I was interested to see who would be using he EF 200-400 f4 and now I know. It looks like sports photographers have taken to this lens in a big way.
http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-len...-the-big-game/
PS: I'm using my mobile so sorry I cannot get the photo to directly display.
Canon EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22, EF 24-105L, EF 50 f1.2L, EF 70-300L, 430EX.
"Criticism is something you can easily avoid, by saying nothing, doing nothing and being nothing." - Tara Moss
FYI: We posted the press release too. :-)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/N...spx?News=17676
RAID, I have seen several sideline pics and you are right, many 200-400's
I thought seriously about the refurb that came up for 8k at Canon last week.
The length and weight hold me back.
i wonder how many of those guys are using the 1.4x
Sorry Sean, my bad. I do read the News every time I visit but must have missed the post.Originally Posted by Sean Setters
When this beast was first announced I thought it would be great... and just like you the weight and price ruled it out.
I noticed that CR have been saying that a EF 200-600 f5.6 will be announced shorty. If my calculations are correct it should be about the same weight (because of the size of the front element) as the EF 200-400 f4 x 1.4, but a little cheaper because there's no X1.4.
PS: In Australia the EF 200-400 f4 X1.4 is around A$13,000
Canon EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22, EF 24-105L, EF 50 f1.2L, EF 70-300L, 430EX.
"Criticism is something you can easily avoid, by saying nothing, doing nothing and being nothing." - Tara Moss
I have read that sports photographers love the lens (among others). What interested me is that the articles I read (from the Sochi Olympics regarding indoor ice skating, if I recall correctly) was that it is really the camera-lens combination that make the 200-400 so popular. Getting to the whole "tool" argument, the photographers were finding that they could crank the ISO up a stop with the newer bodies and still have clean images which allowed them to keep the shutter speed fast enough to freeze action and they no longer needed the 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/2.8. They could then go with the flexibility of a zoom and f/4 as the best tool available.
I can see that benefit being appealing.
But replacing the 300 and 400mm you do not need the 1.4x to do that.
It looks to me like some may like the convenience of the 1.4x extender, but I wonder how many users wish it didn't have it and was a few inches shorter.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote