# Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...



## sanj (Sep 22, 2013)

Hoping to see some super photos from this versatile lens! Also any reviews. 
Sanjay


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2013)

All of these were taken with 1dx. I did not notice the horrible banding on top right of the cheetah photo until I reduced the photo to web size. I guess I over darkened the mountain? Concerned enough to start a new thread on this right away...


----------



## Nirmala (Sep 22, 2013)

Really like the second one Sanjay regardless of the banding.. The third one is a little cheeky, some privacy please.....


----------



## sanj (Sep 22, 2013)




----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 22, 2013)

You are choosing too low a value in quality at your save as jpeg step.

It is called posterization and is very common, it has nothing to do with camera settings or your other processing. Do it again but save the jpeg at over 80% quality, sometimes you even need to use 100%.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/posterization.htm


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 22, 2013)

That s***-eating grin on the lion's face made me laugh. A lot.

Jim


----------



## retina (Sep 22, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> You are choosing too low a value in quality at your save as jpeg step.
> 
> It is called posterization and is very common, it has nothing to do with camera settings or your other processing. Do it again but save the jpeg at over 80% quality, sometimes you even need to use 100%.
> 
> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/posterization.htm



+1


----------



## MonteGraham (Sep 22, 2013)

sanj said:


> Hoping to see some super photos from this versatile lens! Also any reviews.
> Sanjay



Nice


----------



## Menace (Sep 23, 2013)

All lovely photos Sanj - as always


----------



## Northstar (Sep 23, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> You are choosing too low a value in quality at your save as jpeg step.
> 
> It is called posterization and is very common, it has nothing to do with camera settings or your other processing. Do it again but save the jpeg at over 80% quality, sometimes you even need to use 100%.
> 
> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/posterization.htm



Private... are reducing file size and lowering IQ the only reasons why someone might choose to save at less than 100%? 

Just wondering if I'm missing something...


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2013)

Northstar said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You are choosing too low a value in quality at your save as jpeg step.
> ...



For the vast majority of images, nearly all of them, anything more than 80% is just a waste of space. I have my "Save For Web" defaulted to 80% because it is very rare for images to need more and the size over 80% expands very fast, but will often use it much lower. Effectively you gain nothing for much more space.

Why does this matter? Well it isn't just for HDD space, many images are emailed, where even big companies put relatively small attachment limits on messages; uploading to websites like CR, don't forget not everybody has good download speeds so image optimisation is a very important factor then so others can see your images; also uploading to online print services, most people have much slower ADSL connections rather than SDSL, uploading takes much longer than downloading, those files to print can take forever to get sent to the printers and slow everything else down in the process.

If you have a workflow that involves you saving as jpeg then absolutely save at 100%, but there are few (none!) reasons I can think of where that is the most efficient option, for everything else jpeg compression, assuming you have finished your post processing, works very well and speeds up anything and everything you then do with that jpeg. 

Jpeg is a lossy format, it is designed for you to take advantage of that and throw away everything you don't need to display the finished image accurately, it is not an archiving, storage or intermediate format where further work or more advanced processing from newer processes is used. Just look at Lightroom Process Versions over the years, 2003-2010-2012 dramatic differences in processing capabilities to lossless images, totally lost on jpegs.


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 23, 2013)

Looks like photos taken with basically any good-ish lens. Number 1 & 3 are, sorry, badly composed/cropped/angled. Number 2 is OK.


----------



## sanj (Sep 24, 2013)

Agree with you Sella. Entirely, Totally. But there will be more coming here and things will keep improving.


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Jpeg is a lossy format, ..., it is not an archiving, storage or intermediate format where further work or more advanced processing from newer processes is used. Just look at Lightroom Process Versions over the years, 2003-2010-2012 dramatic differences in processing capabilities to lossless images, totally lost on jpegs.



This is why I prefer JPEG's ... it means I don't keep on reprocessing my (ancient) photos of bushbucks and caracals, but have to go out into the field and take new pictures.

Bob: "Look, a fish eagle! Hey, aren't you going to take a picture?"
Sella: "Nah, I took a picture of a fish eagle in 2004 in RAW format ... I just keep reprocessing that everytime Adobe upgrades Lightroom."


----------



## Northstar (Sep 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Good info Private, thanks.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Jpeg is a lossy format, ..., it is not an archiving, storage or intermediate format where further work or more advanced processing from newer processes is used. Just look at Lightroom Process Versions over the years, 2003-2010-2012 dramatic differences in processing capabilities to lossless images, totally lost on jpegs.
> ...



That is the dumbest "reason" I ever heard. When you shot film did you make one print then burn the negative?



Northstar said:


> Good info Private, thanks.



Northstar, you are very welcome. Jpegs are very useful and as a standard have long outlived their time, which means they work, but they were never designed as a lossless archive.


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> That is the dumbest "reason" I ever heard.



My apologies for attempting a witty, sarcastic joke ... oh, well ...


----------



## bchernicoff (Sep 24, 2013)

Regarding the JPEG banding/posterization... If you are saving to JPEG from Photoshop, always use Save for Web. you get a nice little preview of what the end result will look like once colorspace, resizing, compression, etc. are applied.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That is the dumbest "reason" I ever heard.
> ...



Don't apologise, there is none needed, but you gave no context of sarcasm (normally sarcasm tags) and none of humour (normally smilies) so I took your comment seriously and I am sure I am not the only one.

All is good...........


----------



## eml58 (Sep 25, 2013)

Hi Sanj, Found it.

Here's a couple of shots for your 200-400 thread, I particularly liked your Cheetah shot & Happy to hear your enjoying the Lens.

Sella174 ?? Feel free to be yourself, witty, sarcastic & critical.


----------



## sanj (Sep 25, 2013)

Thank you Elm for posting your lovely photos. I am in Thailand currently on work and my other photos from this lens are in my main computer at office. Will post after a month when I return.


----------



## eml58 (Sep 26, 2013)

sanj said:


> Thank you Elm for posting your lovely photos. I am in Thailand currently on work and my other photos from this lens are in my main computer at office. Will post after a month when I return.



Hi Sanj, Look forward to it, enjoy Thailand.

And no more animal humping Images 

Hope you've noticed the issues ongoing in Nairobi ?? I visited this Mall with my Son in March earlier this year while on the way to the Masai Mara, will be bypassing Nairobi in future, Fly in Fly out same day, Same for Dar Es Salam. 

Attached Bear Yawning, 1Dx + 200-400f/4, Shot from the Deck of the Stockholm, Northern Svalbard


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 26, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Sella174 ?? Feel free to be yourself, witty, sarcastic & critical.



It seems you misconstrued my posts in this thread. I am sure the 200-400mm is an excellent lens, with a definite niche application. What I meant was that once a lens reaches a certain standard and does not inhibit the photographer through design defects, it is unimportant what lens is used to produce a good photograph ... just because the OP's three photos were taken with the newly introduced 200-400mm lens, doesn't mean we should now oooh and aaah and vwd. Ultimately, even though this is the CanonRumors forum, when evaluating photographs, gear should be unimportant.


----------



## Northstar (Sep 26, 2013)

sanj said:


> Hoping to see some super photos from this versatile lens! Also any reviews.
> Sanjay



great photo of the cheetah sanj !


----------



## Northstar (Sep 26, 2013)

> Bob: "Look, a fish eagle! Hey, aren't you going to take a picture?"
> Sella: "Nah, I took a picture of a fish eagle in 2004 in RAW format ... I just keep reprocessing that everytime Adobe upgrades Lightroom."




that's actually quite funny! ;D


----------



## eml58 (Sep 27, 2013)

It's always a possibility that I did misconstrue Sell174, and if I did you have my apology for my flippant remark.

I believe Sanj's motivation re this new Thread though may rather have been just to start a thread regards a new & very interesting Lens, the 200-400f4.

If you had taken the time to look at some of Sanj's other Posts, you would have found that Sanj doesn't look for the "Ohhs " Aghs", like most of us he's looking for positive critique and engagement regards the subject, the Lens, and to a lesser degree, the Images.

Your comments I've noticed Sella174 are often critical and acerbic, but definitely not always as I notice you have excellent technical input at times, I've not noticed any Posted Images (you may well have & I've simply not noticed), but that's fine of course just a little unusual that someone critiques an-others Images without first offering up some of their own for evaluation.

Saying "Sorry" when you dump on someones Images in the guise of being "helpfully critical" doesn't lessen the harshness of the criticisms, it's still painful to receive.

