Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

[JVLphoto]

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!

No flying, I promise!

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 IS 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!

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.

Sorry, yeah, I meant AF... must be drinking again

 

[Canon1]

Justin,

No offense, but there is really not much in this review that would make me consider it a "resource" when researching this lens. You more or less just restate what canons website declares and then confirm that you thought it was accurate information and a quality lens.

Where are the efforts to put this lens through it's paces? I recognize that you may not be a sports or wildlife photographer, but when you review a lens that is geared towards this audience you might consider making an attempt to produce some images that show how well this lens can perform (for that target audience). You don't need to go on a safari but perhaps shoot a soccer game, or seagulls flying at the beach. Something where you can draw a conclusion on how well this lens really does perform. No one will use this lens to shoot a flower pot. Even if you had shot a teddy bear and then shown full crops of the fur to showcase the sharp detail the lens was capable of (or not) would be more helpful.

Also, I know you have never used a 400, 500 or 600.... How can you give a critical review of a lens without comparing it to the other lenses in a lineup that a potential buyer would be interested in.

Maybe you don't want to spend the money on renting, or can't get your hands on loaners, but if you want to take this equipment review gig seriously then you have to actually review equipment including comparables. This includes actually using equipment and shooting with a plan (subjects, location, varying lighting conditions (front and back), subjects static and dynamic, etc.... Just mounting a lens on your camera and going for a short walk-about around your neighborhood hardly counts.

I apologize if I am sounding too harsh, but this review comes across as rushed and in my opinion was poorly done. Your images were poorly composed and exposure off, and subjects not well thought out. (Can this lens help a camera body produce a nice image?)

I would applaud a follow-up review where you actually dig in and put this lens through it's paces. Make these reviews a valuable resource! You have a HUGE opportunity here with perhaps the largest canon audience on the web at your disposal.

 

[JVLphoto]

Justin,

No offense, but there is really not much in this review that would make me consider it a "resource" when researching this lens. You more or less just restate what canons website declares and then confirm that you thought it was accurate information and a quality lens.

Where are the efforts to put this lens through it's paces? I recognize that you may not be a sports or wildlife photographer, but when you review a lens that is geared towards this audience you might consider making an attempt to produce some images that show how well this lens can perform (for that target audience). You don't need to go on a safari but perhaps shoot a soccer game, or seagulls flying at the beach. Something where you can draw a conclusion on how well this lens really does perform. No one will use this lens to shoot a flower pot. Even if you had shot a teddy bear and then shown full crops of the fur to showcase the sharp detail the lens was capable of (or not) would be more helpful.

Also, I know you have never used a 400, 500 or 600.... How can you give a critical review of a lens without comparing it to the other lenses in a lineup that a potential buyer would be interested in.

Maybe you don't want to spend the money on renting, or can't get your hands on loaners, but if you want to take this equipment review gig seriously then you have to actually review equipment including comparables. This includes actually using equipment and shooting with a plan (subjects, location, varying lighting conditions (front and back), subjects static and dynamic, etc.... Just mounting a lens on your camera and going for a short walk-about around your neighborhood hardly counts.

I apologize if I am sounding too harsh, but this review comes across as rushed and in my opinion was poorly done. Your images were poorly composed and exposure off, and subjects not well thought out. (Can this lens help a camera body produce a nice image?)

I would applaud a follow-up review where you actually dig in and put this lens through it's paces. Make these reviews a valuable resource! You have a HUGE opportunity here with perhaps the largest canon audience on the web at your disposal.

"No offense" - Rarely is the follow-up to this good.

"but there is really not much in this review that would make me consider it a "resource" when researching this lens. You more or less just restate what canons website declares and then confirm that you thought it was accurate information and a quality lens." - Never read Canon's website, but then yes, you're right, I can confirm that.

"Where are the efforts to put this lens through it's paces?" - 1 month with it and the review, as best I could anyway.

"I recognize that you may not be a sports or wildlife photographer, but when you review a lens that is geared towards this audience you might consider making an attempt to produce some images that show how well this lens can perform (for that target audience)." - I agree.

"You don't need to go on a safari but perhaps shoot a soccer game, or seagulls flying at the beach. Something where you can draw a conclusion on how well this lens really does perform. No one will use this lens to shoot a flower pot. Even if you had shot a teddy bear and then shown full crops of the fur to showcase the sharp detail the lens was capable of (or not) would be more helpful." - Sorry you don't like my flower pot example, it was more about the exposure difference than anything else, I'll find some teddy bears next time. Watch for it!

"Also, I know you have never used a 400, 500 or 600.... How can you give a critical review of a lens without comparing it to the other lenses in a lineup that a potential buyer would be interested in." - I can and I can't... I can because I did (sort of) but you're right, how can I review a 200-400 without using lenses in that range. How can I review lenses in that range without trying other lenses in that range? A bit of a chicken vs. egg scenario here. We all have to start somewhere, the 300mm was my first step into super-telephoto and that wasn't particularly well received either. It's a steep learning curve for a guy who mostly works indoors and in editorial.

"Maybe you don't want to spend the money on renting, or can't get your hands on loaners..." - Want and have are different things when it comes to financial resources, but loaners are accessible to me, though if I was send a 400, 500, 600 and a 200-400 at the same time I'd likely be overwhelmed and explode with lens envy/confusion of what to shoot.

"...but if you want to take this equipment review gig seriously then you have to actually review equipment including comparables. This includes actually using equipment and shooting with a plan (subjects, location, varying lighting conditions (front and back), subjects static and dynamic, etc.... Just mounting a lens on your camera and going for a short walk-about around your neighborhood hardly counts." - You seem to have this review thing down. As always, I welcome your own input from use of this and other lenses here... the forum is an incredible place for everyone to flesh out the reviews *especially* in areas I lack. Seriously, I suck at lots of things, help us out! (and it was a very long walk)

"I apologize if I am sounding too harsh, but this review comes across as rushed and in my opinion was poorly done. " - No, I've had worse and at least you're articulating where I fell short, that gives me specific areas to improve - so thanks!

"Your images were poorly composed and exposure off, and subjects not well thought out. (Can this lens help a camera body produce a nice image?)" - Okay that was a little offensive.

"I would applaud a follow-up review where you actually dig in and put this lens through it's paces. Make these reviews a valuable resource! You have a HUGE opportunity here with perhaps the largest canon audience on the web at your disposal." - I'd honestly love to, I'd love to be able to line-up some sporting events or kayakers, or motor sports. Access is certainly a problem and very few people seem to be willing to help me get it just because I have a "nice lens" to write about. It's also winter, and you *really* don't want me to find wildlife (I'll be as good as dead). I want to make them worthwhile, I think *some* people find they are, but you're right about one thing, it's hard to write for the $13,000 lens demographic when you're not in it yourself. I wouldn't be the person to review a Ferrari either, though I can appreciate it's a top-quality and beautiful automobile... but I'll never own one.

Keep an eye on this forum, undoubtedly others will add to it as they use their lens and hopefully be able to answer some of your more pressing questions. And who knows, maybe CRguy will feel like sending it to me again out of sheer generosity. Thanks for taking the time to read the post and, more importantly, express how you felt about it! Beats silently being angry at me like my wife.

Also, here are some other images I took, they may not meet any of your needs but I enjoy them just the same

 

[CarlTN]

The Canon1 person seems to have taken a similar approach at criticizing Justin's review, to how I reacted to his review of the 17-40. The difference being no one else seems to have attempted to climb up Canon1's backside, like they did mine!

There's already a quite nice thread about this lens on CR, mostly by people who seem to own the lens.

As for comparing owning this lens to owning a Ferrari...I disagree. For one thing, most Ferrari models are priced very high above what many who would buy a $13k lens, could either afford, or justify spending (or have the desire to spend). For another thing, there are a few older Ferrari models on the used market that don't cost much more than this lens. So it mostly depends on which Ferrari you're talking about. Certainly the new ones are pricey! And then there are those collectible ones that even Bill Gates might think twice before bidding on!

 

[Canon1]

Justin,

I honestly meant no offense. Everything I wrote is an effort at constructive criticism. You can be sarcastic to my criticisms if that helps you. Regarding your followup images: It is not a matter of whether or not your images are "good enough" for me, it is a matter of whether or not they convey some of the capabilities of this lens. If this is the wrong time of year for you to be able to review this equipment, maybe waiting until springtime when you have more photographic opportunities would be appropriate (maybe this is a reason why your review feels rushed).

I will point out again that you have a wonderful opportunity to do something great here with your equipment reviews. You have a captive audience of thousands of viewers. What you do with this opportunity it is totally up to you.

