Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Canon 200-400 ?

  1. #1

    Canon 200-400 ?

    Hi all. I suppose i am in a somewhat fortunate position. Over the years i've saved my money and have been fortunate enough to purchase a Canon 500 F4 IS Land 300 F2.8 IS L. Whilst we all know these are two amazing len's and i love them. I attach them to my 1D MK4 or 7D dependant on what im doing (sport/wildlife) and have always loved the image quality. Unfortunatly, time has moved on and as with all of us, im getting older. Ive noticed carrying all my lens/camera gear up hills, across tracks is very tiring and the stuff is very heavy. Whilst im loathed to admit it, i am seriously considering selling the two primes and investing in the new 200-400. Prices for the primes has withstood the new ones launch due to the small improved optical quality and massive price hike and as with my pro sports friend, he said his friends who do pro sports are keeping or purchasing the old len's. So now is a good time to sell. Ive checked the metadata of my shots and find i rarly shoot wide open with the 300 so such a wide apeture in all but the very rare occurances is something i dont need especially with the improved ISO performance of the 1D4 over my 7D. As for the 500 i do shoot wide open so may on occassion miss the f4 or that extra 100mm. It is annoying that time has marched on but i have to admit, i am really feeling the weight. The new lens is lighter overall, optically close from what i read, will cover the focal range but again is a bit of a compromise for reach.

    So what do you guys think? Any idea when the new lens will arrive? Anyone had a similar problem with age/weight issues with the superteles. I just hope i wont regret it if i sell.

    Thanks for any advice.

    Mick the oldish dude.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,956
    I don't know if size/weight is a particularly good reason to switch to the 200-400. I don't think the weight has been announced yet, but if the Nikon version is any indication, it's going to weigh about as much as your 500/4. Here's a better idea, IMHO:

    Get the new 300mm f/2.8 II and both TC: 1.4X and 2.0X. Even with the TC, I bet it will be 30-40% lighter than the 200-400. Plus, you can get three combinations:

    300mm f/2.8
    420mm f/4
    600mm f/5.6

    You'll notice that it's very similar to what you get with the 200-400:
    200 - 400mm f/4
    280 - 560mm f/5.6

    However, I'm certain that the 300mm will have even better image quality. The trade-off, of course, is the convenience of the zoom.

    Now, you said that the image quality of the new 300mm is not really that noticeable over the old 300mm. This may be true in certain circumstances, such as with the 1D4. But with the new 2X TC, the difference is quite striking:

    http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API= 0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =2&APIComp=2

    You can get pretty amazing image quality even with a 2X TC.

    Hope that helps.
    Last edited by Daniel Browning; 05-19-2012 at 10:27 PM. Reason: Fix comparison link - thanks HDNitehawk

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,973
    Yea I have weight issues with my supertele's. I don't think it is an age issue, it would have been heavy packing the gear around when I was 30 years younger as well.

    Somewhere I had read that the weight of the new 200-400mm was going to be in the 7 pound range. About the same as the 500mm F/4L. But nothing else has been said about the 200-400mm in a long time. If that is the case you are not going to gain much weight wise. I doubt we see one in at least a year.

    +1 for Daniels comments about the 300mm. I have been thinking about selling my 300mm F/2.8 and trading up to the new version for the reasons he mentions. He didn't mention it but he is referring to the new 2x III not the II version.

    Also Daniel, did you intend to link a 300mm F/4 comparison or a F/2.8 comparison?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    Also Daniel, did you intend to link a 300mm F/4 comparison or a F/2.8 comparison?
    I did, thanks for the correction. (No wonder the comparison seemed more lopsided than I expected.)

  5. #5
    Hi guys, perhaps what i should have made more clear, i carry my 500 300 and a couple of cameras at the same time. Therefore the convenience of one lens over two plus the weight saving will help my old bones. As for the comparisons, what we never point out is what do you print on and to what size and for who. My friend gets his stuff in national newspapers so with the poor print quality the new lens makes no differance to him. I only print at A3 on a very good printer, so i wont notice any differance old to new unless i use extenders and the differance will be slight but will it be noticable? Barly if at all to the human eye. That said, if i was in magazines and wanted top of the line stuff for a publisher then id defiantly consider the trade. But for the average person printing for themselves, id never buy the new stuff as id struggle to notice any differance. Maybe ill wait until it hits the shelves, but for me, one lens less weight seems logical.

    Oh, and if anyone knows, when will it hit the shelves?

    Mick

  6. #6
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Mickw View Post
    Oh, and if anyone knows, when will it hit the shelves?
    Given that no release date has been announced, combined with Canon's recent track record of on-time releases of products they have announced (where is that 500/4 II they announced 18 months ago, anyway?), I'm going to predict it will be available by the 6th Tuesday of November. That might be too optimistic...

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Mickw View Post
    Hi guys, perhaps what i should have made more clear, i carry my 500 300 and a couple of cameras at the same time.
    No, I think you did a good job of making that clear. It does (or did) put you in the minority of photographers, though. Even the youngest of us are pretty wimpy about carrying that much weight and volume.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mickw View Post
    Therefore the convenience of one lens over two plus the weight saving will help my old bones.
    Agreed. There is also the question is whether that one lens should be a zoom or a 300/2.8 (with TC to give you the longer focal lengths). The 300 will be noticeably lighter, and perhaps even cheaper and higher quality to boot. The zoom might be faster at focusing than the 300+1.4X though; we'd have to wait to see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mickw View Post
    I only print at A3 on a very good printer, so i wont notice any differance old to new unless i use extenders and the differance will be slight but will it be noticable?
    If the quality difference isn't important (and neither is the weight, autofocus speed, and other improvements of the new $7300 300/2.8) then you can just stay with your existing 300mm f/2.8.

    The main point of what I'm saying is that you can save weight, reduce your lens count, pay less money, and still get better quality images without the zoom. So the only remaining reason to get the zoom is because it zooms. And that is definitely a good reason to get it.

    But if you are fine with a prime, and you don't really need a zoom (as much as the other things like weight/quality), then it seems like a 300mm f/2.8 (new or old) with TC is a better fit for you.

  8. #8
    Senior Member FastGass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beautiful Ferndale Washington.
    Posts
    154
    If you can live with 500mm and up how about just getting the 500mm f/4 II? It's 7lbs (1.5 lbs lighter) and would beat the 200-400mm in terms of IQ in that focal length range and AF would be faster as well. That would weigh about half of what you are carring now and still get great images.

    John.
    Amateurs worry about gear, pros about the pay, masters about the light, and I just take pictures!

  9. #9
    Ive decided to sell the primes and buy the zoom. Less weight overall, close on image quality, actually no differance on image quality at what i print. Its a sad day when time means i must dispose of my best lens. As for buying thew new 500 which is a bit lighter? It is, but i wont notice any differance in quality at A3 printing.

    Mick

  10. #10
    Senior Member FastGass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beautiful Ferndale Washington.
    Posts
    154
    I didn't recomend the 500mm II because of IQ but because of lighter weight, faster focusing and the biggest of all wider aperture and the longer focal lengths.

    But thats OK if you want the 200-400mm, I would not sell anything right now untill the 200-400mm is actually relleased and in the stores. It might never come out and it's better to have pics with what you have then whith something you don't.
    Amateurs worry about gear, pros about the pay, masters about the light, and I just take pictures!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •