Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Try this one:Chosenbydestiny said:
http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x/
I found it to be another interesting review, sort of like the one he did for the 300mm. Obviously Justin isn't the core user of this type of lens, so that gives his review a different angle than one from a sports or wildlife shooter.
Upvote
0
mackguyver said:
True story, and thanks, I did find more use for this since I had my experience with the 300 and when it comes to certain quantitative needs, anyone who can *afford* a $13,000 lens just kind of needs to know if it will get the job done well. A resounding hell yeah.
Upvote
0
Jackson_Bill said:
Totally, but comparing a prime to a zoom rarely works in the favour of the zoom does it?
Upvote
0
Having played with this lens now for a few weeks and seen what kind of results it is producing, it is clear that you have to be a serious pixel peeper to find anything to put your finger on. I had the 400 f2.8L IS II, which I sold when I bought this one, and it is a phenomenal lens. It might be that AF was a fraction of a second faster and the images a fraction sharper, but in a blind test, I don´t believe I could tell them apart. The quality, as far as I can tell, is pretty consistent from 200 all the way to 560 and I love its versatility. Yes, it´s rather big and heavy, but if you struggle with a 600mm f4L w. extender for a while, it is actually quite handy
I am using a monopod and a flag bandoleer (used to be a boy scout) when I handhold and that is a brilliant solution. It takes away all weight (and tremble) issues. I´ll post images of this setup when I get the time to shoot some.
The only question I have had is a bokeh phenomena, where some bubbles in a lake looked strange (you´ll find it here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17632.msg325965#msg325965 )
A lot of you guys have much more expertise than me in judging this, so comments would be appreciated.
I am using a monopod and a flag bandoleer (used to be a boy scout) when I handhold and that is a brilliant solution. It takes away all weight (and tremble) issues. I´ll post images of this setup when I get the time to shoot some.
The only question I have had is a bokeh phenomena, where some bubbles in a lake looked strange (you´ll find it here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17632.msg325965#msg325965 )
A lot of you guys have much more expertise than me in judging this, so comments would be appreciated.
Upvote
0
Jackson_Bill said:
Manfrotto makes a monopod belt pouch - at first glance, you might wonder how it holds the monopod while you walk…then you realize, it's not intended to hold the monopod while not in use (incidentally, I use a Maxpedition universal flashlight/baton sheath for that), it's a pocket for the base/foot of the retracted monopod to rest in, while you're actually shooting with the camera+lens supported by the belt.
Upvote
0
Here are a couple of images with the 1DX and the 600 f4L IS II.
Just get in touch with a flag producer. They should have it. An easier option would be to just have the cup on your belt. But I believe I get better weight distribution with the shoulder straps. I can walk around with this for a long time without having any trouble. To shoot overhead I only have to adjust the monopod. The RRS tilt head is essential though.
I have experimented with straps from the lens to the shoulder straps, to keep it stable while I operate a second body, but that has not been really successful yet.
Just get in touch with a flag producer. They should have it. An easier option would be to just have the cup on your belt. But I believe I get better weight distribution with the shoulder straps. I can walk around with this for a long time without having any trouble. To shoot overhead I only have to adjust the monopod. The RRS tilt head is essential though.
I have experimented with straps from the lens to the shoulder straps, to keep it stable while I operate a second body, but that has not been really successful yet.
Attachments
Upvote
0
I'm sure the zoom is a lot more versatile, but I went with the 300 2.8 IS II over the 200-400 because I didn't feel that changing extenders was as big an inconvenience as the size & weight of the zoom. Portability and the ability to hand hold, which I do 99% of the time with the 300 was more important to me. Also, I already had the extenders and the cost difference was too much to ignore. Then again, my income isn't solely dependent on my photography and missing a shot will hurt my pride more than my wallet. I'm sure the zoom is a phenomenal lens and if you're considering it over a combination of primes, it's certainly a better deal as you said in your article.JVLphoto said:
Keep up the great work on the reviews - as I said, I really like your take on lenses being so different than just about every other reviewer.
Upvote
0
I enjoyed the review, thanks! I've got this lens on order and am pretty excited to use it.
A direct comparison is really hard to do, given so many variables. It can't really even be compared straight across to the primes, in that they're used so differently. Having said that though, the mention of it replacing several focal lengths and the associated cost savings neglects the fact too, that in order to have the use of more than one focal length you would also need to own (and carry!) at least one other body. To go from switching bodies to twisting the zoom, at these focal lengths...such luxury. With the price to match, unfortunately.
But I think it will be absolutely perfect for my main uses: air shows, outdoor sports, and large wildlife. And I can't wait for the horse racing season here in Dubai!
A direct comparison is really hard to do, given so many variables. It can't really even be compared straight across to the primes, in that they're used so differently. Having said that though, the mention of it replacing several focal lengths and the associated cost savings neglects the fact too, that in order to have the use of more than one focal length you would also need to own (and carry!) at least one other body. To go from switching bodies to twisting the zoom, at these focal lengths...such luxury. With the price to match, unfortunately.