I'de like to suggest that you could have made the comments re "poorly cropped, angled etc etc" without being quite so offhandedly brusque.

But this is simply my opinion, feel free to ignore it completely, try though to keep in mind when your dealing with Peoples Images any critique aught to be considered, positive & thoughtful, just a view of course.


----------



## eml58 (Sep 27, 2013)

Svalbard August 2013
1Dx & 200-400f/4


----------



## eli72 (Sep 27, 2013)

eml58 said:


> It's always a possibility that I did misconstrue Sell174, and if I did you have my apology for my flippant remark.
> 
> I believe Sanj's motivation re this new Thread though may rather have been just to start a thread regards a new & very interesting Lens, the 200-400f4.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## Eldar (Sep 27, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 ?? Feel free to be yourself, witty, sarcastic & critical.
> ...



I disagree totally! One of the reasons for trawling forums like this is to seek other people´s experience with certain equipment. This is the Caononrumors, where Canon users meet. it is not the Outdoor photography forum, or the Sunrise and Sunset forum. We like the technology.

I read reviews, but I find the posted experiences from real users and the images they make very useful, especially when they post the images and not just write about them. Yes, we are probably too consumed in the technology from time to time, but that is part of the hobby. Knowing what body, lens, settings etc. used on a particular image improves my ability to imagine what the shutter-pushing-moment was like and thus helps me judge the picture and assess if the equipment is tempting or not.

As an example, I saw Nick Brandt´s exhibition of portraits of African animals. Phenomenal pictures, which you all should try to see, and I had to see it three times. But I am still a bit irritated that he does not reveal what equipment and the specific techniques he is using to get them, other than short focal lengths, medium format and film. I could tell from close inspection that he is using something close to a normal focal length tilt&shift lens to shoot a portrait of a wild male lion. That would be interesting to get the experience/technology/technique story around.

I hope elm58 will tell us some more of his experiences with the 200-400 lens, when he has been using it for a while. I am seriously thinking of buying it, but I need to hear more from the users and see more of their images first. So please guys, you lucky enough to have the lens, impress us with images and tell us if we should buy this baby 

And Sanj, I really liked your cheetah and your lions. Keep more coming!


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 27, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Saying "Sorry" when you dump on someones Images in the guise of being "helpfully critical" doesn't lessen the harshness of the criticisms, it's still painful to receive.
> 
> I'de like to suggest that you could have made the comments re "poorly cropped, angled etc etc" without being quite so offhandedly brusque.





privatebydesign said:


> You are choosing too low a value in quality at your save as jpeg step.
> 
> It is called posterization and is very common, it has nothing to do with camera settings or your other processing. *Do it again* but save the jpeg at over 80% quality, sometimes you even need to use 100%.



??? ??? ???


----------



## eml58 (Sep 27, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I hope elm58 will tell us some more of his experiences with the 200-400 lens, when he has been using it for a while.



Hi Eldar, I'll give it a go, no review, but my experience to date.

On Nick Brandt, I agree, what an amazing Photographer, I've tried to replicate his work, no success, I've bought his Books and as you say, amazing Images but no indications on how he does what he does, although he does say he doesn't use PS to achieve the results.

I've had the 200-400f/4 from day of release, had a Pre Order in at Cathay Photo in Singapore a year prior to actual release.

To date I've had the Lens on 3 Trips/safaris, Northern South Africa (Mala Mala & Londolozi) Tanzania & The Serengeti and recently to Svalbard.

When I first picked up the Lens, I ran alongside Tests against 4 of the other lenses that I own/owned at the time, 200f/2 L, 300f/2.8 L II, 400f/2.8 L II & 600f/4 L II, I tested each Prime Lens at f/4 & f/5.6 and then shot the 200-400f/4 at similar lengths & f stop (i.e. 200f/2 @ f4 & f/5.6 against the 200-400f/4 @ f/4 & f5.6, 300/400 & 600 Primes same).

What I wanted to see was how the Primes compared against the Zoom for straight sharpness when shot at similar Length & f stop.

Not scientific in any way, just a hands on Test I could conduct at home, I shot the same subject all the way through (A flowering Plant) rather than a Test Sheet.

The results for me showed what I expected to see, The Primes are sharper, but I was surprised at how Marginal that sharpness was, the 200-400f/4 is a very sharp Lens even comparing against the Primes.

I next tried to compare the 200-400 ability to lock Focus when compared to the Primes, to evaluate this I simply had my Lads ride past the front of my House, for about an Hour while I compared the Focus Lock merits of Primes against Zoom.

The Standout Lens was my 300f/2.8 L II, nothing in the listed lenses Locks on as fast or as accurately as this Lens, among the remainder, the 200-400/200/400 & 600, there's really nothing between them, they are all excellent Lenses for Speed of Lock On and Accuracy.

I've now shot the 200-400f/4 on the 3 trips mentioned earlier, that's 30 thousand Images with the 200-400f/4, against that I've had either/and the 300f/2.8, 400f/2.8 or the 600f/4 alongside on a trip (not all Lenses on all trips), but the 200-400 + one of the other Lenses (although I always bring the 300f/2.8 ).

The only place I find the f/2.8 an advantage, is Low Light, dawn/dusk, and the ability of the f/2.8 Lens to Lock Focus quicker than the 200-400f/4, and that makes sense as the Lens is Focussing wide open and doesn't shut down to the chosen f/stop until you actually take the shot, so the f/2.8 Lenses are able to focus using twice as much light.

But where the 200-400 absolutely murders the Primes, is it's sheer versatility, the ability to be at 560mm f/5.6 then begin zooming back all the time keeping the subject locked in focus, perfectly framed to reduce the need to crop, flip the converter out at 400 and Zoom back out to 200, all with the same Rig.

Previously to do this I had 3 Rigs set up, 1Dx + 600, 1Dx + 400 & 5DMK3 + 200 (or 300) and I found myself exchanging Rigs as the Subject moved closer, or farther away, workable, but a PIA.

For the style of Photography that I personally prefer, Wildlife, the 200-400f/4 is a must have Lens that is as Sharp as you need, Locks Focus amazingly well and the finished Images require less cropping etc.

I still use my Primes, the 600 + 1.4x Converter, the 300f/2.8 L II for those Dawn/Dusk shots, I'll be buried with my 200f/2 but I've sold my 400f/2.8 L II.

If I had to choose one of these Lenses to keep and use only that Lens ?? I wouldn't hesitate keeping the 200-400f/4, fortunately I don't need to make that decision.

But, if I was a BIF Photographer, it would be the 600 + 1.4x the 200-400 isn't long enough for small birds, and the 600 + 1.4x (840 @ f/5.6) is still slightly sharper than the 200-400 with 1.4x in place (560 @ f/5.6).

I've tried the 200-400 with built in 1.4x engaged + 1.4x Converter, Images are Ok, not great, Ok.

With the 200-400 with built in 1.4x Engaged + 2x Converter, Images are simply horrible.

If your into Sports Photography ? 200-400f/4 is a great Lens, but you may miss the f/2.8, 400f/2.8 may be a better choice.

Wildlife in General, my view the 200-400f/4 is the best Lens available.

BIF, maybe the 600f/4 plus the 1.4x

Hope this is of some use in any future decision making for you, I always liked the nikon 200-400f/4 and was amazed Canon just hadn't produced one, I'm glad they held of as I believe the Canon 200-400f/4 (1.4x) is a step beyond the Nikon Lens (and I have tried them side by side, 1Dx + 200-400f/4 and D3x + 200-400f/4).


----------



## Eldar (Sep 27, 2013)

Thanks, much appreciated. It seems it is fulfilling the expectations and I´m getting closer to push the order button ...


----------



## Eldar (Sep 27, 2013)

OK, ... I pushed it ;D :-X


----------



## eli72 (Sep 28, 2013)

Eldar said:


> OK, ... I pushed it ;D :-X



I don't think that you'll regret it! I haven't had much chance to use mine yet, but the several times I have I have been extremely pleased with the sharpness.


----------



## eml58 (Sep 28, 2013)

eli72 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > OK, ... I pushed it ;D :-X
> ...



Enjoy the Lens Elder, will be interested to hear your views on the Lens, and see some Images from it.

At times I still enjoy the Primes, and I completely agree with eli72, I don't believe you'll regret the 200-400 it's an amazing Lens.

