have that dark Yellow/Orange colouring, this Guy when he looked at you made you shiver.

Seemed to have the unfortunate habit of leading with his Nose as well.

1Dx 200-400f/4, Shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/640th ISO800

 

[eml58]

Not something I feel exceptionally comfortable with, but from time to time the opportunity presents & I have a go, so any failings are mine, not the gear.

This Guy was sitting in the top of a Tree so I had plenty of time to get ready for when he eventually took to the air.

It's a Bird, it's in Flight, so must be a BIF ??

And to top off my lack of knowledge of Birds in general, I've forgotten what this Guy is called, but the Image was taken in the Serengeti Tanzania, nice looking animal, bird, whatever.

1Dx 200-400f4, Shot @ 377mm f/5.6 & 1/3200th ISO400

 

[9VIII]

Not something I feel exceptionally comfortable with, but from time to time the opportunity presents & I have a go, so any failings are mine, not the gear.

This Guy was sitting in the top of a Tree so I had plenty of time to get ready for when he eventually took to the air.

It's a Bird, it's in Flight, so must be a BIF ??

And to top off my lack of knowledge of Birds in general, I've forgotten what this Guy is called, but the Image was taken in the Serengeti Tanzania, nice looking animal, bird, whatever.

1Dx 200-400f4, Shot @ 377mm f/5.6 & 1/3200th ISO400

Is there a lot of cropping in that shot? It must have been pretty (really, extremely) close if that fills the frame at 377mm.