# Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 14, 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/?p=13494"></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/?p=13494">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>A great review</strong>
<a href="http://www.andyrouse.co.uk" target="_blank">Andy Rouse</a> has spent 6 months with the new <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">EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x</a> and has posted a pretty extensive real world review.</p>
<p><strong>Says Andy….</strong>

<em>“It is no secret that I am in the Shakira fan club, you know that by now. Its even less of a secret that I am in the 200-400 fan club, in fact I am a fully paid up lifetime member. I just love this lens. As you have seen above, I have really used it hard in a variety of situations during the 6 months I have had it, and it has simply done everything that I have asked. No failures. Nothing to complain about. I have inspected all of the images that I have taken for any distortion, chromatic aberration or lick marks and I can say, hand on one of my two Vulcan hearts, that I did not find any. And remember I have been using a prototype, your production ones will be mint.”</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?page_id=174" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Preorder the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x: <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></strong> | <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></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 14, 2013)

Being a hobbyist I would never ever be able to justify this so I should stay away from reading the review as it will only make me sad reading it. Seems like Canon has nailed it with this one. Is it the end of longer primes?


----------



## bchernicoff (May 14, 2013)

It seems like a very nice lens. I have to ask myself though, if his only other choice were using the 100-400 how much different would these shots look? Sure the ISO8000 shots wouldn't have been possible at f/5.6. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of money to gain one stop and IQ. This lens is 10x the cost of the 100-400, but is it 10x a better lens? It will be very interesting to see what an updated 100-400 will bring.


----------



## kirillica (May 14, 2013)

A lovely review. Worth of reading even if you never buy one of these toys.


----------



## Ladislav (May 14, 2013)

Nice review with awesome pictures. 

This must be a great lens unfortunately with great price tag. Even thinking about either 1DX or new 200-400 would probably make me single ...


----------



## max (May 14, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> It seems like a very nice lens. I have to ask myself though, if his only other choice were using the 100-400 how much different would these shots look? Sure the ISO8000 shots wouldn't have been possible at f/5.6. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of money to gain one stop and IQ. This lens is 10x the cost of the 100-400, but is it 10x a better lens? It will be very interesting to see what an updated 100-400 will bring.



It gets more expensive than improvement in IQ all the time.

50 1.8 is 100, the 50mm 1.4 is 400 and the 50mm 1.2 is 1400... is it 14 times better? definetly not.
the 75-300mm is 100, the 70-300mm IS USM is like 500, the 70-300mm L is 1400 bucks... again, 14x better?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 14, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> It seems like a very nice lens. I have to ask myself though, if his only other choice were using the 100-400 how much different would these shots look? Sure the ISO8000 shots wouldn't have been possible at f/5.6. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of money to gain one stop and IQ. This lens is 10x the cost of the 100-400, but is it 10x a better lens? It will be very interesting to see what an updated 100-400 will bring.


 
There is little doubt that each time you move to increased lens performance that the law of diminishing returns comes into play. Making larger diameter lenses with much smaller tolerances, hand assembly and extensive calibration make for a crazy price. They can't actually grind the elements accurately enough to just put them into a lens, the elements must be individually matched to each other by testing them. Its a very fine point, but its the only way to get the extra performance.

I'm sure I could tell the difference between one and my 100-400mmL, but it won't be night and day. I had a Tokina 400mm f/5.6 that I bought used for $125. It was only a slight downgrade IQ wise from my L, but the price was 10X less.


----------



## AlanF (May 14, 2013)

Here is a comparison of the 200-400 mtfs at 400mm and 560mm with the f/2.8 300mm II + 1.4x TC at 420 mm, and the f/2.8 400mm II prime, and then the 200-400mm at 560mm with TC, the 300mm at 600mm with 2xTC, and the 400mm prime with 1.4x TC. I'll stick with the 300mm + TCs as the 200-400 is too heavy for me as well as too pricey. All these lenses seriously outgun the 100-400mm f/5.6, and you see it quite easily in the resolution of detail when you compare them in practice.


----------



## SpecialGregg (May 14, 2013)

max said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like a very nice lens. I have to ask myself though, if his only other choice were using the 100-400 how much different would these shots look? Sure the ISO8000 shots wouldn't have been possible at f/5.6. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of money to gain one stop and IQ. This lens is 10x the cost of the 100-400, but is it 10x a better lens? It will be very interesting to see what an updated 100-400 will bring.
> ...



I can't, nor will I likely ever, be able to speak to the 200-400 1.4X, but the 70-300L isn't just 14x better than the non-L, it's like 140x better. So it's plausible.


----------



## iTasneem (May 14, 2013)

I like his photos ... awsome


----------



## CarlTN (May 14, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> It seems like a very nice lens. I have to ask myself though, if his only other choice were using the 100-400 how much different would these shots look? Sure the ISO8000 shots wouldn't have been possible at f/5.6. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of money to gain one stop and IQ. This lens is 10x the cost of the 100-400, but is it 10x a better lens? It will be very interesting to see what an updated 100-400 will bring.



The law of diminishing returns. Surely no one who ever buys (or even uses) the new 200-400, will ever admit they could achieve similar results with a far less costly lens. Just as someone who has the 100-400, would never admit that a third party lens is optically as good as it, but for half the price. It's amusing to me that all the 100-400 fanboys are positively itching to their very souls, since Nikon's new 80-400 came out...counting the seconds to when they can rush to buy a new Canon "equivalent". When they do buy the "new 100-400", they will be quick to tout how much better it is than the old lens, and how it was worth the upgrade (even if Canon feels the need to offer it at or above $3k...to make sure it's priced higher than the Nikon...for that extra snob appeal and bling factor).

Not to say that the Canon 200-400 is not a fine lens, it looks like it is. For myself, I prefer to shoot wildlife in lower light, and am not currently a pro sports shooter. If I was, then this 200-400 and a 1DX would be the way to go, without a doubt. It's just a shame Nikon beat Canon by about a decade, with their 200-400 f/4. Obviously it does not look comparable in optical quality or performance ergonomics (especially the IS and the T/C switcher), to the Canon...

A similar cost/value comparison could be made between "supercars" and plain old "sports cars". Is the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport 10x better than a Ferrari 458 Italia? To some it might be...to others not. But let's face it. The only difference between the two, while driving legally on public roads, is the bling factor.


----------



## Skirball (May 14, 2013)

iTasneem said:


> I like his photos ... awsome



That's an incredible shot.


----------



## mackguyver (May 14, 2013)

What a cool write up to go with the launch - Canon should have him help all of their launches. The photos are incredible and his humor and honesty left me amused and impressed. I have been running the numbers in my head all day - what gear can I sell, how much can I put on my AMEX, etc., for this lens. Alas, I need to get A LOT more paying work before I can afford it.

As for the 100-400 comparison, it is an unfortunate reality that the cost between the great and greatest are so high and the differences so small in relation. This is true of all fine things, though, whether it's cars, watches, amplifiers/speakers, etc. I am sure the build quality is significantly higher, though. In my own experience, I couldn't believe how much better the build of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is over my 70-200 f4 IS - made me realize that there was more to the extra cost than just a tripod mount and an extra stop. I'm sure the same will be true of the 200-400.


----------



## charlesa (May 14, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Here is a comparison of the 200-400 mtfs at 400mm and 560mm with the f/2.8 300mm II + 1.4x TC at 420 mm, and the f/2.8 400mm II prime, and then the 200-400mm at 560mm with TC, the 300mm at 600mm with 2xTC, and the 400mm prime with 1.4x TC. I'll stick with the 300mm + TCs as the 200-400 is too heavy for me as well as too pricey. All these lenses seriously outgun the 100-400mm f/5.6, and you see it quite easily in the resolution of detail when you compare them in practice.



So basically MTF say 400 with a 1.4 is still sharper than the 200-400?


----------



## AlanF (May 14, 2013)

Andy Rouse wrote: 
"To be truthful, a better method here is to take the 2x converter, place it gently on the ground so that it is bathed in lovely soft, evening light. Then paint your teeth red and smash it violently to pieces with a large baseball bat, cackling maniacally all the time at passers by. Go on do it, it will feel so good. Now before you think I have an issue against Canon 2x converters I don't! I hate ALL 2x teleconverters equally!!! I consider them a complete waste of space and money, it is always better to use a 1.4x teleconverter and crop. Of course that is just my view!"

That last sentence is opinionated twaddle from the Ken Rockwell school of creative writing. The MTFs for the 2xTC III on the 300mm f/2.8 II are, as seen in the collage I posted, very good and the contrast etc excellent. None of the photos he has posted, as good as they are, show very fine detail as you would see on bird plumage at high resolution. If he took such photos and compared a rezzed up 1.4 with a 2x he would see the advantage of the 2x - my 1.4x TC spends most of its time in its pouch.


----------



## Click (May 14, 2013)

iTasneem said:


>



Awesome. Breathtaking shot. 8)


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 14, 2013)

kirillica said:


> A lovely review. Worth of reading even if you never buy one of these toys.



+1 That's the truth!


----------



## expatinasia (May 14, 2013)

I hate being cynical, but he has had the lens for 6 months and no doubt would like Canon's next toy for 6 months or so too. That does not tend to happen when one is too critical, or sometimes even negative towards the toys they offer.

Still, an interesting read, and I look forward to reading more from others.


----------



## brad-man (May 14, 2013)

_Looks like it won't take long for the "forum muppets" to appear 8)_

Awesome review with awesome shots. Gotta love that otter!

_Anyone know what the Powerball is up to?_


----------



## expatinasia (May 14, 2013)

brad-man said:


> _Looks like it won't take long for the "forum muppets" to appear 8)_



? 

What on earth does that mean?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 14, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> I hate being cynical, but he has had the lens for 6 months and no doubt would like Canon's next toy for 6 months or so too. That does not tend to happen when one is too critical, or sometimes even negative towards the toys they offer.
> 
> Still, an interesting read, and I look forward to reading more from others.



Andy Rouse is very famous for being exceptionally outspoken about the Canon 1D MkIII AF issues, until then he was a solid Canon shooter, he very publicly trashed the camera, and Canon, and moved to Nikon. He has since grown up a bit. He didn't get on with the Nikon D4 very well and when he compared the Nikon's he was using to some loaner 1DX's and the MkII Super Tele's he ate a bit of crow, said he was above such petty behavior as comparing manufacturers, dumped all his Nikon gear and now shoots exclusively Canon.

He has said, leading up to this, for his work the MkII tele's and the 1DX are the best available, he has also said he buys his own cameras.


----------



## brad-man (May 14, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > _Looks like it won't take long for the "forum muppets" to appear 8)_
> ...



Read Andy's review...


----------



## expatinasia (May 14, 2013)

brad-man said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



Yawn...


----------



## alexanderferdinand (May 14, 2013)

1. One day I will have this lens.
2. Awesome shots!!

Nice review!


----------



## dslrdummy (May 15, 2013)

As someone who will never own this lens (or any other super telephoto), I can only admire the photos and learn by hearing from someone who does wildlife photography for a living. Graphs, MTF's and peeping don't interest me. I like to learn about the practice of photography and what enables him and others to get the shot like those leopard shots in difficult light. And capturing the moment the way he does which I suspect is more than just having a 1DX and a fast, long lens.


----------



## AlanF (May 15, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > I hate being cynical, but he has had the lens for 6 months and no doubt would like Canon's next toy for 6 months or so too. That does not tend to happen when one is too critical, or sometimes even negative towards the toys they offer.
> ...



Does that imply that he does not buy his lenses?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 15, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Does that imply that he does not buy his lenses?



No, he specifically stated that he purchases all his gear, whether that is always true, true now etc etc, I could not possibly know. The real point is he seems to value his tools, and his output, more than any manufacturer loyalty, and he has waked the walk previously.


----------



## offshore13 (May 15, 2013)

from someone who will never own this lens..his shots are marvelous and awesome


----------



## Zv (May 15, 2013)

A great review that puts a lot if BS around this lens to rest. Finally! I'm glad Canon have released this lens now. Hopefully it is the start of some new exciting lenses!


----------



## insanitybeard (May 15, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> In my own experience, I couldn't believe how much better the build of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is over my 70-200 f4 IS - made me realize that there was more to the extra cost than just a tripod mount and an extra stop.



I'm curious, what are the main differences between the build of the 2.8 IS II and the f4 IS in your opinion? I own the f4 IS and it's probably the best made lens I have- no complaints from me.


----------



## MichaelHodges (May 15, 2013)

Yes, versatility is nice, but I need to see technical excellence that makes this worth going for over the 400 2.8 or the 500 F4.


----------



## AlanF (May 15, 2013)

Andy Rouse is such a great photographer that he would have got equally superb shots from the 100-400mm L as the lens wasn't being pushed to its limits of resolution.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 15, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> Yes, versatility is nice, but I need to see technical excellence that makes this worth going for over the 400 2.8 or the 500 F4.