One thing I didn't mention was weight, and in other reviews comments I've read some feel it's heavy, my own initial feel was I agreed, but while I was in Svalbard shooting primarily from a bouncing Zodiac in reasonable to awful Seas all my Images were Hand Held, it's heavy, but no heavier than the 400f/2.8 L II and because of the lighter front end (f/4 versus f/2.8 ), the weight distribution is more even which helps a lot for hand holding. It's not hand holdable like the 70-200f/2.8 L II, but it's quite good I feel for short sessions.

Enjoy.


----------



## lion rock (Sep 28, 2013)

Eml58,
I read with delight of your view on the 200-400 f/4.
From your writing, I gather that you like the 600 prime + 2X iii, and can you describe the weight and dimensions of these two lenses? I went to B and H in May and they did not have the 200-400 then, so I wasn't able to try them out side by side.
I would like to hear of your trips with your collection of gear, particularly the 200-400 on airplanes.
My *Minister of Finance* has allocated funds for this lens and I am waiting to see if there may be a sales happening in the next few months as there is a plan to travel to The Land of the Kiwi in late 2014.
I look forward to hearing your view on these!
Thanks.
-r


----------



## sanj (Sep 28, 2013)

lion rock said:


> Eml58,
> I read with delight of your view on the 200-400 f/4.
> From your writing, I gather that you like the 600 prime + 2X iii, and can you describe the weight and dimensions of these two lenses? I went to B and H in May and they did not have the 200-400 then, so I wasn't able to try them out side by side.
> I would like to hear of your trips with your collection of gear, particularly the 200-400 on airplanes.
> ...



I travel with big lenses all the time. I put the lens in a soft case and then put the soft case in a hard top suitcase and check it in. No problems so far.


----------



## lion rock (Sep 28, 2013)

My concern was due to an incidence that happened a few years ago. One of our graduate student travelled to San Francisco for a conference and on his return trip back to Virginia, he packed his gear in his check-in luggage. His 1D plus gear and memory cards were gone. TSA "reviewed" the tapes and did not see anything out of the ordinary. So, he lost his all his camera stuff. Sad.
I am very uncomfortable with checking in expensive equipment in my travel luggage, and now, traveling on airplanes are even more restrictive, both check-in and carry on. Some airlines restrict carry on to a certain weight and size.
-r


----------



## eml58 (Sep 28, 2013)

lion rock said:


> My concern was due to an incidence that happened a few years ago. One of our graduate student travelled to San Francisco for a conference and on his return trip back to Virginia, he packed his gear in his check-in luggage. His 1D plus gear and memory cards were gone. TSA "reviewed" the tapes and did not see anything out of the ordinary. So, he lost his all his camera stuff. Sad.
> I am very uncomfortable with checking in expensive equipment in my travel luggage, and now, traveling on airplanes are even more restrictive, both check-in and carry on. Some airlines restrict carry on to a certain weight and size.
> -r



Hi Lion Rock, I think your right to be concerned.

I find different airlines & different countries tend towards different standards, it's been a bit of a suck it & see.

I typically Carry On 2 x 1Dx Bodies, 1 x 5DMK III Body, 200-400f/4 + 300f/2.8 or 600f/4 + 70-200f/2.8 + 24-70f/2.8, Flashes, additional support gear I check In with my checked luggage, typical carry on weight is 16-18Kgs, a lot more than most allowance. If one of my Lads is travelling with me not such an issue, but on my own the only Airline that I NEVER have a problem with is Singapore Airlines.

Australia, the Nanny State, are hopeless, if it's carry on & over the allowed weight, even if your travelling 1st or Business, you check it, I've had to pull a 1Dx + 300f/2.8 out of a Bag & sling them around my neck to get through as Carry On.

Indonesia, if you state that it's Camera Gear most Airlines will allow you 12 to 15 Kgs, even on checked overweight, if you tell them it's Dive Gear, your generally Ok up to 30Kgs.

Africa, in South Africa they tell you at check in, do not check expensive Camera Gear, having said that I had my worst experience in Tanzania leaving Dar Es Salam on a SAA Flight, Business Class, they removed from me one of my Carry On Bags (I had my son with me so should have been allowed 2 Carry Ons), Long Story short, the Bag never made it to Johannesburg (+ 20k in Camera Gear), luckily 2 weeks later the bag "suddenly" was handed in, this was because I had Politically connected friends in South Africa that threatened Legal Action against the Airline, in Africa it's a real risk to check Camera Gear, very good chance it'll disappear.

My advise is always Carry On where ever possible, book an extra seat for overweight where ever possible (Internal flights in Africa), always always have your gear fully insured.


----------



## lion rock (Sep 28, 2013)

Eml58,
I saw on a Cathay Pacific from New Zealand to Hong Kong, a passenger was pulled aside because his carry on looked heavy; their carry on limit was 8 kG (if memory serves correctly). 

On another occasion, I saw a few guys, think they were pros, with serveral Pelican hardcases carrying video equipment (they claimed), and the airline staff was hassling them for size and weight because these guys only wanted to have the cases as carry on. I can fully symphasize with these pros and their valuable equipment.

I travelled with an Ape Case 1800 carrying 24-70 f/2.8 (I), 70-200 f/2.8 II, 2X (II), a 5D2 or 5D3 body and a laptop, plus various small items. Weights just over 7 kG. I went to HK, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore. So far no problem, with weight or size. Did have to refuse luggage compartment on regional hoppers.
Next trip is HK and then Vietnam in late November.
Hope to get the 200-400 super toy for the expected New Zealand trip in late 2014. Now, that would totally have a weight problem, just have to be creative.

-r


----------



## AlanF (Sep 28, 2013)

The way this thread has developed reminds me of Miss Piggy's most famous quote: “Never eat more than you can lift.”, which could be rephrased to cover your gear which would appear to need a team of Sherpas to transport for you or the porters for an old-fashioned big game hunt.


----------



## Kernuak (Sep 28, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The way this thread has developed reminds me of Miss Piggy's most famous quote: “Never eat more than you can lift.”, which could be rephrased to cover your gear which would appear to need a team of Sherpas to transport for you or the porters for an old-fashioned big game hunt.


Ironically, Easyjet, don't have a weight limit for cabin baggage, instead they state that you shuld be able to comfortably be able to lift it into the overhead storage without help.


----------



## eml58 (Sep 29, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The way this thread has developed reminds me of Miss Piggy's most famous quote: “Never eat more than you can lift.”, which could be rephrased to cover your gear which would appear to need a team of Sherpas to transport for you or the porters for an old-fashioned big game hunt.



Hi AlanF, yes, I have two of those as well, Sherpas that is, Generally called Sons by most, been really handy for years as well, but now one's gone off to Medical School which leaves me with just the one, unfortunately the lazy one, but fortunately the one with a sense of humour though.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 29, 2013)

eml58 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The way this thread has developed reminds me of Miss Piggy's most famous quote: “Never eat more than you can lift.”, which could be rephrased to cover your gear which would appear to need a team of Sherpas to transport for you or the porters for an old-fashioned big game hunt.
> ...



Get him to specialise in something useful for you, like physiotherapy for shoulder strain. Mine is aching just from the 300/2.8. Travel BA, they never give me any problems but also have the EasyJet/Miss Piggy philosophy of being able to lift what you carry into the overhead bins.


----------



## serendipidy (Sep 29, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The way this thread has developed reminds me of Miss Piggy's most famous quote: “Never eat more than you can lift.



LOL...that was funny ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 29, 2013)

sanj said:


> Hoping to see some super photos from this versatile lens! Also any reviews.
> Sanjay


I don't have that lens ... but am open to donations from charitable CR members so I can buy one 
I like the second photo (with the Chitah) the colors are very beautiful.
The first photo of vultures is not happening.
The look on the Lion's face is AWESOME ;D ... his expression looks as if he made a bet with his friends to "score" a hot chick and succeeded ;D


----------



## kasperj (Sep 30, 2013)

I acquired the beast A few weeks ago and can only confirm what the general consensus has been so far - this lense DELIVERS. I was on the fence about it, mostly because the alternative I had in mind - a 500 II - is materially cheaper has the reach advantage (when you throw a tele converter into the equation), which has some weight for me given that I will use it for wildlife exclusively (although not birding) . What won me over was the versatility of the zoom and boy am I happy with my choice. Coupled with a zoom from 200-560mm you get very fast to engage AF, sharpness which to my eye is extremely high with only a very small drop (you need to compare at 1:1 magnification) with the extender engaged, and glass that is seemingly free of aberrations. 

But words are of little value so here are in stead some images - which is what this thread is all about  There is a population of some 300 red deer living wild just north of Copenhagen Denmark. The hinds are in heat in last weeks of September which usually attracts photographers from most of Europe, as has also been the case this year. Shot with a 5D III. C&C is appreciated. Hope you enjoy


----------



## GuyF (Sep 30, 2013)

Kasperj - Great shots! I briefly considered the 200-400 but the price was just too much here in the UK so I got the 500mm mk2 - a terrific lens but the zoom capability requires you to run towards or away from the subject .


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2013)

To help us judge the quality, please let us know whether they are 100% crops or whether you have resized the images etc. I can get some of the info from the exifs but it is better that you list details.


----------



## eml58 (Oct 1, 2013)

kasperj said:


> But words are of little value so here are in stead some images - which is what this thread is all about  There is a population of some 300 red deer living wild just north of Copenhagen Denmark. The hinds are in heat in last weeks of September which usually attracts photographers from most of Europe, as has also been the case this year. Shot with a 5D III. C&C is appreciated. Hope you enjoy



Love the Image with Breath Captured, great stuff.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 1, 2013)

kasperj said:


> I acquired the beast A few weeks ago and can only confirm what the general consensus has been so far - this lense DELIVERS. I was on the fence about it, mostly because the alternative I had in mind - a 500 II - is materially cheaper has the reach advantage (when you throw a tele converter into the equation), which has some weight for me given that I will use it for wildlife exclusively (although not birding) . What won me over was the versatility of the zoom and boy am I happy with my choice. Coupled with a zoom from 200-560mm you get very fast to engage AF, sharpness which to my eye is extremely high with only a very small drop (you need to compare at 1:1 magnification) with the extender engaged, and glass that is seemingly free of aberrations.
> 
> But words are of little value so here are in stead some images - which is what this thread is all about  There is a population of some 300 red deer living wild just north of Copenhagen Denmark. The hinds are in heat in last weeks of September which usually attracts photographers from most of Europe, as has also been the case this year. Shot with a 5D III. C&C is appreciated. Hope you enjoy



awesome/excellent! a very nice post that i enjoyed very much, thanks.


----------



## eml58 (Oct 1, 2013)

kasperj said:


> I was on the fence about it, mostly because the alternative I had in mind - a 500 II - is materially cheaper has the reach advantage (when you throw a tele converter into the equation), which has some weight for me given that I will use it for wildlife exclusively (although not birding) .



Kasperj, try adding the 1.4x Converter to your 200-400, with the built in Converter (560f/5.6) plus the 1.4x you get 784 @ f/8, I've tried this and find that in a pinch when you need the extra legs, it works Ok, the IQ is degraded, but usable.

Adding in the 2x Converter is mostly a waste of time.


----------



## kaihp (Oct 1, 2013)

kasperj said:


> There is a population of some 300 red deer living wild just north of Copenhagen Denmark. The hinds are in heat in last weeks of September which usually attracts photographers from most of Europe, as has also been the case this year. Shot with a 5D III. C&C is appreciated. Hope you enjoy



Lovely, especially the breath shot.

You make me miss Denmark & Dyrehaven, Kasper.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 1, 2013)

Quite a few of you guys have posted very high quality images from safaris in Africa. Since this seems to be the wildlife and safari thread, I believe many of readers would appreciate some insight into your favorite safaris and also potential warnings of which we should avoid. The numbers of parks and operators are quite big, and most of us will not go on such a trip many times. So a bull´s eye tip would be much appreciated.


----------



## eml58 (Oct 2, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Quite a few of you guys have posted very high quality images from safaris in Africa. Since this seems to be the wildlife and safari thread, I believe many of readers would appreciate some insight into your favorite safaris and also potential warnings of which we should avoid. The numbers of parks and operators are quite big, and most of us will not go on such a trip many times. So a bull´s eye tip would be much appreciated.



Hi Eldar, I mentioned on the 1Dx thread the best places for Leopard, Mala Mala & Londolozi in South Africa, these two have other species of course, especially Elephant, but they specialise in Leopard, Day & most interestingly, night drives spotlighting for Leopard, so practise your Flash Skills for night time shooting if you go.

Botswana, in particular the Okavango Delta, is a great Safari destination, Leopard, Elephant, Lion but due to the Water in Delta you get a lot of Birds, so it's particularly good for the Birders as well. Camps I've stayed in the Delta include Mombo, Jao, Little Vumbura, Duba Plains (specialise in Lion & Buffalo interaction, on water, almost the only place Lions hunt only during the day, only Buffalo & into the water).

Linyanti & Chobe, northern Delta area, Camps I've stayed Duma Tua, Kings Pool (amazing wild dog plus a great sunken Hide next to a water hole for great Elephant shots in the late afternoon while drinking), Zarafa Camp.

Tanzania, great for The Migration, need long Lenses though as once your out onto The Serengeti it's a huge open space, amazing stuff for Wildebeeste, Elephant, Lion and The Crossings in Season of Wildebeeste and Crocodile, hard to beat, places I've stayed Faru Faru, Grumeti River Camp, Ngorongoro Lodge (bit crazy here now, too many visitors, but the Crater is a must see), Sabora Tented Camp (Best place i've seen for actual crossings as it's limited to only 8 Tents, so maximum 16 People at the Crossing), Sasakwa Lodge.

Kenya, I've limited myself to The Masai Mara area, but there's a huge amount to see in Kenya, just be aware that Terrorism has taken an upsurge in the Country, you will have read of the recent Nairobi Mall situation, best to Fly through to your destination same day as arrival without leaving the airport, but places I've stayed David Livingstone Camp, Royal Mara Safari Lodge, Little Governor's Camp. Only real issue I have with The Migration form the Kenya side, is the Crowds, it gets really crowded at the Crossings, sometime 20 to 30 vehicles, then you have to get into the "standing in line" situation where your time at the Crossing is limited by how many vehicles are lined up, a bit like the Tiger viewing in India.

Namibia, great place for the more desolate Imagery, Deserts, Oceans, not a destination for Wildlife, but there is a lot, just not the larger stuff, I totally Love the place though, especially the Northern area for The Himba People, the Skeleton Coast area, The Red Dunes of Sossusvlei, places I've stayed Little Kulala, Sossusvlei Desert Camp, Sossusvlei Wilderness Camp, Serra Cafuma (Amazing for Himba People), Skeleton Coat Camp, Damarland Camp, Anderson's Camp & Little Ongava Camp. Fish River Canyon is worth a Look as well, I ran a 7 Day Ultra Marathon through the area and the Canyon in 2010 finished on the Skeleton Coast, cured my need for anymore ultra Marathons but Beautiful place to see, but better from a Balloon I think.

Hope this gives you a better idea, feel free to PM me if you need more detailed info on any of this.

Feel free to PM me if you want any recommendation on the People I use to arrange my Safaris, this is as important as where your going, making sure you get there hassle free (as much as possible), and importantly, back home.


----------



## eml58 (Oct 2, 2013)

This is the sort of thing you see at Duba Plains in the Okavango Delta, one of the few places you get Lion that Hunt only during the day, only the Buffalo and mostly in the water, amazing stuff.

My apologies for cheating, this Image wasn't shot with the 200-400, I wish I'de had it at the time though.

Shot with the 7D + 70-300f/4-f/5.6 @ 300 I think.


----------



## sanj (Oct 2, 2013)

eml58 said:


> This is the sort of thing you see at Duba Plains in the Okavango Delta, one of the few places you get Lion that Hunt only during the day, only the Buffalo and mostly in the water, amazing stuff.
> 
> My apologies for cheating, this Image wasn't shot with the 200-400, I wish I'de had it at the time though.
> 
> Shot with the 7D + 70-300f/4-f/5.6 @ 300 I think.



I love this photo!!!!! But seems over sharpened?


----------



## eml58 (Oct 2, 2013)

sanj said:


> I love this photo!!!!! But seems over sharpened?



Hi Sanj, your right, I resize in On One's Perfect resize and by default "sharpening" is turned on, I sometimes forget to turn it off when I resize for Posting an Image, so my Images Posted can be over sharpened if I'm careless.

I seem to be getting more of these "Lapses" as my Age increases.


----------



## sanj (Oct 2, 2013)

Kasperj:
Love the photos. Especially the second one!


----------



## Greatland (Oct 3, 2013)

Katmai, August 2013...MK IV with 200-400 at 560


----------



## Greatland (Oct 3, 2013)

Katmai, August 2014...MK IV 200-400 at 560


----------



## Greatland (Oct 3, 2013)

Katmai, August 2013


----------



## Greatland (Oct 3, 2013)

Katmai, August 2013 MK IV with 200-400 wide open


----------



## Greatland (Oct 3, 2013)

Katmai, August 2013 MK IV with 200-400


----------



## eml58 (Oct 3, 2013)

Greatland said:


> Katmai, August 2014...MK IV 200-400 at 560



Great stuff, I need to get up there and do this myself, working on 2014, lovely Shot.


----------



## eml58 (Oct 6, 2013)

I've posted Images of this Pair a few times, they were of particular interest due to the fact that unlike most Mating Pairs, that don't much worry about what's around them (Lions/Leopards I mean), this Pair were extremely sensitive to our presence, so we spent only around 10 Minutes with them and drove away to leave them to get on with Nature.

They struck me though in their Beautiful Posing, always the Big Young Male in the background, seemingly protecting the Female while looking over her shoulder, their colouring (In the Colour Images) was a prime example of how Lions blend in with their background. So the decision to leave them be when they appeared agitated by our presence was difficult, I wanted to Shoot them longer, but it's part of trying to get your Images, but leave as small a footprint as possible. 

1Dx 200-400f/4, Shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/2000th ISO400


----------



## Eldar (Oct 7, 2013)

Picked up the lens today  No AFMA required. Of the lenses I have, that was the first one. Hand held test shots of the local lion (read the cat) looks very promising! But, as I thought and commented when it was released, to operate the zoom on a lens of this size and weight, handheld, is quite a challenge.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 7, 2013)

Here a couple of shots of The Local Lion, with crops, converted to JPG from RAW in Lightroom, without any modifications from camera defaults. 
Shot with 1DX, handheld, f4, 1/200s, ISO800. I also shot some with the 600 f4L IS II, to compare. I hoped the 200-400 would be good and it certainly is. I hope to post a bit more interesting images for the future, but this was day1


----------



## Eldar (Oct 11, 2013)

Still havn´t had time to go for a real shoot, but I´ve been out on evening walks. This is with a 1DX at 540mm f.5.6 1/250s ISO1600, at the local pond. Just RAW to jpeg, no editing. I had to reduce resolution to get it through though. So far I am very impressed with the lens and I´m really looking forward to use it on a real shoot.


----------



## eml58 (Oct 25, 2013)

To keep the thread alive.

Tanzania 2013, 1Dx 200-400f/4, 343mm f/5.6 & 1/1000th ISO400


----------



## sanj (Oct 25, 2013)

The smile!


----------



## eml58 (Oct 25, 2013)

Hi Sanj.

Not really a smile, but getting there, I was out of the vehicle when I took this, got back in pretty quick, but after I took the shot.

Serengeti


----------



## sanj (Oct 25, 2013)

Stay in the car..............!!!! Do not like her expression much.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 25, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Hi Sanj.
> 
> Not really a smile, but getting there, I was out of the vehicle when I took this, got back in pretty quick, but after I took the shot.
> 
> Serengeti



All are quite nice!


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 25, 2013)

Greatland said:


> Katmai, August 2014...MK IV 200-400 at 560



Very good job with these! Do any of you feel the urge to dry the bears off with a towel? Something makes me want to do that...glad I'm not trying it though!


----------



## eml58 (Oct 26, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Greatland said:
> 
> 
> > Katmai, August 2014...MK IV 200-400 at 560
> ...



Ha Ha !! Good one, answer ?? no, not really, I think Bears in the Wild are the reason Canon makes an 800f/5.6 Lens.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 26, 2013)

eml58 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Greatland said:
> ...



No doubt, haha!


----------



## Eldar (Oct 27, 2013)

First real shoot with this lens and I get to shoot a Lynx. Fantastic. The lens performed very well, but I must admit that i find it more difficult to handhold this one than the 600 f4L IS II. The reason being the zoom ring. But mounted on the Gitzo monopod with RRS head, all worked well.
1DX, 200-400 1.4x at 560mm, f/5.6, ISO400, 1/2000s


----------



## eml58 (Oct 27, 2013)

Eldar said:


> First real shoot with this lens and I get to shoot a Lynx. Fantastic. The lens performed very well, but I must admit that i find it more difficult to handhold this one than the 600 f4L IS II. The reason being the zoom ring. But mounted on the Gitzo monopod with RRS head, all worked well.
> 1DX, 200-400 1.4x at 560mm, f/5.6, ISO400, 1/2000s



Like this one even better than the one on the 1Dx thread, just a completely Beautiful Animal.

I agree on the 200-400 handling, I think the weight on the 1Dx is about perfect, around the same as the 400f/2.8, but you almost need an extra hand when your trying to Zoom, and flip in/out the 1.4x, I use it probably 40% hand held, rest of the time it's on a Monopod, or if on Safari in a Vehicle, on a Monopod that's fixed to the Vehicle.

Last trip I used it mostly on a fixed Bean Bag, worked well.

Rarely shoot the Combo at more than f/5.6, at this the backgrounds just blur out Beautifully, have to get up to Norway at some point for some serious shooting, so far I've only been there for stopovers to Svalbard, place looks lovely from the Air.


----------



## eml58 (Oct 28, 2013)

Eldar said:


> First real shoot with this lens and I get to shoot a Lynx. Fantastic. The lens performed very well, but I must admit that i find it more difficult to handhold this one than the 600 f4L IS II. The reason being the zoom ring. But mounted on the Gitzo monopod with RRS head, all worked well.
> 1DX, 200-400 1.4x at 560mm, f/5.6, ISO400, 1/2000s



Hi Eldar, do you know who puts together Photo expeditions to Photograph Norway Lynx ?? Did a search on the Internet but found nothing, Polar Bears loads, Lynx nothing.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 28, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > First real shoot with this lens and I get to shoot a Lynx. Fantastic. The lens performed very well, but I must admit that i find it more difficult to handhold this one than the 600 f4L IS II. The reason being the zoom ring. But mounted on the Gitzo monopod with RRS head, all worked well.
> ...


I don´t believe there are any. They would not have many customers. The problem with Lynx is that it hides in daytime and hunts at night and seldom move in open areas. And it is not fond of people. So unless you know exactly on the spot where you can find it, you probably won't. I just got lucky. I was out to see if I could shoot some moose with the new lens and was sitting in a natural hideout when it came.


----------



## eml58 (Oct 28, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I don´t believe there are any. They would not have many customers. The problem with Lynx is that it hides in daytime and hunts at night and seldom move in open areas. And it is not fond of people. So unless you know exactly on the spot where you can find it, you probably won't. I just got lucky. I was out to see if I could shoot some moose with the new lens and was sitting in a natural hideout when it came.



Great stuff, Beautiful Animal & Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 28, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I don´t believe there are any. They would not have many customers. The problem with Lynx is that it hides in daytime and hunts at night and seldom move in open areas. And it is not fond of people. So unless you know exactly on the spot where you can find it, you probably won't. I just got lucky. I was out to see if I could shoot some moose with the new lens and was sitting in a natural hideout when it came.
> ...


If you're really interested, I would suggest Finland. There are some companies organizing photo safaris up north. Normally it is wolf and bear, but they also have a much larger population of lynx and wolverine, than we have here in Norway, so I would assume you could make them organize something that would suit you. 
Check: http://www.insidenature.se/ostra-finland/ (you'll have to run it trough translation first though)


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 28, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > First real shoot with this lens and I get to shoot a Lynx. Fantastic. The lens performed very well, but I must admit that i find it more difficult to handhold this one than the 600 f4L IS II. The reason being the zoom ring. But mounted on the Gitzo monopod with RRS head, all worked well.
> ...



Could it be that Canon meant for the lens to be primarily supported by a monopod or other device, and not hand-held? I mean, it is over 7 pounds and very long...


----------



## Eldar (Oct 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Could it be that Canon meant for the lens to be primarily supported by a monopod or other device, and not hand-held? I mean, it is over 7 pounds and very long...


I´m sure they did and of course it makes perfect sense. To me it is just a habit I need to change. I´ve gotten used to walk around with the 600 f4L II, with no support, even with the 1.4xIII extender on. It takes some practice, but gives very good movability and ability to shoot high and low. As Edward said, with the 200-400 it feels as if an arm is missing, to control the zoom and the 1-1.4x switch. But I´m sure it´ll work with a bit of practice. I have also tried to work with the monopod supported against my body. That way I´m less sensitive to the length of the monopod matching whatever ground condition I find myself in. The cup on a boy scout type flag harness should work, if I only could find a place to buy it.


