Canon 200-400mm (1 Viewer)

Hi All

Is anyone out there using the Canon 200-400? I am looking at getting a large lens, I previously had the first version of the 500mm but sold it a while ago but am regretting the decision a little. I like the versatility and close (relatively) focus of the 200-400 but is it comparable in image quality to the 500mm II. The 200-400 is 430g heavier than the 500 but is a little shorter and narrower so its swings and roundabouts with the size issue. I would largely hand-hold or use a mono-pod, is the 200-400 well balanced for such use, have heard it said that the 500 can be readily hand held for short periods, is this the case for the 200-400.

I currently use the 1D MK4 with a 100-400 but feel the need to upgrade.

Would welcome any thoughts there are out there.....

Many thanks in advance.

Simon

I've used one thanks to Wex who had one out to try at the Farnborough Airshow. Other than being able to make the observation that it is indeed an amazing lens, I can't give a more detailed review!

Andy Rouse has gone in to a lot of detail and generally seems to think it's a rather nifty bit of kit.

Hi Paul

Thanks for the response, yes had seen this review which was fairly rave but not seen any birders on the forum reporting on it. Is it because they go for the greater reach of the 500mm or is it simply that there are more 500mm users out there - not sure. I am definitely tempted by it but would love to hear from a user who can back up AR's review.....

Did you hand hold the lens?

Cheers

Simon

No, it was on a tripod with a 1D-X attached. I just got to put my memory card in. (while my 7D + slightly broken 100-400 sat unloved on the floor!)

My instinct tells me it'll remain a lens more popular for wildlife generalists than birders because of the reach issue and/or cost. A used 500mm is half the price. A 800mm will get you a lot more little brown bird.

With your 100-400 how much of the time do you shoot at 400? How much of the time would it be great to have the bird be 2-3 times as tall in the frame?

I think most people want as much focal length as possible. Artie Morris has at 200-400 but from reading his blogs don't use it much for birds even in Florida where he lives which has some of the tamest most approachable birds. He uses his 600 f4 with 2x much of the time. Where he loves the 200-400 is at Galapagos, African Safari and Antarctica.

I had the 500 f4 v1 and moved up to the 600 f4 v2. I can tell you that I use that lens with the 2x probably 80 percent of the time. I handhold the 600 much of the time but I don't think that is for many people. The 500 v2 is much easier to handhold and takes 1.4x and 2x extenders very well. For birds I would have to recommend a 500 or 600 f4 v2 lens over the 200-400.

I would keep the 100-400 and still use that on the occasions where you want shorter focal lengths. This will give you a ton of versatility.

Doug

I have a 500mm Mk11 and it is a very hand holdable lens for long periods, in fact I often go out without a tripod nowadays whereas when I had the Mk1 I couldn't hold it for long. The IQ is excellent, even with the 2.0x TC but the lack of available focus points at f8 makes it frustrating trying to frame your shot on occasion.
I was recently stood next to someone who was using the 200-400 but he had a 2.0xTC attached to his 1DX which to me seemed a bit daft when a large part of the cost of the lens is the added built in 1.4x TC .
We were both shooting at a warbler some 15 - 20 feet away. I too had a 1.4xTC on giving me 700mm on a 5D3 plus far more AF points. He had 560mm had he used his inbuilt TC but he obviously felt it wasn't enough reach so stuck the 2.0x on the end. He now had the 400-800 zoom but the down side would be the same problem I have at F8, you are limited to 5 AF points all in the middle of the frame.
I'm sure he got an equally good shot as I did, probably better but for birding, the reach would regularly be a telling factor. You often don't get anywhere near as close as 15 feet from your subject and consequently I am using my 2.0x TC far more than I used to when I had a 600mm when I'd settle for a 1.4x. That said the IQ is very good as I'm sure it is on the 200-400 although maybe not quite as good as a prime.
As a point of interest perhaps I have attached a shot of the original sized image at 700mm ,and a cropped image to show that you can retain a lot of detail on both 1DX and 5D3 which counters the lack of reach to a certain extent.With the zoom and 1.4xTC the subject would have been 20% smaller .
The 200-400 also weighs as much as my old 500mm which I found difficulty to hand hold, he did too because he attempted to but soon had his lens tripod mounted.
I would really love to own this lens but the cost is far too high to consider having both and on balance I think the 500 is a better all round compromise.
That zoom must be magic on occasion though especially of just flicking a switch and you have added your TC. Wonder what it's like when you use both an external and internal one ?!

Thats a good point about external & internal..i never thought of that..does it take an external TC?

Yes

Now at £8000 down from £12,000

Where ? ....only out of curiosity !

Wex

Currently £ 8,749 in Wex .............. can't be selling as expected!


Shane

ApusApus said:

Currently £ 8,749 in Wex .............. can't be selling as expected!


Shane

Click to expand...

It's out of stock though ! Might be bigger demand for the footy season starting.It's an ideal sports lens really.

The 500 mkII and 600mm mkII are down a few thousand on their RRP too. it's the usual early-adoption markup.

There are strong rumours that Canon will be announcing an updated 100-400 lens at Photokina next month.

I wonder if that is what it will be, given the strong competition from the Tamron 150-600.

I have had the opportunity to try out a Canon 200-400 and was very impressed with it, unfortunately I do not think that I would get much use out of one!
If you want to photograph the smaller species of birds then focal length is important, I consider a 500mm as the minimum with the 600 and 800mm lenses being preferable. My first "Big White" was a 400 F2.8 and needed extenders virtually all the time, I traded it (at a small profit) and went to the 600 F4 IS which I found much better for this sort of thing. A while back the 600 was traded to fund a Canon 800 F5.6 L IS which came along at the right price.
Just my personal view, but if you have the funds for a 200-400 and want to shoot the smaller bird species then the 800 is just the job. Unfortunately it is not at it's best with extenders, though it is OK with the Canon 1.4, however at this focal length extenders are not such an issue. The Canon 800 is certainly sharper than the Canon 600 F4 IS Mk1 and images can stand a lot of cropping also it is VERY rarely too long! The other alternative is the Canon 600 F4 IS Mk2 which, I am told, works excellently with extenders so it may be a better option.

johnf3f said:

The other alternative is the Canon 600 F4 IS Mk2 which, I am told, works excellently with extenders so it may be a better option.

Click to expand...

Canon also managed a 25% weight reduction with the mkII. It weights about the same as the 500mm mk I rather than weighting more than the 800mm.

At the end of the day, whatever you choose will be a compromise. You have to weigh up your own individual needs and look at the possibilities but whatever the choice is I can virtually guarantee you will always wonder "did I make the right choice ?" If you don't you probably won't be reading this !

All
Thanks for the advice on this, is a very useful discussion. I think that, Dave Williams, you hit the nail on the head all of these lenses that we are discussing a superb (not that I have tried them all) and it ultimately boils down to a personal choice. Some may like the flexibility that the 200-400 offers plus fitted with an external 1.4 or 2.0 converter you get extra reach (not as much as the 500, 600 and 800 with converter) although loose a few stops. The 500, 600 and 800 are superb lenses with the extra reach that the 200-400 does not have but the two larger lenses are monsters and the fixed length does not provide the versatility of the 200-400. I think the consensus is that the 200-400 and the 500 are hand-holdable whereas the 600 and 800, forget it. So that perhaps means that birding and photography becomes tied to lugging a massive lens and tripod around - not sure thats for me. So, personally, I think that the ideal compromise will either be the 500mm or the 200-400mm with an extra converter stuffed in my pocket. I may well be loitering at the Canon stand at the Bird Fair!

Just asa point of interest, I contacted WEX regarding availability of the 200-400 and they said that it would be delivered within around 1 week from point of order - I guess this means they don't keep it in stock and source externally.

Scanning back to Dave William's post and his superb Ruppell's Warbler shot the 500mm looks like a great option, dilemmas, dilemmas….

I was at the Birdfair yesterday and had a look at this lens. Optically it is superb but for me I thought it to be rathe bulky. Unlike many on here I like to walk about with my gear so carrying a tripod with gimbalhead, camera and a big lens is far too much effort. It is is fine if you are a bird photographer first and a birder second, I am not.

As for this lens, I baulk at the idea of buying a piece of kit like this when one could buy a car for that, but if you have the money, okay.

If I was in the market before buying this lens I think I would wait to see what the revamped 100-400 is going to offer, it will certainly be cheaper and lighter therefore more hand holdable.

Heavens if it came out as say an F4!!