# Selling 200-400



## sanj (Oct 4, 2014)

Not very happy with this decision as the lens is quite good. But just for use once a year, am not sure if I should hold on to it.
Will buy the Sigma 150-600 sports. But will it be available before my next trip in Feb is the question. Do you think I should wait till the trip is over before selling? What if I sell and the Sigma does not deliver?

Btw the 200-400 is good but I got lots of over exposed shots when I engaged the 1.4x. Perhaps operator error but but not sure...


----------



## lintoni (Oct 4, 2014)

The Sigma will be available in some places from 15th October.

http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/10/up-for-release-18-300-contemporary-150-600-sports-new-teleconverters/


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 4, 2014)

sanj said:


> Not very happy with this decision as the lens is quite good. But just for use once a year, am not sure if I should hold on to it.
> Will buy the Sigma 150-600 sports. But will it be available before my next trip in Feb is the question. Do you think I should wait till the trip is over before selling? What if I sell and the Sigma does not deliver?
> 
> Btw the 200-400 is good but I got lots of over exposed shots when I engaged the 1.4x. Perhaps operator error but but not sure...



Unless you need the cash now just wait. Once the sigma is available rent or buy one and compare for yourself. You have much more to lose if you sell now and regret it later.


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 4, 2014)

Also, with respect to overexposing with the tc engaged. What metering mode are you using? If you spot meter with center point you will not have the same fluctuation in camera metering with the tc engaging as compared to average metering for instance.


----------



## Vivid Color (Oct 4, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Not very happy with this decision as the lens is quite good. But just for use once a year, am not sure if I should hold on to it.
> ...



+1


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 4, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> Also, with respect to overexposing with the tc engaged. What metering mode are you using? If you spot meter with center point you will not have the same fluctuation in camera metering with the tc engaging as compared to average metering for instance.



What is your reasoning behind that?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 4, 2014)

Selling that for the Sigma will likely leave you very disappointed sanj.


----------



## sanj (Oct 4, 2014)

Thanks for your thoughts friends. Appreciate.
My take on the overexposure: The photographer must wait for the lens to become disengaged from AF etc before the extender is engaged. In my excitement of the moment I must have forgotten to do that. And if this is indeed the case then it is a bottleneck. Action in the bush happens fast...


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, with respect to overexposing with the tc engaged. What metering mode are you using? If you spot meter with center point you will not have the same fluctuation in camera metering with the tc engaging as compared to average metering for instance.
> ...



If you are shooting a subject that is darker or lighter than it's surroundings, and you engage the TC, you now fill your frame with more of the subject. Therefore, the metering points will adjust exposure based on what is filling the frame. If you are shooting center point and metering off of your subject, cutting out more of the surrounding habitat will have no impact on exposure, while if you are shooting evaluative mode (averaging the exposure for the entire scene), and you cut out more of the habitat the camera will adjust exposure based on what makes up more of the scene... in this case the subject, which will result in different exposure settings and either under or over-exposing your subject.

Think about a dark moose standing in bright green foliage. Spot metering is the way to go when changing focal lengths if your intention is to maintain correct exposure for the moose. 

Naturally the best way to shoot is in Manual mode exposing for your subject, however this is not always possible if you are in changing lighting conditions or moving around, or shooting multiple different subjects in the same setting. (Canada geese and snow geese for example)


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2014)

I'd rather have $12,000 than a lens I use once a year. You can always rent.


----------



## nc0b (Oct 4, 2014)

Since you had the funds to buy a lens that expensive, one would think you can buy the other zoom and then compare them for a while. Otherwise you will never know which was the right choice. I have made the mistake of selling some ham radio equipment to buy a newer model twice, and totally regretted the decisions. I will never to that again with any kind of equipment, regardless of the hobby. 

I use an external 1.4X TC III on several Canon lenses, zoom and prime, and I have never had an issue with exposure. Don't understand why that is happening. Until I added a 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6, I used a 2X TC III on my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, and never had exposure issues either.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 4, 2014)

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the 400 DO IS II, you can be sure that's going to be the premium wildlife lens for many, many people.
I guess the Sigma isn't that much bigger, 30% heavier and a few inches longer, though that's probably a lot of inches at full zoom.

I would just consider carefully how important the zoom function really is.

(I should note, I will probably be getting the Sigma, if it's good enough at the long end, just on a price/mm basis.)


----------



## luckydude (Oct 4, 2014)

9VIII said:


> I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the 400 DO IS II, you can be sure that's going to be the premium wildlife lens for many, many people.



I'm guessing he makes use of the zoom and the built in tc. He's got a 200-560mm lens in one package. When that lens came out some guy was gushing about how great it is to be able to switch things up so quickly, claimed it was better than having a set of primes (and yeah, 200, 300, 400 + tc is a lot carry around).

That said, I agree with you on the 400mm DO, I have the mark I version and while it is a little less contrasty than some lenses, it's a great lens, I love it. So darn light for what it is - it's the size and weight of my 200mm f2. I can literally hand hold it with one hand (why I would want to I can't say but it's possible).

I'll be taking a hard look at the mark II, if it is significantly better I'll make the jump, that's a great lens. I'd love a 500mm f4 DO.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 4, 2014)

For a once a year usage, I'd think a rental is the way to go. That way, you can always rent the latest and greatest.

The Sigma might be good for the price, but not in the same league as the 200-400L.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 4, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Canon1 said:
> ...



That is false logic and factually incorrect.

You make a very broad assumption of the comparative subject and background illumination, where there is only an over (or under) exposure problem then all scenes must be similar, and that is unrealistic. 

Further _"evaluative mode (averaging the exposure for the entire scene)"_ that isn't how Evaluative mode works, it measures the scene in many different sections (mostly 63 for Canon) and with focus distance and colour info works out what is most probably the subject, it then weights exposure to that subject.


----------



## DJL329 (Oct 4, 2014)

sanj said:


> ... Action in the bush happens fast...



That's what ... oh, nevermind...



luckydude said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the 400 DO IS II, you can be sure that's going to be the premium wildlife lens for many, many people.
> ...



Canon has released a few 600mm DO patents, including this one for a 600mm f/4 DO. That's what I'd like to get, though I may bite the bullet and get either the 400mm f/4 DO or the 500mm f/4L II next Spring.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/03/patent-canon-ef-600-f4l-is-ii-ef-600-f4-do-is/


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



My camera must be broken. If I use evaluative metering in the situation that I DESCRIBED, I experience the exposure problem that I discussed. When I use spot metering in the situation it there is no problem.

You're description of how evaluative metering works does not nullify what I see actually happening in the field. It's simply a more specific description of how the camera technically does it's metering. What I described is EXACTLY what happens when you use evaluative metering and then change focal length on the subject in a scene where the dynamic range between the subject and the surroundings are divergent. 

I didn't make any broad assumptions about the OP's scenes. Sanj said that in some situations he experiences over-exposure problems. I simply discussed a possible reason. I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that in many shooting situations that there is a relatively broad range of dynamic range between the setting and the subject.

Some people come to this forum and argue just to argue.... It's really sad...

Sanj: It sounds like you figured out your problem, but if you still notice issues, you are welcome to try my suggestions. Good luck with your decision making.


----------



## kyle86 (Oct 5, 2014)

Im really interested in what you decide to do as I am waiting for the Sigma 150-600 to see how it compares to the Canon 200-400. Obviously its not going to be the same but will the Canon be worth $10000 extra? I dont mind paying if it is but for a lens that wont be my primary Im kinda thinking about the Sigma.. .hoping there is some reviews coming out asap!


----------



## sanj (Oct 5, 2014)

DJL329 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > ... Action in the bush happens fast...
> ...


----------



## sanj (Oct 5, 2014)

kyle86 said:


> Im really interested in what you decide to do as I am waiting for the Sigma 150-600 to see how it compares to the Canon 200-400. Obviously its not going to be the same but will the Canon be worth $10000 extra? I dont mind paying if it is but for a lens that wont be my primary Im kinda thinking about the Sigma.. .hoping there is some reviews coming out asap!



As I am gaining experience with my photography and getting older I am realizing I do not need the most heavy or expensive equipment to get the photo. I am sure the focus of the Sigma will be as quick as the Canon in good light. The difference will be in low light only. So if I spend 40 days in 'bush' every year then I will have 80 mornings/evenings. Out of that I will witness something to photograph 20 times in tough light. Out of the 20 I will miss just few shots. I think I am ok with that. (Actually I do not think I will miss ANY.)

F4 is bit too wide for me. I find that many times the entire animal is not in focus. So 5.6 is fine and preferable. And the real world depth of field difference between f4 and 5.6 is negligible. 

The main factor is resale value. Sigma may not hold up to its value after 5 years but Canon will. 

I think I will sell the Canon and get the Sigma. Mainly because I prefer to work without the extra step of 1.4x switch. I will prefer the continues zoom option without having to wait for the lens to normalize. 

Or perhaps I am building all this up as I want to save the 9k. haahaha


----------



## Efka76 (Oct 5, 2014)

kyle86 said:


> Im really interested in what you decide to do as I am waiting for the Sigma 150-600 to see how it compares to the Canon 200-400. Obviously its not going to be the same but will the Canon be worth $10000 extra? I dont mind paying if it is but for a lens that wont be my primary Im kinda thinking about the Sigma.. .hoping there is some reviews coming out asap!



You are making a conceptual error here  You should compare Sigma 150-600 with Tamron 150-600. Comparison with Canon is useless as Canon 200-400 is in absolutely different league. It would be the same as to compare Mercedes with Kia


----------



## sanj (Oct 5, 2014)

Efka76 said:


> kyle86 said:
> 
> 
> > Im really interested in what you decide to do as I am waiting for the Sigma 150-600 to see how it compares to the Canon 200-400. Obviously its not going to be the same but will the Canon be worth $10000 extra? I dont mind paying if it is but for a lens that wont be my primary Im kinda thinking about the Sigma.. .hoping there is some reviews coming out asap!
> ...



Hmmm. Most likely what you saying is correct. But Sigma has thrown some surprises our way with their new 35 and 50. Am fantasizing that the league will not be so different. But yes, perhaps I should wait till at least the reliable reviews come out. Thx!


----------



## Eldar (Oct 5, 2014)

I don´t use the 200-400 enough either. I tend to go for the 600 most of the time, with the 1.4xIII extender (I rarely use the 2xIII). But with the 7DII coming, I believe that will change. If it works well with the 200-400, that will be a very potent combo for the majority of birding and wildlife that I do. With a 320-896mm equivalent focal range, it covers (almost) all the focal lengths I´m getting with the 200-400 and the 600 with the 1.4xIII extender. But it remains to be seen what IQ I will be getting, compared to the 1DX.


----------



## candc (Oct 5, 2014)

the problem i see with the new sigma sport is that it's 6 1/2 lbs. i don't know how much difference there will be in real world shots between the sigma and tamron (not that much i expect) but the cost and weight difference is significant.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 5, 2014)

sanj said:


> kyle86 said:
> 
> 
> > Im really interested in what you decide to do as I am waiting for the Sigma 150-600 to see how it compares to the Canon 200-400. Obviously its not going to be the same but will the Canon be worth $10000 extra? I dont mind paying if it is but for a lens that wont be my primary Im kinda thinking about the Sigma.. .hoping there is some reviews coming out asap!
> ...



I wouldn't worry much about that either. The new Sigma is about $2000. Lets say 5yrs later you decide to sell for $800 to $1000 - still not bad. Just make sure the lens gets good work out, not sitting in the bag and looks pretty 

Best wishes sanj


----------



## Steve (Oct 5, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I wouldn't worry much about that either. The new Sigma is about $2000. Lets say 5yrs later you decide to sell for $800 to $1000 - still not bad. Just make sure the lens gets good work out, not sitting in the bag and looks pretty
> 
> Best wishes sanj



Also, the massive price difference between the two means that if the 200-400 only loses 10% of its value over the next 5 years (due to inflation and used lens depreciation), it still loses more than the entire purchase price of the Sigma.


