Canon 200-400

The good thing about this lens... It makes the price of the 70-200 F2.8L mk2 seem very reasonable :)

I want :(


*edit*

He talked about using a separate 2x TC with the builtin 1.4x TC. I assume this is only possible with something like the 1DX if you want AF to still work?
 
I don't think it would as the 1DX only AF's to F8 and the combination of F4 lens + 2x and 1.4x would put it over that, however it would with either individually.
 
I'm not convinced it's worth the money when you look at the price of some of the long fast primes it's competing against but I'm sure it will sell well in it's small intended market.

Maybe when they've finally finished messing around with this (it's been in development so long now!) they will get round to refreshing the 10-400 with the lates gen IS.
 
It's the same as things like the expensive Nikon primes - they're only meant to be for pro photographers who will generally be supplied with one at sporting events and the like, so the price is really a null issue as it's just going to be an incredibly low volume lens that is mostly used on loan from Canon at sporting events. Most other uses are better served by primes - I can only really see this lens being bought outright by wildlife photographers who need to be quick but need the range, but also won't likely be supported directly by Canon pro services, as Canon primarily want as many white barrels at sporting events as possible to get people to buy Canon; they're not really too fussed if a deer sees a fancy white barrel.
 
I personally struggle to see why you would get this over the 400mm prime anyway, given it's more or less the same price....the 400 f2.8 is more flexible arguably as you can get to 800/f5.6...
 
londonbairn said:
I personally struggle to see why you would get this over the 400mm prime anyway, given it's more or less the same price....the 400 f2.8 is more flexible arguably as you can get to 800/f5.6...
Click to expand...

Probably useful for sport stuff. If you're on one particular sports line, and not running around a pitch, I suspect the zoom will be useful.

kd
 
londonbairn said:
I personally struggle to see why you would get this over the 400mm prime anyway, given it's more or less the same price....the 400 f2.8 is more flexible arguably as you can get to 800/f5.6...
Click to expand...

Read my post just above yours. People won't be buying these for the most part, they'll use them as provided by Canon. This is more for sports than wildlife, though depending on what you're shooting, e.g. if you're in a forest, the ability to very quickly change your focal length while maintaining awesome quality will likely be much appreciated, though I imagine only a select few of the most successful wildlife photographers will need it so much that they buy one and it pays for itself.
 
I'm assuming the prices the aussie guy quoted are in Aus dollars? If so, the price doesn't seem massively expensive compared to the other long F2.8 primes?
 
londonbairn said:
I personally struggle to see why you would get this over the 400mm prime anyway, given it's more or less the same price....the 400 f2.8 is more flexible arguably as you can get to 800/f5.6...
Click to expand...

The Nikon 200-400mm f/4 is very popular (for a super tel that cost the same as a family car).
It is light enough to use handheld very briefly by stronger people at an absolute push, which has some advantage. The tripod requirements are somewhat reduced as well. A 400mm f/2.8 requires extreme support, gimbal heads are a must, really you want a sidekick as well.

Then there is the travel, the 400mm f/2.8 is very difficult to fly with (like the 600mm f/4.0). the 200-400 should just about fit in the overhead lockers, like the 500mm f/4.0.


Then there is the versatility. The Nikon 200-400 f/4.0 is known as the de facto safari lens, because on safari you never know when a lion will come up close or a white rhino is off in the distance.



However, saying that most people are better served by a fast prime. But the 400mm f/2.8 really isn't it. 400mm isn't actually that long on FF so TCs are used most of the time for serious wildlife work. The weight, size and cost are monumental. The 500mm f/4.0 is a common model because it has that extra reach over the 400mm, but in a cheaper, lighter, smaller lens that can still take TCs admirably. 600mm models are used by bird togs, but you end up with the same issue of size, weight, cost.

200-400 is also a useful range for sports.
 
Ksanti said:
Read my post just above yours. People won't be buying these for the most part, they'll use them as provided by Canon. This is more for sports than wildlife, though depending on what you're shooting, e.g. if you're in a forest, the ability to very quickly change your focal length while maintaining awesome quality will likely be much appreciated, though I imagine only a select few of the most successful wildlife photographers will need it so much that they buy one and it pays for itself.
Click to expand...

The Nikon one is usually used as backup lens or for flexibility.
Moose Peterson loves his.
 
Yeah I've never really used any lenses with this kind of reach but it just sound so versatile :/ Makes it sound even more appealing.
 
D.P. said:
The Nikon 200-400mm f/4 is very popular (for a super tel that cost the same as a family car).
It is light enough to use handheld very briefly by stronger people at an absolute push, which has some advantage. The tripod requirements are somewhat reduced as well. A 400mm f/2.8 requires extreme support, gimbal heads are a must, really you want a sidekick as well.

Then there is the travel, the 400mm f/2.8 is very difficult to fly with (like the 600mm f/4.0). the 200-400 should just about fit in the overhead lockers, like the 500mm f/4.0.


Then there is the versatility. The Nikon 200-400 f/4.0 is known as the de facto safari lens, because on safari you never know when a lion will come up close or a white rhino is off in the distance.

However, saying that most people are better served by a fast prime. But the 400mm f/2.8 really isn't it. 400mm isn't actually that long on FF so TCs are used most of the time for serious wildlife work. The weight, size and cost are monumental. The 500mm f/4.0 is a common model because it has that extra reach over the 400mm, but in a cheaper, lighter, smaller lens that can still take TCs admirably. 600mm models are used by bird togs, but you end up with the same issue of size, weight, cost.

200-400 is also a useful range for sports.
Click to expand...

The new 400 is 3.5kg and very handholdable (canon side anyway, that's a drop of 1.5kg versus the previous version). believe me I have walked around with one attached to a 1DX for hours with no problems.

Also the 200-400mm I believe is longer than the 400 f2.8 on the Canon side anyway (thanks to the built in TC no doubt)...as for travel, well any long lenses has the same issue. That's why pelis are invented, no?

Agree 500/600 (plus a 1.4 of course) is the de facto choice of pro nature photographers, but the reason I see the 400 as a good base is it's wide aperture, and the ridicolous maintaning of IQ with a 1.4 / 2x converter.

I'm just saying I would take the 400 f2.8 over this personally, and have a 70-200mm f2.8 in tow. (i.e. if I was buying only one super lens!). But then it's horses for courses, I do sports/events mostly.

I'm with you on the comment about it being a secondary lens, not primary.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom