# LensRentals.com Tests the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 6, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/lensrentals-com-tests-the-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/lensrentals-com-tests-the-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>From LensRentals.com

</strong>Roger over at <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com" target="_blank">LensRentals.com</a> has taken some time to test a variety of Canon 400mm lenses, including the new EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x.</p>
<p><strong>Roger’s initial take…</strong>

<em>“I can’t say whether it’s worth the price or not, but I can certainly say it’s the sharpest zoom lens I’ve ever seen, with image quality rivaling the most expensive primes.”</em></p>
<p>He did note however, that the 200-400 is a bit shorter at the long end than the EF 400 f/2.8L IS II. They’ve come to the initial conclusion that it’s about 95% of the 400 2.8 primes focal length.</p>
<div id="attachment_13672" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/200400imatest1.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-13672" alt="IMATEST Results for Canon 400mm Lenses" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/200400imatest1.jpg" width="575" height="140" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">IMATEST Results for Canon 400mm Lenses</p></div>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/canon-200-400mm-f4-is-quick-comparison" target="_blank">Read the post at LensRentals.com</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><strong>Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x $11,799</strong>

</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong><strong>USA: </strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA2004004.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CQGF8H6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00CQGF8H6&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.normancamera.com/index/page/product/product_id/28468/product_name/Canon+EF+200-400mm+f4L+IS+USM+Lens+with+Internal+1.4x+Extender" target="_blank">Norman Camera</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><strong>Canada: </strong><a href="http://www.cameracanada.com/enet-cart/product.asp?pid=5176B002" target="_blank">Camera Canada</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><strong>Europe: </strong><a href="http://www.photocineshop.com/fr/vente/products/Canon-EF-200-400-mm-f-4L-IS-USM-Multiplicateur-1-4X-integre-WB0RS5?search=200-400&page=1" target="_blank">PhotoCineShop</a></strong></li>
</ul>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Click (Jun 6, 2013)

Thanks for sharing this information.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jun 6, 2013)

Me want! I can just sell my car and just bike to work, right? (And take the kids to soccer practice, and get groceries, and......aw dang.)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 6, 2013)

As usual, performance increase is not proportional to price increase. Its really difficult to get a significant performance increase.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 6, 2013)

Nice to see the data. I've been saying for years that the 400F5.6 is way sharper than the 100-400F5.6... Roger's test data certainly confirms that. I'm surprised at how close it is to the 400F2.8, I always knew it was a good lens.

That said, I still think a 400II lens with fluorite element and IS would be a fantastic update to the Canon lineup, even if it was in the $2500 range....


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 6, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> As usual, performance increase is not proportional to price increase. Its really difficult to get a significant performance increase.



At the upper end of lens design you can probably expect more than doubling the price for a less than 10 percent increase...


----------



## Rowbear (Jun 6, 2013)

This new zoom lens sure is impressive. What is also impressive is how good the "old" 400 f/5.6 is, especially for the price, but then again, those of us who own it knew that already


----------



## AlanF (Jun 6, 2013)

This is just one set of measurements under sub-optimal conditions. It is remarkable how the data on the 400mm f/5.6 conflict with Canon's own MTF charts and measurements by Photozone.de and SLRGear.

Here is a collage of Canon's MTF charts, The 200-400 is pretty remarkable, to say the least.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 7, 2013)

AlanF said:


> This is just one set of measurements under sub-optimal conditions. It is remarkable how the data on the 400mm f/5.6 conflict with Canon's own MTF charts and measurements by Photozone.de and SLRGear.



Yeah I always noted that the 400 f/5.6 MTF from Canon always looked solid but not amazing and yet over the years people have posted some sample shots, 100% crops, that looked pretty remarkably super-tele-like crisp.


----------



## garyknrd (Jun 7, 2013)

Well I didn't think that lens was going to get this rave review. I am glad I was wrong. Looks like another home run from Canon. These guys are on a roll big time. Best big glass in the world IMO. Although too big and heavy for me I am really waiting for the pics to start showing up. Great job Canon.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 7, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > This is just one set of measurements under sub-optimal conditions. It is remarkable how the data on the 400mm f/5.6 conflict with Canon's own MTF charts and measurements by Photozone.de and SLRGear.
> ...



It all depends on how much of the frame the subject fills. The big white prime superteles can get a sharp image from 700x700 pixels. I need about 1400x1400 pixels or more from the 100-400mm to get equivalent sharpness. If I then post a 100% crop at that level it can look stunning. But, I need to be at half the distance away that the 200-400 or the 400mm f/2.8 would have to be.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2013)

AlanF said:


> This is just one set of measurements under sub-optimal conditions. It is remarkable how the data on the 400mm f/5.6 conflict with Canon's own MTF charts and measurements by Photozone.de and SLRGear.
> 
> Here is a collage of Canon's MTF charts, The 200-400 is pretty remarkable, to say the least.



Looking at Roger's data compared to the Canon MTF curves for the 400 II vs the 200-400 @ 400mm, something doesn't add up - significant difference on Canon's MTF, no real difference in Roger's test...


----------



## Stone (Jun 7, 2013)

The 200-400 is a nice lens no doubt, but for that kind of money, I'll continue saving my pennies for the 400 2.8. With my 1.4 tc, I'll still be a stop faster. The 200-400 is, I'm sure a great lens, but I don't quite see the value per dollar, if it was ~5-7K, I would have been among the 1st to order one....


----------



## garyknrd (Jun 8, 2013)

AlanF said:


> This is just one set of measurements under sub-optimal conditions. It is remarkable how the data on the 400mm f/5.6 conflict with Canon's own MTF charts and measurements by Photozone.de and SLRGear.
> 
> Here is a collage of Canon's MTF charts, The 200-400 is pretty remarkable, to say the least.



Wow, I just looked at the data a little closer. That is very strange! Not sure what to think now. No doubt a great lens but?


----------



## msm (Jun 8, 2013)

Disregard the MTF, this thing seems to deliver:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## sanj (Jun 9, 2013)

msm said:


> Disregard the MTF, this thing seems to deliver:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2



W O W


----------



## Pi (Jun 9, 2013)

msm said:


> Disregard the MTF, this thing seems to deliver:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2



Not so impressive at 560mm:

Copy 1:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Copy 2:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Even the 100-400 is sharper at the long end (400 vs 560mm though):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0


----------



## RGF (Jun 13, 2013)

Stone said:


> The 200-400 is a nice lens no doubt, but for that kind of money, I'll continue saving my pennies for the 400 2.8. With my 1.4 tc, I'll still be a stop faster. The 200-400 is, I'm sure a great lens, but I don't quite see the value per dollar, if it was ~5-7K, I would have been among the 1st to order one....



Without the 1.4, perhaps under $9K. Nikon's is just under $7K but they were to re-introduce the lens it would be closer to $10K. Just look at the Nikon's new 800 at $17,900 :


----------