----------



## sanj (Oct 6, 2014)

True!


----------



## kyle86 (Oct 7, 2014)

Efka76 said:


> kyle86 said:
> 
> 
> > Im really interested in what you decide to do as I am waiting for the Sigma 150-600 to see how it compares to the Canon 200-400. Obviously its not going to be the same but will the Canon be worth $10000 extra? I dont mind paying if it is but for a lens that wont be my primary Im kinda thinking about the Sigma.. .hoping there is some reviews coming out asap!
> ...



Hahah well it is if say a Ferrari gets to 300km/h but a kia could get to 250. All I'm saying is that if I can get 80% of the quality for a lens that is $10,000 cheaper I'm gonna take it. I'm not a commercial wildlife photographer so it's just for fun and I as I said I'm happy to spend the money if the lens is really with the ten grand extra but unfortunately I don't know if it will be. Sigmas quality has improved dramatically, I would never have bought a lens of theirs before but now sit with the 50mm art on my 1dx and it's incredible...


----------



## kyle86 (Oct 7, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I don´t use the 200-400 enough either. I tend to go for the 600 most of the time, with the 1.4xIII extender (I rarely use the 2xIII). But with the 7DII coming, I believe that will change. If it works well with the 200-400, that will be a very potent combo for the majority of birding and wildlife that I do. With a 320-896mm equivalent focal range, it covers (almost) all the focal lengths I´m getting with the 200-400 and the 600 with the 1.4xIII extender. But it remains to be seen what IQ I will be getting, compared to the 1DX.



If love to hear how you go with the 7d mk ii on it!! I have the 7d mk ii on pre order and slightly worried I made a big mistake with it haha, I shoot with a 1dx like you and just worry about the quality but I guess time will tell. Please let me know what ya think of it. I'm really stuck about the 200-400... And I worry I'll never be satisfied with the 150-600 but I dunno... Tough call lol. 

How do you find the 1dx with the 200-400 in terms of bokeh? I know it's no 400 2.8 but i hope it's close


----------



## Eldar (Oct 7, 2014)

kyle86 said:


> How do you find the 1dx with the 200-400 in terms of bokeh? I know it's no 400 2.8 but i hope it's close


You have the f-stop difference to the 400 2.8, but in general I have been very happy with the performance of the lens and the bokeh is very nice. I have posted one on the lens thread, from one of my early shots, where I had a strange bokeh effect on a duck shot. But that may have been caused by my horrible post processing skills, combined with the small screen of a laptop. I'll revisit that on a proper screen.

It is a bit too short for birds on a FF body, but on the 7DII it will get the reach I want. The IQ remains to be seen though.


----------



## Maiaibing (Oct 7, 2014)

Steve said:


> I'd rather have $12,000 than a lens I use once a year. You can always rent.



+12,000


----------



## kyle86 (Oct 10, 2014)

New images just released of the Sigma 150-600 - https://imgur.com/a/i7BzG

I gotta say that Eagle shot is pretty darn awesome


----------



## GaryJ (Oct 25, 2014)

Some people come to this forum and argue just to argue.... It's really sad... +1


----------



## candyman (Oct 25, 2014)

kyle86 said:


> New images just released of the Sigma 150-600 - https://imgur.com/a/i7BzG
> 
> I gotta say that Eagle shot is pretty darn awesome



Agree. Very promissing lens


----------



## sanj (Nov 3, 2014)

My lens will be at Adorama used department soon. Any new reviews of the Sigma? I need to replace the Canon.
Btw I still get up in the middle of the night sweating that I made a mistake.


----------



## jvandermerwe (Nov 3, 2014)

Go speak to Art Wolfe, Ric Sammon and Scott Kelby before you just go and sell your 200-400. They will tell you that it it is hands-down the best lens around for wildlife, bird and sports photography. 
Why?: 
Because you can instantly zoom from 200mm - 400mm, and flip the 1.4 lever to 560mm on FF, or 320 mm - 640mm and flip to 896mm on APC. The Sigma and Tamron lenses definitely do not give you the same versatality, and very likely not the same resolution. 

The 200-400 has become the most popular lens for Canon shooting sports photographers. The 2014 World Cup soccer championship proved this point. There was a sea of 200-400's around the fields with every match.

I must admit that I have not used mine much so far, as 560mm maximum on my 5Diii is not enough without using another 1.4 extender on top of the built-in extender. I took a couple hundred shots during the RedBull air races in Vegas a few weeks ago from the stands (all hand-held) and was very satisfied with the results. 

I just received the new 7Dii body last week, so now I will be in business... Cant wait to use the combination !


----------



## sanj (Nov 3, 2014)

Two things:
1. I never dispute the quality of the lens. God forbid! But I use it once a year and can't justify it.
2. The 1.4x is a pain to use. One has to wait for the lens to 'cool down' before engaging it or it over exposes. Many times shots are lost or over exposed because of this. I think the ease of having the entire zoom range available without engaging the extender (150-600) would be easier. 

I am sure you will love the lens combo with the 7D. 

I appreciate your comment much. Am concerned too at times.


----------



## Dekaner (Nov 3, 2014)

My 2 cents as an owner of the 200-400:

1) If you're not using it often, I agree renting makes far more sense.
2) If you are using it regularly and in trying conditions, there is absolutely a difference in quality.
3) I've never had a problem engaging the 1.4x. I switch back and forth during runway fashion to capture details. I take my finger off the back-button, apply the extender, reapply the focus and off I go. FWIW- I've never paid attention to waiting for the buffer to clear.
4) The 300 2.8 II and the 400 2.8 II, when shot at 2.8, produce more aesthetically pleasing images - but - those lenses are not nearly as versatile as the 200-400 and I find my keeper rate to be significantly higher. Also, I don't have to spend as much time cropping images (important when on deadline or working with thousands of images).


----------



## sanj (Nov 3, 2014)

Will the Sigma 150-600 sports not be good enough for once a year Africa trips for the kind of photos on website?

Now I am nervous and feel like stopping the sale.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 3, 2014)

sanj said:


> Will the Sigma 150-600 sports not be good enough for once a year Africa trips for the kind of photos on website?
> 
> Now I am nervous and feel like stopping the sale.


 
Why not wait and rent one, or buy one and return it if its not up to expectations.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 3, 2014)

sanj said:


> Will the Sigma 150-600 sports not be good enough for once a year Africa trips for the kind of photos on website?
> 
> Now I am nervous and feel like stopping the sale.



Of course it will.

It will mean you don't have the biggest dick in the jeep, but who cares? For once a year use it makes little sense to keep it and the safari images you have posted are not in the same league as many of your people images.


----------



## KitsVancouver (Nov 3, 2014)

Unless you "need the money", I think you should keep the Canon 200-400. I look at capital budgeting for a good chunk of my real life, so for what it's worth, this is my rational. 

The cost of keeping the lens is not $12,000. The cost is the opportunity cost of the $12,000 so unless you need the money for something that will earn you money, the cost of the money is just the interest you would earn by putting the money in some liquid investment. At 3%, that's only $360 per year. You will easily spend that much money in rentals per year. 

Your residual value will change little to none at this point because lens depreciation is stepped. Meaning, you take a big hit once you open the box and then it levels off. 

I have a 200-400 that I use very little. I use it for eagle photography once a year and for my young kids in field sports. The cost and hassle of renting isn't worth it for me. 

So..._unless you need that $12K to buy the other lens or you need it to fund some other capital item_, it makes no financial sense to sell the lens and rent.