 

[JVLphoto]

Justin,

I honestly meant no offense. Everything I wrote is an effort at constructive criticism. You can be sarcastic to my criticisms if that helps you. Regarding your followup images: It is not a matter of whether or not your images are "good enough" for me, it is a matter of whether or not they convey some of the capabilities of this lens. If this is the wrong time of year for you to be able to review this equipment, maybe waiting until springtime when you have more photographic opportunities would be appropriate (maybe this is a reason why your review feels rushed).

I will point out again that you have a wonderful opportunity to do something great here with your equipment reviews. You have a captive audience of thousands of viewers. What you do with this opportunity it is totally up to you.

I was serious too! Thank you - honestly - I appreciate the feedback and have been thinking about it since. and yes, being half-sarcastic does help me take my medicine...

 

[JVLphoto]

The Canon1 person seems to have taken a similar approach at criticizing Justin's review, to how I reacted to his review of the 17-40. The difference being no one else seems to have attempted to climb up Canon1's backside, like they did mine!

There's already a quite nice thread about this lens on CR, mostly by people who seem to own the lens.

As for comparing owning this lens to owning a Ferrari...I disagree. For one thing, most Ferrari models are priced very high above what many who would buy a $13k lens, could either afford, or justify spending (or have the desire to spend). For another thing, there are a few older Ferrari models on the used market that don't cost much more than this lens. So it mostly depends on which Ferrari you're talking about. Certainly the new ones are pricey! And then there are those collectible ones that even Bill Gates might think twice before bidding on!

Yeah, where are those Canon fanboys when you need 'em?

As for the Ferrari, I'm just saying some items, value-wise, are far beyond what most people are capable of affording if they "need it" for work or not. For some people, the value of this lens outweighs their net annual income. I'm expressing the difficulty in "reviewing" or even quantifying a purchase that is so far outside of my income bracket that I have nothing to compare it to. We can both agree the prospect of buying a car *or* a Camera lens is certainly a big decision.

But, as Canon1 said, the more time I take with it and others like it surely I must improve right? And, in the end, my reviews are highly subjective opinion pieces more than quantitative evaluations with MTF charts and sharpness spectrometers. It's why we're able to disagree on the 17-40... there's no wrong answer, just "right for you."

 

[mackguyver]

I'll dive back into this one and I promise not to be sarcastic. Really.

Justin, we can't take your review seriously because you have talent and are a full-time working photographer. You didn't shoot any test charts, don't shoot for National Geo or SI, and you must be foolish with your finances if you can't afford a $12k lens. Seriously, being a photographer just isn't enough.

What we need is someone who thinks that $12k is their child's weekly allowance, who shoots 2x a year (on safari) but owns every Canon lens ever made and has at least 500k followers on Twitter. This person also needs to shoot newspapers, brick walls, and everything else that no one shoots in real life. Ideally the review will also include 3 of the best shots he or she has ever taken in their life because let's face it, if you can't do that during the month you have the lens, you're not much of a reviewer. Bonus points if the reviewer has made over 100,000 posts on CR

Okay, in all seriousness, if people want to read reviews of this lens wildlife and sports photogs, there's Arthur Morris, Richard Bernabe, Peter Read Miller, etc. who have posted reviews or insights about the lens (see links below). Justin has never pretended to be anything other than what he is and from what I can tell, most of us would love to have half his talent and work as a full-time photographer. While his reviews may not be from the perspective you want, they are honest and I like that they are from someone who isn't an obvious user.

As for the Ferrari comment, I own a sports car (German, not Italian) but consider dropping $12k pretty serious money all the same.

http://www.richardbernabe.com/blog/2013/11/24/canon-ef-200-400mm-f4l-is-usm-extender-1-4x-lens-review/
http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/11/23/having-a-blast-at-bosque-with-the-canon-200-400-with-internal-extender/
http://pixsylated.com/blog/peter-read-miller-canon-200-400mm-london-olympics/

 

[JVLphoto]

I'll dive back into this one and I promise not to be sarcastic. Really.

Justin, we can't take your review seriously because you have talent and are a full-time working photographer. You didn't shoot any test charts, don't shoot for National Geo or SI, and you must be foolish with your finances if you can't afford a $12k lens. Seriously, being a photographer just isn't enough.

