# Canon 200-400mm review



## Warrenl (May 21, 2013)

http://pixsylated.com/blog/peter-read-miller-canon-200-400mm-london-olympics/


----------



## Click (May 21, 2013)

Thanks for the link.


----------



## garyknrd (May 22, 2013)

Nice pics, thanks for the link.


----------



## optikus (May 22, 2013)

Very nice - interesting report on that lens - thank you vm.

Joerg


----------



## Dwight (May 22, 2013)

If I were to be absolutely true to myself, this is a lens I cannot afford at the moment, yet will lust over it for sometime. Either this or the 300 2.8 II for me. Huge price difference, yet it's a consideration for me later on...budget-permitting. Will see how real-world performance pans out. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 24, 2013)

Warrenl said:


> http://pixsylated.com/blog/peter-read-miller-canon-200-400mm-london-olympics/



Lol...I was in the audience when this shot was taken and yes I saw this chap with this lens in the Press pit. 
Give me a few days and I'll dig out a photo of this very moment from a less ideal spot


----------



## kaihp (May 24, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Warrenl said:
> 
> 
> > http://pixsylated.com/blog/peter-read-miller-canon-200-400mm-london-olympics/
> ...



Which of the 6 different shots are you talking about?


----------



## RGF (May 25, 2013)

I ordered on from Amazon the evening of the announcement. I got a polite email from some at Amazon. May be standard form letter or something more. Not sure.

I am traveling now, but will check when I get home on Memorial Day


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 26, 2013)

kaihp said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Warrenl said:
> ...



Soz, First shot and on review it was a different day. His shot was during one of the qualifying heats. I was there for the finals and she was wearing white on that particular day:


----------



## eml58 (May 27, 2013)

From "Nikon Rumours", the gauntlet has been thrown down it seems.


----------



## bchernicoff (May 27, 2013)

I don't think the background blur looks very good at all. And looking at the focal lengths printed under the images, I feel like everyone of them would have been better shot at 300mm f/2.8 and cropped if necessary. This assumes these weren't crops already.


----------



## eml58 (May 27, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> I don't think the background blur looks very good at all. And looking at the focal lengths printed under the images, I feel like everyone of them would have been better shot at 300mm f/2.8 and cropped if necessary. This assumes these weren't crops already.



Well the lens is never going to be all things to all photographers, but I own the 200f/2, 300f/2.8 & 400f/2.8 Version 2 Lenses, Plus the 600f/4 Version 2, and more based on what I've seen in Andy Rousse's Review, I'de have to disagree that @ f/4 this Lens isn't just as good as any of the Primes I mentioned above, time will tell of course, once we have a few being used and start to see the Images, but I'm sold. If you haven't already, have a look here, can't see too much wrong with Bokah @ f/4, or at any other f/stop. I imagine the Photographer didn't shoot his Images at f/2.8 is because this is an f/4 Lens through the Zoom Range without the 1.4x Converter in place.


http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?page_id=174


----------



## bchernicoff (May 27, 2013)

eml58 said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the background blur looks very good at all. And looking at the focal lengths printed under the images, I feel like everyone of them would have been better shot at 300mm f/2.8 and cropped if necessary. This assumes these weren't crops already.
> ...



I was suggesting that the photographer could have just used the 300mm f/2.8 II lens. Andy's images look fantastic though and I'm sure the flexibility of having a zoom is a big help in a lot of scenarios.


----------