But I think it will be absolutely perfect for my main uses: air shows, outdoor sports, and large wildlife. And I can't wait for the horse racing season here in Dubai!
Upvote
0
In this article the author (Justin VanLeeuwen) states in sentence 3:
"...as well as the 8-15mm f/3.5 L Fisheye zoom which was unheard of.."
I believe this should be F4, not F 3.5. Anyone know of a 3.5?
Thx
"...as well as the 8-15mm f/3.5 L Fisheye zoom which was unheard of.."
I believe this should be F4, not F 3.5. Anyone know of a 3.5?
Thx
Upvote
0
I'm a sports shooter and I still hesitate to lose the f/2.8 aperture for 1. light and 2. subject isolation. But I'd really love to own the lens anyways... ;D
Upvote
0
Justin, I hate to pick on you again, but your review is kind of all over the place. (Don't fly off the handle on me, hear me out.) I wanted to get more of a feel of how you specifically felt using the lens in specific situations...you know, take me there and let the reader feel like they are experiencing the lens. Instead, it's just awkward to read, and feels more like it's just you stating random facts about the lens, rather than your impression of it. Most important to me would be the autofocus performance and speed, as others who have bought this lens have discussed on here already, months ago. The IS performance would also interest me, and how it compares to the other lenses you mention like the 600mm f/4, or 400mm f/4 DO, or any of the other superteles, even the f/2.8's.
I probably missed it, but did you use anything other than a 7D with the lens? Just curious.
However, I have to admit the result you got of the floats and slide, with the 1.4 TC III attached, while also I assume having the internal 1.4x switched in...It looks nice and contrasty, and is very likely quite sharp. Nice job on that! That is full frame equivalent of an 18MP camera at what, 1254mm? That vastly beats the heck out of the results I got with a rented generation-1 500 f/4 with the 1.4x III attached to my 50D back in 2011 (and that was manual focus on a tripod with mirror lock in very bright Florida sun...since it refused to ever AF accurately no matter where I dialed the AFMA). Think about it...you're going through two teleconverters in series there...and the lens is a zoom to boot. Impressive stuff!
I probably missed it, but did you use anything other than a 7D with the lens? Just curious.
However, I have to admit the result you got of the floats and slide, with the 1.4 TC III attached, while also I assume having the internal 1.4x switched in...It looks nice and contrasty, and is very likely quite sharp. Nice job on that! That is full frame equivalent of an 18MP camera at what, 1254mm? That vastly beats the heck out of the results I got with a rented generation-1 500 f/4 with the 1.4x III attached to my 50D back in 2011 (and that was manual focus on a tripod with mirror lock in very bright Florida sun...since it refused to ever AF accurately no matter where I dialed the AFMA). Think about it...you're going through two teleconverters in series there...and the lens is a zoom to boot. Impressive stuff!
Upvote
0
No flying, I promise!CarlTN said:
Sorry I didn't hit the mark on this one for you, I definitely tried to do better after all the valid criticism of my 300mm review. That said, I've never used a 600, 400 or any other tele other than the 300 so I'm currently unable to make such comparisons, the funny thing is as I move forward, in these "reviews" I have more experience than the last one.
I tested AF a bit on my kids (not a sports guy) and it was responsive and accurate, though it didn't feel as fast as the 300. I'm assuming some of this has to do with the sheer weight of glass it has to move. My general impression, and usage, was also a lot more than the 300, despite it being heavier and larger, the versatility of the zoom gave me confidence to take it out more and try different situations.
Most of my shots were with the 5DIII, I only did the 7D + 1.4 (yes with the internal 1.4 activated) as a fun test... how far can we take the "zoom" and yeah, not bad considering all the glass we're going through on a crop sensor. I don't know the copy variance of the 1.4 teleconverter III, but I have had incredible results on it with the 200-400 and my 70-200.
Hope that helps!
Upvote
0
JVLphoto said:
Sure thing, these comments were better than much of your review, haha, thank you! Interesting that you're saying the IS reacts slower than the 300 f/2.8 ii (perhaps you also meant the AF was slower?). Also interesting that you felt more confident taking it out because of the zoom versatility. I know exactly what you mean there! As for the 1.4x iii, I wasn't implying the problem was with it. The problem was the lens it was attached to, despite what fanboys of that lens seem to think (and despite LR testing it and saying nothing was wrong). Sure the camera's AF was less than fully capable, but that doesn't explain the problem when focused manually, with mirror lock. Bottom line, that particular sample of that lens, was simply not sharp. The TC just served to highlight the problem further. They delayed the shuttle launch anyway so I didn't even get to try to shoot what I went to shoot...I saw it on the pad from 13 miles away...the top half of it anyway. That wasn't even worth trying to shoot, either, especially into a 40 mph wind. So I left the camera and lens in the car and just tried to look with binoculars, haha.
Upvote
0
Liked the review.