What we need is someone who thinks that $12k is their child's weekly allowance, who shoots 2x a year (on safari) but owns every Canon lens ever made and has at least 500k followers on Twitter. This person also needs to shoot newspapers, brick walls, and everything else that no one shoots in real life. Ideally the review will also include 3 of the best shots he or she has ever taken in their life because let's face it, if you can't do that during the month you have the lens, you're not much of a reviewer. Bonus points if the reviewer has made over 100,000 posts on CR

Okay, in all seriousness, if people want to read reviews of this lens wildlife and sports photogs, there's Arthur Morris, Richard Bernabe, Peter Read Miller, etc. who have posted reviews or insights about the lens (see links below). Justin has never pretended to be anything other than what he is and from what I can tell, most of us would love to have half his talent and work as a full-time photographer. While his reviews may not be from the perspective you want, they are honest and I like that they are from someone who isn't an obvious user.

As for the Ferrari comment, I own a sports car (German, not Italian) but consider dropping $12k pretty serious money all the same.

http://www.richardbernabe.com/blog/2013/11/24/canon-ef-200-400mm-f4l-is-usm-extender-1-4x-lens-review/
http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/11/23/having-a-blast-at-bosque-with-the-canon-200-400-with-internal-extender/
http://pixsylated.com/blog/peter-read-miller-canon-200-400mm-london-olympics/

This made me smile, and those links are excellent resources. Thanks!

 

[CarlTN]

The Canon1 person seems to have taken a similar approach at criticizing Justin's review, to how I reacted to his review of the 17-40. The difference being no one else seems to have attempted to climb up Canon1's backside, like they did mine!

There's already a quite nice thread about this lens on CR, mostly by people who seem to own the lens.

As for comparing owning this lens to owning a Ferrari...I disagree. For one thing, most Ferrari models are priced very high above what many who would buy a $13k lens, could either afford, or justify spending (or have the desire to spend). For another thing, there are a few older Ferrari models on the used market that don't cost much more than this lens. So it mostly depends on which Ferrari you're talking about. Certainly the new ones are pricey! And then there are those collectible ones that even Bill Gates might think twice before bidding on!

Yeah, where are those Canon fanboys when you need 'em?

As for the Ferrari, I'm just saying some items, value-wise, are far beyond what most people are capable of affording if they "need it" for work or not. For some people, the value of this lens outweighs their net annual income. I'm expressing the difficulty in "reviewing" or even quantifying a purchase that is so far outside of my income bracket that I have nothing to compare it to. We can both agree the prospect of buying a car *or* a Camera lens is certainly a big decision.

But, as Canon1 said, the more time I take with it and others like it surely I must improve right? And, in the end, my reviews are highly subjective opinion pieces more than quantitative evaluations with MTF charts and sharpness spectrometers. It's why we're able to disagree on the 17-40... there's no wrong answer, just "right for you."

Indeed. I do feel my Ferrari clarification was not really out of bounds, though. And your review of the 17-40 was different...it was a subjective review of a product that had been out a very long time (it had been "over-reviewed", many many verdicts were already in...your review was a little like seriously listening to a 10 year old newbie to Shakespeare, lecture a long time stage director about his technique and about the writer's intent. Not saying you are a newbie to the 17-40 lens, I'm saying your review had that effect, when compared to everything the world has had a decade to say about the 17-40.).

But subjectively reviewing a newer, and unique supertelephoto lens like the 200-400, is more appropriate, in my opinion. Fewer people have experienced one for themselves (far fewer!). I like your secondary shots you posted here better than many you posted in the review, also. Anytime you can get a girl in a pool to fling water off her hair is a good day! And no offense, but frankly I can write better than you can, Justin, so it should be me reviewing all these lenses! (You might be a better photographer than me, though...hard to say). But either way, I'm not gonna move to the great white north, ever, so I guess I'm out!

 

[CarlTN]

I'll dive back into this one and I promise not to be sarcastic. Really.

Justin, we can't take your review seriously because you have talent and are a full-time working photographer. You didn't shoot any test charts, don't shoot for National Geo or SI, and you must be foolish with your finances if you can't afford a $12k lens. Seriously, being a photographer just isn't enough.

What we need is someone who thinks that $12k is their child's weekly allowance, who shoots 2x a year (on safari) but owns every Canon lens ever made and has at least 500k followers on Twitter. This person also needs to shoot newspapers, brick walls, and everything else that no one shoots in real life. Ideally the review will also include 3 of the best shots he or she has ever taken in their life because let's face it, if you can't do that during the month you have the lens, you're not much of a reviewer. Bonus points if the reviewer has made over 100,000 posts on CR

Okay, in all seriousness, if people want to read reviews of this lens wildlife and sports photogs, there's Arthur Morris, Richard Bernabe, Peter Read Miller, etc. who have posted reviews or insights about the lens (see links below). Justin has never pretended to be anything other than what he is and from what I can tell, most of us would love to have half his talent and work as a full-time photographer. While his reviews may not be from the perspective you want, they are honest and I like that they are from someone who isn't an obvious user.