----------



## eml58 (Oct 28, 2013)

Have me thinking Now.

Something like this with a short Monopod, might work.

Look like someone who can't make up his mind, Take Photographs or Go Fishing.


----------



## kaihp (Oct 29, 2013)

Eldar & Edward,

Maybe the Manfrotto Belt pouch is the right thing for you?






Should be available from several sources like Amazon, B&H, ...

Regards,

Kai


----------



## Eldar (Oct 29, 2013)

Two good suggestions. I tried to figure out what "flag harness" would be called and finally came up with "bandoleer". The Norwegian Flag Factory had them in white, brown and black. I ordered a black and will see how it works.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 1, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Two good suggestions. I tried to figure out what "flag harness" would be called and finally came up with "bandoleer". The Norwegian Flag Factory had them in white, brown and black. I ordered a black and will see how it works.


Got this yesterday and it is just brilliant. The belt and harness is very stable on the body and by having the cup a bit down on the waist, it provides a very stable support. I use a Gitzo monopod with a RRS MH-02 Pro head. By adjusting the monopod, I can shoot straight, overhead and pretty much any angel I like. 

When I´m walking, I simply tilt the lens downwards and it is well protected next to my body. It may be that the suggested Manfrotto belt pouch will do the same, but I believe that the straps over the shoulders are helping to spread the load. A 1DX, 600mm f4L IS II, with converter and the monopod with head is quite heavy over time. I will also try to get straps from the lens holding points to the shoulder straps of the bandoleer. If I get it right, the camera/lens outfit should be able to hang in a stable position, while I operate an other camera.

Just find someone who carries a reasonable quality boy scout flag bandoleer. Highly recommended!


----------



## Eldar (Nov 1, 2013)

I don´t claim to be any good at post processing. What I normally do is just fairly straight forward stuff in Lightroom. Manipulation of images has never happened ... until yesterday. 

Some of you may remember the lynx I posted a few days ago. I´m very proud of the shot, but it had one irritating flaw, which was the shadow of a branch over his shoulders. Elm58/Edward gave me some SW shopping advice and showed me what can be done and here is the result of my struggle. 

Since I totally suck at this, any advice and comments will be most appreciated. The attached file has as much resolution as I was allowed to post, so hopefully you can see what I´ve done.


----------



## Mika (Nov 1, 2013)

> If you're really interested, I would suggest Finland. There are some companies organizing photo safaris up north. Normally it is wolf and bear, but they also have a much larger population of lynx and wolverine, than we have here in Norway, so I would assume you could make them organize something that would suit you.
> Check: http://www.insidenature.se/ostra-finland/ (you'll have to run it trough translation first though)



Thanks for pointing this out. Eastern Finland has a relatively large population of lynx and wolverine, and if you are serious, these guys could help you with wolverines and bears. There are several other people you could ask about, this one is famous for his book documenting his life with wolverines, but he does other stuff too.


----------



## candc (Nov 1, 2013)

Eldar said:


> First real shoot with this lens and I get to shoot a Lynx. Fantastic. The lens performed very well, but I must admit that i find it more difficult to handhold this one than the 600 f4L IS II. The reason being the zoom ring. But mounted on the Gitzo monopod with RRS head, all worked well.
> 1DX, 200-400 1.4x at 560mm, f/5.6, ISO400, 1/2000s


that is a really nice shot in every way, you made the best of your good luck


----------



## eml58 (Nov 7, 2013)

Shot Mala Mala South Africa, March 2013.

1Dx 200-400f/4, Shot @ 560mm f/5.6 1/200th ISO 200

It's interesting when I look at the stats on how I use this Lens, 70% of my Images shot with this Lens are at 560mm & f/5.6, considering I also have the 600f/4 II it's interesting that I don't use the 600 more often, but when I look at the stats on the 600, I find I mostly use that Lens at 840 (600 + 1.4x), can't beat the 200-400 when it comes to versatility.

But i do think I'll miss my 400f/2.8 II, fortunately I kept the 300f/2.8 II.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Nov 7, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Shot Mala Mala South Africa, March 2013.
> 
> 1Dx 200-400f/4, Shot @ 560mm f/5.6 1/200th ISO 200



Gee whiz! I don't think housecats with a 70-200 are going to cut it much longer at this rate!

Jim


----------



## eml58 (Nov 7, 2013)

Jim Saunders said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Shot Mala Mala South Africa, March 2013.
> ...



These Guys are like House Cats, only bigger, and meaner.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 11, 2013)

Here´s one more from the Lynx encounter.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 11, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Here´s one more from the Lynx encounter.



Lovely shot, great experience, it's encounters like this that push me out the door, always looking for the out of the ordinary experience.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 12, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Here´s one more from the Lynx encounter.
> ...


Thanks Edward, I'm looking forward to your snow leopard


----------



## eml58 (Nov 13, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Thanks Edward, I'm looking forward to your snow leopard



Me too, but it'll be late 2014/15 before I can even work it into the schedule.


----------



## patal05 (Nov 17, 2013)

Has anyone used this lens in lower lighting conditions? There's a few shots in this thread that look like they were taken around dusk and turned out pretty well, but I'm curious about a bit more input. I'm looking into getting my first "big white" and am mostly interested in this lens vs the 400 2.8.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 19, 2013)

patal05 said:


> Has anyone used this lens in lower lighting conditions? There's a few shots in this thread that look like they were taken around dusk and turned out pretty well, but I'm curious about a bit more input. I'm looking into getting my first "big white" and am mostly interested in this lens vs the 400 2.8.



I have had both Lenses on Safari, used both in low light/Dusk/Dawn shooting, the question is a good one and it's probably the biggest decision maker between these two lenses other than Sharpness. I've sold my 400f/2.8 L II since buying the 200-400f/4 but only after doing two Safari Trips with both Lenses to compare, and bringing along my 300f/2.8 L II as well.

I sold the 400f/2.8 II as I feel the versatility of the 200-400f/4 works for me in my own style of imaging to the point where the 400 was no longer necessary, but, this decision becomes easier when you have the 300f/2.8 II sitting waiting for those extreme low light situations.

The 400f/2.8 II is always going to be the better low light Lens, caveat here being what your shooting the lens on, I use the 1Dx and I find the combo unbeatable, the 5DMK III I also shoot with and it is not as good as the 1Dx in low light. The 400f/2.8 obviously has a full stop more light to play with over the 200-400f/4.

The 200-400f/4 though is no slouch in the low light department, what I have found is I simply operate the 200-400f/4 at 1600 or 2500 ISO where I would have operated the 400f/2.8 II at say 800 or 1250 ISO, any graining I take care of in Post. This is where the lighting conditions require higher ISO, otherwise during normal light conditions I would operate either lens at a Base 400, rarely do I shoot lower than ISO400.

Image quality comparisons I've found they two Lenses, same Length, same ISO same f/stop, are pretty evenly matched, again, I feel the Primes will always out the Zooms, but the 200-400f/4 compared to the 200f/2 (@f4) the 300f/2.8 II (@f4) the 400f/2.8 II (@f/4) the 600 f/4 (@f/5.6) and the 200-400 f/4 @ f/4 200/300/400 & 600 similar set up, you are going to find you need to go to zoom in quite a bit to begin to see the benefits IQ wise of the Primes over the Zoom, the 200-400f/4 is the best I have seen when comparing zoom to prime.

My feel is if you concentrate your imaging on low light you may want to go for the Primes, if your low light is say 10% of your Imaging, as is my own case, the Zooms versatility and first class IQ makes the 200-400 a better all round tool.

But that is an opinion knowing that I always have the 300f/2.8 II sitting ready for those low light extremes.

The attached were both shot @ ISO2500.

The Bush Baby with the 400f/2.8 II @ f/2.8

The Female Lion wight he 200-400f/4 @ f/5.6 560mm.

Not a true test of apples with apples, but both Lenses, on the 1Dx, work well in low light.

Both Images were shot with the 600EX-RT for fill flash.

Both Images shot well after sun down full dark, Both Images were shot with Spot light to gain focus, without the spot light neither shot could be achieved as no light/no focus.

This is one area where the f/2.8 will always out the f/4, a point where it's just too dark for the f/4 to achieve focus and the f/2.8 possibly still can.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 21, 2013)

eml58 said:


> patal05 said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone used this lens in lower lighting conditions? There's a few shots in this thread that look like they were taken around dusk and turned out pretty well, but I'm curious about a bit more input. I'm looking into getting my first "big white" and am mostly interested in this lens vs the 400 2.8.
> ...