----------



## Monchoon (Nov 3, 2014)

KitsVancouver said:


> Unless you "need the money", I think you should keep the Canon 200-400. I look at capital budgeting for a good chunk of my real life, so for what it's worth, this is my rational.
> 
> The cost of keeping the lens is not $12,000. The cost is the opportunity cost of the $12,000 so unless you need the money for something that will earn you money, the cost of the money is just the interest you would earn by putting the money in some liquid investment. At 3%, that's only $360 per year. You will easily spend that much money in rentals per year.
> 
> ...



I am not sure but I think his intention is to replace the 200-400 with the $2k Sigma. So then he would have a similar lens and $10k for other expenditures .


----------



## scyrene (Nov 3, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I don´t use the 200-400 enough either. I tend to go for the 600 most of the time, with the 1.4xIII extender (I rarely use the 2xIII). But with the 7DII coming, I believe that will change. If it works well with the 200-400, that will be a very potent combo for the majority of birding and wildlife that I do. With a 320-896mm equivalent focal range, it covers (almost) all the focal lengths I´m getting with the 200-400 and the 600 with the 1.4xIII extender. But it remains to be seen what IQ I will be getting, compared to the 1DX.



That's the sort of comparison I'd love to see.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 3, 2014)

sanj said:


> Will the Sigma 150-600 sports not be good enough for once a year Africa trips for the kind of photos on website?
> 
> Now I am nervous and feel like stopping the sale.



I know the feeling of selling a high quality *L* lens ???

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23186.0


----------



## sdsr (Nov 3, 2014)

sanj said:


> Will the Sigma 150-600 sports not be good enough for once a year Africa trips for the kind of photos on website?
> 
> Now I am nervous and feel like stopping the sale.



You may find this encouraging:

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=417


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 3, 2014)

sanj said:


> Two things:
> 1. I never dispute the quality of the lens. God forbid! But I use it once a year and can't justify it.
> 2. The 1.4x is a pain to use. One has to wait for the lens to 'cool down' before engaging it or it over exposes. Many times shots are lost or over exposed because of this. I think the ease of having the entire zoom range available without engaging the extender (150-600) would be easier.
> 
> ...



I am very curious as to how that can be. As far as I understand, the metering is controlled by the camera, and switching from 1x to 1.4x provides an immediate, real-time input to the camera's sensor to allow it to meter for the next shot. Considering the fact that cameras can adjust metering within fractions of seconds, being unable to expose correctly due to a rapid change in magnification seems quite unlikely.


----------



## sanj (Nov 4, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Two things:
> ...



But it happened to me so so many times. Please see the lion photos I have posted in this thread. Am baffled too.


----------



## sanj (Nov 4, 2014)

sdsr said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Will the Sigma 150-600 sports not be good enough for once a year Africa trips for the kind of photos on website?
> ...



I do not understand the charts so much but I am relieved by most of what I read. Thx…


----------



## sanj (Nov 4, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Will the Sigma 150-600 sports not be good enough for once a year Africa trips for the kind of photos on website?
> ...



Unfortunately the 200-400 is not for rent in my country and to get it in Africa becomes very expensive.


----------



## FEBS (Nov 4, 2014)

I will never sell my 200-400 lens for a Tamron or Sigma 150-600. The Sport version of Sigma seems to give good results. The big difference with the Canon 200-400 is that you need to switch in the extender to get a 280-560. That just seems to give you incorrect exposed photos. I never experienced that during switching in or out. I can understand that this problem is one of the drives to sell this lens. I would contact your dealer for that and try to find out what's going wrong, as I see many here on this forum who have no problem at all with this point.
Weight is not a big difference compared to the 200-400.
Max. aperture is really important for wildlife. I did find out a few weeks ago, that even after 16:00 the iso of the combo 1dx-200-400 dead go up immediately to 6400 and higher. With Sigma/Tamron you do directly start with f5, while the Canon keeps the f4 until 400mm.
Concerning hiring instead of owing such a lens, its quite clear. Look at the rental rates if you need to rent them 2 or 3 weeks a year. Then most economical is buying. See this lens as an investment. The value of the lens will not drop that quick. All the money you pay for renting that lens is really lost.


----------