As for the Ferrari comment, I own a sports car (German, not Italian) but consider dropping $12k pretty serious money all the same.

http://www.richardbernabe.com/blog/2013/11/24/canon-ef-200-400mm-f4l-is-usm-extender-1-4x-lens-review/
http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/11/23/having-a-blast-at-bosque-with-the-canon-200-400-with-internal-extender/
http://pixsylated.com/blog/peter-read-miller-canon-200-400mm-london-olympics/

Good points, and good post. I want a German sports car, myself, and 13k is about what the ceramic brake option costs...or else what the am/fm radio, and "options" like a gas tank, cost...I forget Everything is an "option" on those cars! I think I'll just buy a GTI and save for a used one of those sports cars, for now anyway!

 

[JVLphoto]

Indeed. I do feel my Ferrari clarification was not really out of bounds, though. And your review of the 17-40 was different...it was a subjective review of a product that had been out a very long time (it had been "over-reviewed", many many verdicts were already in...your review was a little like seriously listening to a 10 year old newbie to Shakespeare, lecture a long time stage director about his technique and about the writer's intent. Not saying you are a newbie to the 17-40 lens, I'm saying your review had that effect, when compared to everything the world has had a decade to say about the 17-40.).

But subjectively reviewing a newer, and unique supertelephoto lens like the 200-400, is more appropriate, in my opinion. Fewer people have experienced one for themselves (far fewer!). I like your secondary shots you posted here better than many you posted in the review, also. Anytime you can get a girl in a pool to fling water off her hair is a good day! And no offense, but frankly I can write better than you can, Justin, so it should be me reviewing all these lenses! (You might be a better photographer than me, though...hard to say). But either way, I'm not gonna move to the great white north, ever, so I guess I'm out!

"And no offense, but frankly I can write better than you can, Justin, so it should be me reviewing all these lenses! (You might be a better photographer than me, though...hard to say). "

I really wish you guys would stop saying "no offense" before all the offensive things you say, how about just say something offensive and own it? Also, I write in Canadian, which is probably harder for you to read because of the translation.

 

[CarlTN]

Indeed. I do feel my Ferrari clarification was not really out of bounds, though. And your review of the 17-40 was different...it was a subjective review of a product that had been out a very long time (it had been "over-reviewed", many many verdicts were already in...your review was a little like seriously listening to a 10 year old newbie to Shakespeare, lecture a long time stage director about his technique and about the writer's intent. Not saying you are a newbie to the 17-40 lens, I'm saying your review had that effect, when compared to everything the world has had a decade to say about the 17-40.).

But subjectively reviewing a newer, and unique supertelephoto lens like the 200-400, is more appropriate, in my opinion. Fewer people have experienced one for themselves (far fewer!). I like your secondary shots you posted here better than many you posted in the review, also. Anytime you can get a girl in a pool to fling water off her hair is a good day! And no offense, but frankly I can write better than you can, Justin, so it should be me reviewing all these lenses! (You might be a better photographer than me, though...hard to say). But either way, I'm not gonna move to the great white north, ever, so I guess I'm out!

"And no offense, but frankly I can write better than you can, Justin, so it should be me reviewing all these lenses! (You might be a better photographer than me, though...hard to say). "

I really wish you guys would stop saying "no offense" before all the offensive things you say, how about just say something offensive and own it? Also, I write in Canadian, which is probably harder for you to read because of the translation.

In this instance I said it and truly meant it, "no offense"...I wasn't being sarcastic. You can look around and easily see when I mean to offend !

 

[CarlTN]

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.

Nice post, I appreciate it. Is this now your favorite white lens? Do you use it more than the others now?

 

[JVLphoto]

In a foolish effort to re-open discussion on the Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x LENS here are a few more images... including sports and wildlife

 

[CarlTN]

In a foolish effort to re-open discussion on the Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x LENS here are a few more images... including sports and wildlife

Not foolish, I like these shots too. Nice bokeh with the goose. These were shot in the summer, weren't they?

A good test for this lens, would be for you to go on one of those polar bear ventures, now in wintertime. Stick that baby out the window of the monster bus in the dark, enduring some cold wind blasts and snow. Really suffer for your art, JV!!

 

[Canon Rumors]

There are enough technical reviews of lenses out there, if you want those, go to those great sites. Justin picked up a lens that really has only 1 or 2 purposes and tried to do something beyond that.