That Lioness looks p!ssed ... great shot.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 22, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> That Lioness looks p!ssed ... great shot.



I was actually out of the vehicle taking a leak when I looked down slope and saw this Lady heading my way, with intent I'm sure. I can tell you i squeezed off pretty quick.

As soon as I got back into the vehicle she stopped and seemed confused, it's amazing how habituated these Animals get to the vehicle, in the vehicle they don't seem to see you as Food, out of the vehicle you really do become part of the Food Chain.

I grabbed a dozen Images before jumping back into the Vehicle, love that 12fps on the 1Dx.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 22, 2013)

Tanzania 2013

1Dx 200-400f/4

Trying to get this to 8 Pages


----------



## sanj (Nov 22, 2013)

Masai Mara


----------



## eml58 (Nov 22, 2013)

sanj said:


> Masai Mara



Lovely Shot Sanj, hard to get these Guys into anything that resembles Photogenic I feel, but the background in this Image does this a treat.

Love the Masai Mara, heading back 2014 for the Crossing on the Masai Mara side, did it mostly from The Serengeti this Year but missed the Crossing action by 3 days, still a great Tanzania experience though.

8 Pages and counting.


----------



## sanj (Nov 22, 2013)

Cats will be cats.


----------



## sanj (Nov 22, 2013)

eml58 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Masai Mara
> ...



Yeah Eml the landscape where I took the giraffe photo was very nice. Best wishes for your next trip.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 22, 2013)

sanj said:


> Cats will be cats.


Great shot Sanj. Lighting, composition, movement. Very nice!


----------



## Eldar (Nov 22, 2013)

Food in sight!
1DX, 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x, 560mm, f6.3, 1/200s, ISO1000


----------



## Northstar (Nov 22, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Food in sight!
> 1DX, 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x, 560mm, f6.3, 1/200s, ISO1000



Eldar...are these wild? Timberwolves are so hard to capture that just getting an image of wild wolves is great. Nice shot! Looks like you focused on the Alpha.

I like how you've composed this shot....lynx and wolves are two challenging subjects....impressive work!

If wild, what happened next...did they spot/smell you?

What are they preoccupied with?


----------



## Northstar (Nov 22, 2013)

sanj said:


> Cats will be cats.



Sanj...these are great shots, keep posting. Great quality!


----------



## Eldar (Nov 22, 2013)

Northstar said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Food in sight!
> ...


The lynx was pure luck. I was out to shoot moose when the lynx came. It has never happened before and I don´t believe I will experience that again, but I sure will try.

The wolfs are wild, but I had some expert help who led me to them. We were in a hideout, with the wind against us, so they did not spot us. There was a crack in the forest to our right and the alpha, which I assume the standing wolf was, jumped to his feet and by the next crack they were gone. Poor moose I guess, but great experience.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 23, 2013)

Eldar said:


> The lynx was pure luck. I was out to shoot moose when the lynx came. It has never happened before and I don´t believe I will experience that again, but I sure will try.
> 
> The wolfs are wild, but I had some expert help who led me to them. We were in a hideout, with the wind against us, so they did not spot us. There was a crack in the forest to our right and the alpha, which I assume the standing wolf was, jumped to his feet and by the next crack they were gone. Poor moose I guess, but great experience.



Agree with Northstar Eldar, your Images of Lynx, Fox & wolves are wonderful, all very different subjects to what we as Photographers get to see & Photograph, the Lynx & wolves are as well somewhat endangered so it's such a treat to see Images in the Wild like this.

How about an Amur Tiger next ?? Oh sorry, wrong Country


----------



## eml58 (Nov 23, 2013)

sanj said:


> Cats will be cats.



Nice Sanj, the background looks like the Wildebeest lawn mowers have been through.


----------



## Northstar (Nov 23, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Eldar, thanks for sharing.

With the wolf photograph, I cropped it a bit so we could see him up close....the energy/intensity can be felt.

Love the shot.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 23, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Agree with Northstar Eldar, your Images of Lynx, Fox & wolves are wonderful, all very different subjects to what we as Photographers get to see & Photograph, the Lynx & wolves are as well somewhat endangered so it's such a treat to see Images in the Wild like this.
> 
> How about an Amur Tiger next ?? Oh sorry, wrong Country


Thanks Northstar and Edward. Again, it was a moment I will find it hard to repeat. And I agree Northstar, looking at the posture and look of the alpha really radiates energy and alertness.

And for the exotic cats Edward, if I came across an Amur Tiger or Snow Leopard in these parts of the world, I think it would be front page news for a while


----------



## eml58 (Nov 26, 2013)

Svalbard 2013

1Dx 200-400f/4
Shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/250th ISO320

Shot from the Zodiac, we followed this Guy for miles, in & out of the water, amazing Energy levels these Animals have, they litterly swim hundreds of Kilometres. Longest recorded is over 400 Miles during a 9 Day swim, amazing stuff.

The possibility that in 50 years they will no longer be around in the Wild is just so Sad.


----------



## dslrdummy (Nov 26, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Svalbard 2013
> 
> 1Dx 200-400f/4
> Shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/250th ISO320
> ...


Beautiful shot and subject, as are all your shots. Amazing that you could get this shot from a zodiac at that focal length @ 1/250. It conveys the movement in his paw while otherwise maintaining sharpness. A tribute to your skills and to the quality of the lens. Out of interest, what IS setting do you most commonly use and how do you find the IS compared to your version II primes?
I would love this lens for its versatility but it is a reach too far at AUD$13,000. Am seriously looking at the 500ii at $10,500 on the basis that I can get 700mm with the 1.4x extender for wildlife and still use it @ 500mm for outdoor sports, light permitting.
Love looking at the pics and dreaming, please keep them coming.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 26, 2013)

dslrdummy said:


> Beautiful shot and subject, as are all your shots. Amazing that you could get this shot from a zodiac at that focal length @ 1/250. It conveys the movement in his paw while otherwise maintaining sharpness. A tribute to your skills and to the quality of the lens. Out of interest, what IS setting do you most commonly use and how do you find the IS compared to your version II primes?
> I would love this lens for its versatility but it is a reach too far at AUD$13,000. Am seriously looking at the 500ii at $10,500 on the basis that I can get 700mm with the 1.4x extender for wildlife and still use it @ 500mm for outdoor sports, light permitting.
> Love looking at the pics and dreaming, please keep them coming.


Thanks dslrdummy, it's certainly a challenge, we were fortunate here as we were in a protected Cove and the swell was minimal plus only 4 Photographers in the Zodiac helped, but on other days I managed to get a load of Images with 1/2 a Polar Bear, or none. In this Image we had been following the is Guy for a while, looking ahead I could see he was likely to make a jump between the Rocks so I slowed the shutter thinking I'de get one of those blurred Images, but kept focus on his head & eye wanting that part to stay in Focus, didn't quite work how I thought, Animals often don't get the Memo, but worked Ok.

I almost exclusively use Mode 1 on the IS, sometimes Mode 2 if I'm shooting Cheetah running down a Kill, and this is similar on my use of my 300f/2.8 II & 600f/4 II. The IS seems no different between all my Primes and the Zoom, works just amazingly well, I find the 300f/2.8 II will focus marginally quicker than any of the others, but the difference is marginal. I do see a slightly darker Image when I flip in the 1.4x, but I compensate by shooting the 200-400f/4 at slightly higher ISO than I would say one of the Primes.

I've not owned the 500f/4 II but I understand it's every bit as good as the other Version II lenses, I did own & use a lot the 400f/2.8 II but sold it when I purchased and had used the 200-400f/4 for a couple of trips. But the 400f/2.8 II with the 1.4x was a pretty good piece of gear, if I didn't still own the 300f/2.8 II I would certainly have kept the 400 if only for that f/2.8

And yes the AUD prices are pretty horrific, I'm an Aussie myself but I've lived in Singapore/Jakarta now for 30 years (but moving the Family back next year at long last), so I'm used to dealing with one particular company here that give me USD base prices (B&H/Adorama) less the 7% GST refund when I fly out next time I leave Singapore, I'm a Resident not a Citizen so GST refund works for me. If your planning a trip through Singapore worth looking at, you could save at least AUD1200 off that Aussie price of 13k. Unfortunately your getting it both ways now, AUD weak against the USD & Aussie Tax.