Both the 400/2.8 and 500/f4 require a photographer to be in the right place to get a specific shot. This new lens offers more flexibility with composition due to the zoom. A 200mm f4 isn't that great for isolation, it'll be better at the longer end. But background isolation will be easier with the 400/2.8 and 500/4, but it requires the photographer to be at the right distance from the subject. The 400/2.8 and 500/4 are both lighter and are just as versatile with converters...it's just more fiddly and not so good on a windy beach chasing Grey Seals about in a hoewling sandstorm. The truth is that most wolde life photographers will make any of the big white lenses work. Its the more opportunist photographers who tend to require the flexibility of a zoom....I'm generalising here, please don't take offence. 

If I wanted to replace my current 400mm f2.8 L IS, I would probably go for the new 500mm f4 L IS II....have you seen how light it is? It's amazing!


----------



## Jeffrey (May 15, 2013)

I'm waiting for one of the lens rental companies to offer the lens for rent, after which I'll rent it for a week and shoot as much as possible. I'll then evaluate the images and determine if the lens is right for me. I prefer to spend say $250-$300 for renting the lens before I spend $11,000 and find out that I don't like it.


----------



## CarlTN (May 16, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> I hate being cynical, but he has had the lens for 6 months and no doubt would like Canon's next toy for 6 months or so too. That does not tend to happen when one is too critical, or sometimes even negative towards the toys they offer.
> 
> Still, an interesting read, and I look forward to reading more from others.



Most definitely agree!



AlanF said:


> Andy Rouse wrote:
> "To be truthful, a better method here is to take the 2x converter, place it gently on the ground so that it is bathed in lovely soft, evening light. Then paint your teeth red and smash it violently to pieces with a large baseball bat, cackling maniacally all the time at passers by. Go on do it, it will feel so good. Now before you think I have an issue against Canon 2x converters I don't! I hate ALL 2x teleconverters equally!!! I consider them a complete waste of space and money, it is always better to use a 1.4x teleconverter and crop. Of course that is just my view!"
> 
> That last sentence is opinionated twaddle from the Ken Rockwell school of creative writing. The MTFs for the 2xTC III on the 300mm f/2.8 II are, as seen in the collage I posted, very good and the contrast etc excellent. None of the photos he has posted, as good as they are, show very fine detail as you would see on bird plumage at high resolution. If he took such photos and compared a rezzed up 1.4 with a 2x he would see the advantage of the 2x - my 1.4x TC spends most of its time in its pouch.



It is really the previous series two, Canon 2x TC that has soured the "quick to make snap judgments and wax poetic a la Ken Rockwell" crowd against 2x teleconverters, in my opinion. I got my series 2 for free, and that's probably closer to what it is worth. I use it occasionally, but am thinking of selling. I've not tried the new series 3 2x TC, but surely it must be a lot better optically. My only experience with the series 3 1.4x TC, was terrible...I used it with a series 1 500 f/4. The resolution was soft, the AF inaccurate. But then that lens without a TC, was the same. 

But frankly, even the inferior series two 2x TC, is going to give more resolution than upscaling an image shot with a 1.4x TC, on the same lens.

What Canon really needs to do, is make a high quality 1.7x TC...and call it a series 4. Then there might not be a need for either of the series 3...but especially not the 2x iii. They might even sell more of them than the other two combined...because 1.7x is the real sweet spot for magnifying the image, in my opinion. You get enough of a boost in reach, but also compromise sharpness less than a 2x TC does.


----------



## AlanF (May 16, 2013)

Carl
See my shots with the 2x TC III in http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14878.0

The combination with the Series II telephotos is fantastic.


----------



## CarlTN (May 16, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Carl
> See my shots with the 2x TC III in http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14878.0
> 
> The combination with the Series II telephotos is fantastic.



Very nice shots Alan, although the kingfisher crop still looks a tad soft. Let me borrow your lens for 10 months or so, and I'll see if I can do something with it...


----------



## AlanF (May 16, 2013)

Carl
The kingfisher is only 300 pixels high and 190 pixels at its widest! I didn't sharpen it at all. Here it is again with moderate sharpening with USM at 1 pixel and 100% at a 100% crop of 439x438 pixels^2. I made a mistake with the exposure for this and had it at 1/5000 s and iso 1000. At 1/500 s and iso 100 I could have sharpened it more with low noise. Attached is something more representative, a 739x534 100% crop of the head of a sparrow at iso 640, 1/1250 s and f/5.6 with the the 2x TC on the 300mm.