I've shot around 30,000 Images now with the 200-400f/4, mostly (perhaps 95%) on the 1Dx, a small amount on the 5DMK III, for a lot of reasons I think the 1Dx is the Body to work with on this Lens, but I guess i feel the same about all the "Whites" in this respect.
I've never noticed any difference in the IS between the 200-400f/4, 300f/2.8 II, 400f/2.8 II & 600f/4 II, none at all.
I've noticed a marginally faster snap onto Target when auto focussing only on the 300f/2.8 L II, but the 300 is quite possibly the all round best Lens that Canon have ever made I feel.
On sharpness, again I've looked extensively at the Lenses I mentioned previously, I own (or owned) all of them, also had the Version I lenses in the 300 & 400 range (since sold the 400f/2.8 L II), and as mentioned i think by Eldar, you really do have to Zoom a long way into the Image to try and see where the Primes are sharper, the 300, yes I see a difference, very marginal, but it's there, the 400 & 600 ?? a lot harder to see.
Weight, the 200-400 is pretty well the same length & weight as the 400f/2.8 II, and therefore has the same Hand Holdability (new word I think) as the 400, short periods just fine, longer periods, bit of drag. The 200-400, just like the 400 & 600, are best attached to a Tripod or Monopod, or Eldar's Flag Staff Addaption, which I'm in the process of setting up, great idea I think.
I liked the older Nikon 200-400f/4, especially the newer version, I shot the Nikon on the D3x & D800 (a minor slide to the Dark Side for a comparison), and the Canon 200-400f/4 1.4x is simply at a different level, unfortunately that leads to the only negative view I might have of the Lens, it's price, still, you pay for quality, and the 200-400f/4 has loads of that I feel.
I've shot around 30,000 Images now with the 200-400f/4, mostly (perhaps 95%) on the 1Dx, a small amount on the 5DMK III, for a lot of reasons I think the 1Dx is the Body to work with on this Lens, but I guess i feel the same about all the "Whites" in this respect.
I've never noticed any difference in the IS between the 200-400f/4, 300f/2.8 II, 400f/2.8 II & 600f/4 II, none at all.
I've noticed a marginally faster snap onto Target when auto focussing only on the 300f/2.8 L II, but the 300 is quite possibly the all round best Lens that Canon have ever made I feel.
On sharpness, again I've looked extensively at the Lenses I mentioned previously, I own (or owned) all of them, also had the Version I lenses in the 300 & 400 range (since sold the 400f/2.8 L II), and as mentioned i think by Eldar, you really do have to Zoom a long way into the Image to try and see where the Primes are sharper, the 300, yes I see a difference, very marginal, but it's there, the 400 & 600 ?? a lot harder to see.
Weight, the 200-400 is pretty well the same length & weight as the 400f/2.8 II, and therefore has the same Hand Holdability (new word I think) as the 400, short periods just fine, longer periods, bit of drag. The 200-400, just like the 400 & 600, are best attached to a Tripod or Monopod, or Eldar's Flag Staff Addaption, which I'm in the process of setting up, great idea I think.
I liked the older Nikon 200-400f/4, especially the newer version, I shot the Nikon on the D3x & D800 (a minor slide to the Dark Side for a comparison), and the Canon 200-400f/4 1.4x is simply at a different level, unfortunately that leads to the only negative view I might have of the Lens, it's price, still, you pay for quality, and the 200-400f/4 has loads of that I feel.
Upvote
0
M
M.ST
Guest
The EF 200-400 Extender lens cannot beat the EF 300 2.8 II IS lens IQ, but it is very good. At 200 mm it is close to the very good EF 70-200 2.8 II IS lens.
After Canon fixed the massive problems with the build in Extender (in the preseries lenses) it´s a very versatile lens if you get a good one. You don´t need to carry everytime two or three big whites with you and can do all the shots that you want with only one lens.
With the additional extenders you will see a small amount of CA´s shown up in the corners at the longest focal lengths. But that is not really a problem. If you use the internal 1.4 Extender and the additional 2.0 Extender the AF system fail, but that is very normal at f/11 and only a few people want use the lens at 1120 mm.
The EF 200-400 Extender lens is very heavy and only usefull if you need the focal lenght, the possible aperture and the IQ. For travelling around the new 100-400 IS replacement will be a better choice, but cannot reach the IQ of the EF 200-400 Extender lens (it´s far away from it).
After Canon fixed the massive problems with the build in Extender (in the preseries lenses) it´s a very versatile lens if you get a good one. You don´t need to carry everytime two or three big whites with you and can do all the shots that you want with only one lens.
With the additional extenders you will see a small amount of CA´s shown up in the corners at the longest focal lengths. But that is not really a problem. If you use the internal 1.4 Extender and the additional 2.0 Extender the AF system fail, but that is very normal at f/11 and only a few people want use the lens at 1120 mm.
The EF 200-400 Extender lens is very heavy and only usefull if you need the focal lenght, the possible aperture and the IQ. For travelling around the new 100-400 IS replacement will be a better choice, but cannot reach the IQ of the EF 200-400 Extender lens (it´s far away from it).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