I've read a bunch of reviews of the 200-400 and I think they're all pretty basic. 5 pictures of some birds and a long writeup about how great it is. This sort of lens takes a year of use before you really get what it's capable of.

Yes, you can shoot birds with it. Why would you? The 500, 600 and 800 are far better for that. Not everyone has a bevy of mammals hanging around to shoot, and zoo shooting isn't too exciting. At the time of the review, field sports were winding down in Canada. The review was a "what else can you do with a lens that costs $12,000?"

I'll be taking one to Costa Rica, Florida, Suriname and Namibia this winter. I hope that's enough time to really put it through its paces.

 

[CarlTN]

There are enough technical reviews of lenses out there, if you want those, go to those great sites. Justin picked up a lens that really has only 1 or 2 purposes and tried to do something beyond that.

I've read a bunch of reviews of the 200-400 and I think they're all pretty basic. 5 pictures of some birds and a long writeup about how great it is. This sort of lens takes a year of use before you really get what it's capable of.

Yes, you can shoot birds with it. Why would you? The 500, 600 and 800 are far better for that. Not everyone has a bevy of mammals hanging around to shoot, and zoo shooting isn't too exciting. At the time of the review, field sports were winding down in Canada. The review was a "what else can you do with a lens that costs $12,000?"

I'll be taking one to Costa Rica, Florida, Suriname and Namibia this winter. I hope that's enough time to really put it through its paces.

Nice for you! If it's not enough time, I guess people like us will be here to nitpick! You could just give one to me to review. That way you could take your shots at my effort!

 

[eml58]

Nice post, I appreciate it. Is this now your favorite white lens? Do you use it more than the others now?

Hi CarlTN, I do use the 200-400f/4 more than I do my 300f/2.8 II & 640f/4 II, but then prior to owning the 200-400f/4 I certainly used the 400f/2.8 II more than the others as well.

That's mainly because the 400 range is just about perfect for what I shoot, Wildlife.

Being able to now (like the nikon shooters have been able to do for 10 years) frame the shot in Camera with the 200-560 has been a big difference to how I shoot, and I feel my Images have improved because that.

It's not a one horse race though, in low light the 300f/2.8 II is the Lens I reach for, and anything out past 600 and the 560 range of the 200-400 begins to loose out to the 600f/4 + 1.4x extender.

I still seem to head off on a Safari with at least 3 Lenses, 70-200f/2.8 II, 200-400f/4 + either the 300f/2.8 or the 600f/4 depending on where I intend to shoot, Bush, desert/open veldt.

 

[CarlTN]

Nice post, I appreciate it. Is this now your favorite white lens? Do you use it more than the others now?

Hi CarlTN, I do use the 200-400f/4 more than I do my 300f/2.8 II & 640f/4 II, but then prior to owning the 200-400f/4 I certainly used the 400f/2.8 II more than the others as well.

That's mainly because the 400 range is just about perfect for what I shoot, Wildlife.

Being able to now (like the nikon shooters have been able to do for 10 years) frame the shot in Camera with the 200-560 has been a big difference to how I shoot, and I feel my Images have improved because that.

It's not a one horse race though, in low light the 300f/2.8 II is the Lens I reach for, and anything out past 600 and the 560 range of the 200-400 begins to loose out to the 600f/4 + 1.4x extender.

I still seem to head off on a Safari with at least 3 Lenses, 70-200f/2.8 II, 200-400f/4 + either the 300f/2.8 or the 600f/4 depending on where I intend to shoot, Bush, desert/open veldt.

Very interesting indeed, and I can relate exactly to your preference for being able to zoom. I too like to shoot wildlife, but I am not on your skill level just yet, I don't think. Ever tried or owned the 400 DO, and if so, how's the image quality compare to the 200-400 at 400mm, wide open at f/4, or otherwise? I know the DO is supposed to suffer from a lack of contrast, but I've not seen any images done with one that lacked it. I've liked them all a lot. I like the idea of the lower cost and lighter weight of the DO. However it also does not have the newer generation of IS, so that would be another drawback. At some point I might rent one, but doubt I would rent both it and the 200-400 simultaneously. The series 1 500 f/4 I rented in 2011, was a disappointment.

If CR decided to send me both the 400 DO and the 200-400 for a comparison, I would write an excellent review...and wouldn't even need to travel to a jungle somewhere!! I have plenty of wildlife here, although it's not exotic wildlife.