----------



## eml58 (May 17, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> I hate being cynical, but he has had the lens for 6 months and no doubt would like Canon's next toy for 6 months or so too. That does not tend to happen when one is too critical, or sometimes even negative towards the toys they offer.
> 
> Still, an interesting read, and I look forward to reading more from others.



I agree, I believe Andy may have been a little disingenuous, I have a few friends that are Professional Wildlife Photographers, they happen to all work with Nikon unfortunately, and they all Buy their own gear, there are probably very few Pros that Canon or Nikon supply free gear to, but two of these Pros are "loaned" equipment to try out & as long as they write up positive reviews, in this case for Nikon, the equipment loans are viewed as "long term".

I was in Africa in March shooting with one of these Pros, he currently uses a Nikon a pair of D3x Bodies and in particular the Nikon 200-400f/4, when I left to come home I lent him a 1Dx & the 300f/2.8 v2 & 400f/2.8 v2 Lens to try as he was considering flipping to Canon (because of the 1Dx), his views over the last couple of months of comparing were interesting, at 400 there is simply nothing to compare, the 1Dx + 400f/2.8 v2 combo "Murders" (his word) the Nikon D3x/200-400f/4 combo @ 400 (but to be honest the Nikon 200-400 has always been soft at 400), his view on the combo at 300, was the same if not more so, the 1Dx/300f/2.8 v2, "murders" the Nikon 200-400 @ 300.

But, and this is the kicker, his view was the straight up "flexibility" of the Zoom in fast action wildlife, still gave the Nikon 200-400 the edge in his opinion, as long as your Technique was excellent, he was prepared to give up better IQ for flexibility. Of course it's all debatable, and this chap is a long term Nikon shooter, but it was interesting view non the less.

My feel at the moment is that the Big White Primes are still going to have the IQ edge over the New Canon 200-400f/4 1.4x, at 200/300/400 & definitely at 600 (compared to 560 with a 1.4x), but i have little doubt the IQ of the Canon 200-400 will trump the much older Nikon 200-400, and that Nikon 200-400 isn't a bad Lens, the flexibility is what will be a decider for myself, the flexibility of the Zoom at these distances (200-560) will be just awesome & if the IQ is as good as I expect, and as good as Andy Rouse's Images show, it'll be a definite Lens in my Bag.

Now, I need to head out & sell the wife's Car before she comes Home, and then off to the Gym to build up those arm muscles.


----------



## ddashti (May 17, 2013)

Brilliant review! I'm surprised he didn't have any cons about the lens!


----------



## eml58 (May 17, 2013)

Another review on the Lens from an Aussie Pro Photographer, Joshua Holko, some interesting comparison comments regards the 200-400 and the Series 1 300f/2.8 & 400f/2.8


http://blog.jholko.com/2013/05/14/canon-200-400mm-f4l-is-pre-production-sample-lens-review/


----------



## DavidGMiles (May 17, 2013)

eml58 said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > I hate being cynical, but he has had the lens for 6 months and no doubt would like Canon's next toy for 6 months or so too. That does not tend to happen when one is too critical, or sometimes even negative towards the toys they offer.
> ...


Having met with Andy a few times, been on a couple of his workshops, and heard him be derogatory about other kit - he's pretty much as straight as they come - so I'd be surprised if he was affected by the Canon marketing machine - he may have kept quiet had he hated the lens but I don't believe, based on personal experience of him, that he'd mislead us all. The review is not politically correct in it's irreverent manner either, his enthusiasm really shines through, and that is Andy to a tee, when he loves something he goes bonkers about it - in this case both Shakira and the 200 - 400 lens


----------



## Kernuak (May 17, 2013)

DavidGMiles said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...


I don't know Andy well, having only met him a couple of times, but he certainly isn't one to hide his opinions. I also don't think he'd say something good about equipment just to get access to more. I attended a talk by him and Laurie Campbell (who is a totally different character) a couple of years ago and he was very vocal about Canon's "issues", particularly the IQ at high ISO, which he uses a lot and is one reason he like the D3 and D3s and pushes people to push the ISO. On the other hand, even though Laurie shoots with a D3(s) (and has always shot Nikon, even in the days of film), his mantra is always to use the lowest ISO possible for optimal IQ. Having said all that, I imagine that if he didn't like 200-400, he'd have simply kept quiet, rather than say how bad it was, purely because he has previously said how much he liked the 1Dx and has therefore comitted himself back to Canon (at least for now). Of course, when a lens costs that much, no company is likely to send out something that is less than what it could be. It probably won't be a match for the large primes, but I bet it's pretty close, to the point that only pixel peepers will notice the difference.


----------



## ZoeEnPhos (May 17, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Another review on the Lens from an Aussie Pro Photographer, Joshua Holko, some interesting comparison comments regards the 200-400 and the Series 1 300f/2.8 & 400f/2.8
> 
> 
> http://blog.jholko.com/2013/05/14/canon-200-400mm-f4l-is-pre-production-sample-lens-review/



A short note - about the Joshua Holkos, comparison seems to be between the new Canon EF 200-400mm/4L IS USM vs "300mm F2.8L IS" and so I suppose he is comparing the new zoom with the version I 300mm F2.8L IS? The new 300mm F2.8L IS II USM is to a degree better than the version I according to Bryan C (the-digital-picture.com)


----------



## mackguyver (May 22, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > In my own experience, I couldn't believe how much better the build of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is over my 70-200 f4 IS - made me realize that there was more to the extra cost than just a tripod mount and an extra stop.
> ...


I guess I didn't have my notifications turned on - I had and loved the f/4 IS for years and it's a solidly built lens, but the 2.8 IS II is built like a tank. There is almost no plastic and the lens barrel feels really thick and sturdy. You have to hold the two side-by-side to get the true feeling, but it seems like the f/4 was built for outdoor photographers and the f/2.8 for war photographers. I'm not sure if it would be any tougher in practice, but it just feels really solid, like the 800mm f/5.6 I borrowed from CPS. I'm thinking the 200-400 will be a similar upgrade from the 100-400.

My goal for 2013 is to earn enough from my fledgling commercial photo business to afford this lens


----------



## CarlTN (May 22, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Carl
> The kingfisher is only 300 pixels high and 190 pixels at its widest! I didn't sharpen it at all. Here it is again with moderate sharpening with USM at 1 pixel and 100% at a 100% crop of 439x438 pixels^2. I made a mistake with the exposure for this and had it at 1/5000 s and iso 1000. At 1/500 s and iso 100 I could have sharpened it more with low noise. Attached is something more representative, a 739x534 100% crop of the head of a sparrow at iso 640, 1/1250 s and f/5.6 with the the 2x TC on the 300mm.



Not trying to nitpick Alan, it's a fine picture, just calling it as I saw it.


----------



## Bruce Photography (May 22, 2013)

A really great review with wonderful photographs. Thank you Andy for doing such a fine job. However I am both a Canon shooter and a Nikon shooter. 

From the Andy article:

"A Pointless Comparison

This is a plea to the lens geeks. Please do not start comparing the Canon lens with the Nikon one, it is pointless. The Nikon 200-400 does a great job for Nikon photographers and the Canon lens will do a great job for Canon photographers. Comparing the two is just pointless, as no one is going to change camera system to use this lens are they? No they are not, so please don’t fuel the silly Canon vs Nikon debate anymore, it’s not what this lens or this review is all about."

I just bought the Nikon 80-400 and am now in the process of evaluating it. In particular at 400 I'm not yet very happy. So, right now I am considering BOTH 200-400 models as well 300, 400, and 500mm from BOTH vendors. I only have money for one this year. I'm sure that the Canon is better with the built in teleconverter but I'm having trouble mentally with paying over $10,000 for any lens. So while I think the article is WONDERFUL, for me I need to see a comparison between brands. At this pricing level of lens, the camera body is relatively cheap. It is the lens where the value is. I already have the 500mm Canon but the older, somewhat heavy model. For Canon, I found the MTF of the 300mm F2.8 (I have the F4 version) interesting. Since I already have the 1.4 and 2x III teleconverts for Canon the 300 might be a lighter weight alternative. As other blog posts suggest, there is a real lack of true comparisions between brands of SuperTels. Anyone know of any?


----------



## DominoDude (May 22, 2013)

It seems to be an excellent lens!
Not something I'd likely be able to afford (hobbyist photog), but I could see myself renting it for some special shooting at times.


----------