Only place I know off hand that gets a worse deal are South Africans, the 200-400f/4 is around 18k USD there, I don't think there's many favours done for Europeans as well.


----------



## dslrdummy (Nov 26, 2013)

Thanks for the info.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 26, 2013)

eml58 said:


> The possibility that in 50 years they will no longer be around in the Wild is just so Sad.


Beautiful image ... and sad.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 26, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > That Lioness looks p!ssed ... great shot.
> ...


Yikes ... the look on that Lioness face is definitely more than an intent ... scary. In 2008, we had gone to Al-Ain Zoo in UAE, and while my youngest son & I were recording a few lions in the distance, with our camcorder, a lioness who we had not noticed suddenly jumped up at us from the pit ... she reached just short of 3 or 4 feet of our level ... I was scared sh!tless for a few seconds, coz I never expected it to jump that high ... so I can understand your anxiety when you say you "squeezed off pretty quick" ;D


----------



## eml58 (Nov 26, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Yikes ... the look on that Lioness face is definitely more than an intent ... scary. In 2008, we had gone to Al-Ain Zoo in UAE, and while my youngest son & I were recording a few lions in the distance, with our camcorder, a lioness who we had not noticed suddenly jumped up at us from the pit ... she reached just short of 3 or 4 feet of our level ... I was scared sh!tless for a few seconds, coz I never expected it to jump that high ... so I can understand your anxiety when you say you "squeezed off pretty quick" ;D



They don't call them the silent killers for nothing, we do tend to become a little complacent around these Animals in Zoos or when we are in vehicles, we tend to think the Barriers, real or not, will protect us, of course the Animals have a completely different spin on the situation, for them the Barriers are just something between them and the next meal.

I'm glad though your Boy and yourself got away with nothing more than a scare, some don't.

We had an incident at Mombo Camp in 2011, the local Lion Pride, about 11 Females & Young Males, had taken to herding Impala into the Camp area using the Walkways & Buildings as a funnel to push animals onto an Ambush (happened 3 times in the 14 days we stayed there), My Eldest Son & I were caught in the gift Shop with a couple others while Lions roamed around up on the walkways and fed on 3 Impala they had killed inside the Camp area, my youngest son was still in our Room , fortunately our Guide grabbed a vehicle and went to the room and stayed with my Lad, we were trapped in the Gift Shop for 2 hours, and no credit card, worse, my Camera was in the Room, total bummer.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 27, 2013)

For anyone contemplating a Longyearbyen Holiday, this is it, Svalbard in all it's Glory.

1 Bank, 1 Supermarket (quite good actually) & 8 Clothing stores for Cold Hiking/Climbing etc.

Clothing stores outnumber the Bars, which surprised me, seems the ideal place to get totally Bloto.

They do have a superb small Museum, absolutely worth an hour or two, do this before getting Bloto.

Neat, small and not the place to spend more than 48 hours I think, unless you enjoy being Bloto.

Only thing missing from this Image is the Airport, off to the right of the Image and about 3 Kilometres away.

1Dx & 200-400f/4, Shot from the Stockholm tied up at the Coal Dock opposite side of the Harbour, IS on to counteract being slightly Bloto.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 29, 2013)

eml58 said:


> For anyone contemplating a Longyearbyen Holiday, this is it, Svalbard in all it's Glory.


Beautiful place! and great capture!


----------



## Eldar (Nov 29, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > For anyone contemplating a Longyearbyen Holiday, this is it, Svalbard in all it's Glory.
> ...


A good thing about living in Longyearbyen (By the way, "byen" means city or town) is that you don´t have to worry about your garden over growing while you´re away


----------



## mikea (Dec 5, 2013)

Frankly, I'm just not seeing excellent images from the 200-400mm: most images posted on the Internet taken with this lens could have been taken with a 100-400mm costing a tenth of the price and a fraction of the size/weight. The latest generation of Canon 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses, in comparison, deliver images that sparkle. If you need focal length versatility, go for a long prime and mid-range zoom. I'd be happy to be proved wrong!


----------



## Eldar (Dec 5, 2013)

mikea said:


> Frankly, I'm just not seeing excellent images from the 200-400mm: most images posted on the Internet taken with this lens could have been taken with a 100-400mm costing a tenth of the price and a fraction of the size/weight. The latest generation of Canon 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses, in comparison, deliver images that sparkle. If you need focal length versatility, go for a long prime and mid-range zoom. I'd be happy to be proved wrong!


Then I believe you should look some more. There is absolutely no doubt that the 200-400 outperforms the 100-400 by a significant margin. It is much closer to the great white primes (300, 400, 500, 600) than it is to the 100-400. 

Most of the images you see on the internet are significantly reduced in size, with everything that goes with it. But I can assure you that if you take detailed tours of full size raw files, you´ll see how good this lens is.


----------



## mikea (Dec 5, 2013)

Eldar, I'd rather be shown than assured. 
My particular interest is in bird photography, which is one of the fields in which the 200-400mm is being touted as ideal.
So far, the bird images I've seen taken with this lens all have that 'zoom lens look', lacking the crispness, contrast, colour rendition and bokeh of a high quality prime.
In my experience of reviewing hundreds of thousands of bird images online, these qualities are visible even at web sizes.
If you had to make a living shooting bird images, would you seriously choose your 200-400mm over a 500mm or 600mm prime?


----------



## Eldar (Dec 5, 2013)

mikea said:


> Eldar, I'd rather be shown than assured.
> My particular interest is in bird photography, which is one of the fields in which the 200-400mm is being touted as ideal.
> So far, the bird images I've seen taken with this lens all have that 'zoom lens look', lacking the crispness, contrast, colour rendition and bokeh of a high quality prime.
> In my experience of reviewing hundreds of thousands of bird images online, these qualities are visible even at web sizes.
> If you had to make a living shooting bird images, would you seriously choose your 200-400mm over a 500mm or 600mm prime?


I got the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x for sports and wildlife. For this purpose I believe it is the ultimate lens (at the moment). 

For birds I prefer the 600 f4L IS II, often combined with the 1.4xIII extender. But that is not because of optical quality, but for reach. I had the 400mm f2.8L IS II also earlier, but I sold it a while after I got the 200-400, because it is that good. But the 600 stays, because it is a phenomenal lens and it covers a different need.

I don´t know what it takes to convince you, but I have attached the color version of my avatar, shot with a 1DX at 560mm, f5.6, 1/200s and ISO400.


----------



## candc (Dec 6, 2013)

Eldar said:


> mikea said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar, I'd rather be shown than assured.
> ...



always a pleasure to view your wildlife photos. i really like your lynx shots also. 

i know it's a lot of money for that combo and there may be some other setups that will give close to the same results in some circumstances but what you are getting is the assurance of superb results in a changing shooting scenario under any conditions. 

i don't think there is any doubt that the 1dx and the 200-400 combo is the best there is at what it does. if i was getting paid to take wildlife photos in harsh conditions and every shot counts then this is what i would want to have with me


----------



## eml58 (Dec 6, 2013)

mikea said:


> Frankly, I'm just not seeing excellent images from the 200-400mm: most images posted on the Internet taken with this lens could have been taken with a 100-400mm costing a tenth of the price and a fraction of the size/weight. The latest generation of Canon 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses, in comparison, deliver images that sparkle. If you need focal length versatility, go for a long prime and mid-range zoom. I'd be happy to be proved wrong!



Hi Mikea, you wouldn't be AvTvM or Michael in another life would you ?? I mean, your 3rd Post on CR & you come onto a Thread specifically set up for people to discuss the merits & or handling of the 200-400, post their Images etc, and dump on the Images & the Lens in question, not bad for a 3rd time Poster.

But, if we treat your Post with a modicum of respect, yes, almost all the Images you find taken with the 200-400f/4 could be to some degree emulated using the 100-400f/4-5.6 with a 1.4x converter (200-400f/4 of course isn't able to emulate the 100-400 at less than 200, clearly), I disagree though that in right hands you are going to get anywhere near the same IQ from the 100-400 that you will get from the 200-400, and having owned (and given away) the 100-400 & currently own the 200-400, I, unlike yourself, speak from experience.

If your serious (and I doubt you are) about wanting to discern the IQ difference between the two, it's simple really, hire both & go out and take some Images side by side & see if your prepared to make the financial commitment of the 200-400 over the 100-400, it just seems to me to be a smarter method of determining the Pros & Cons of each Lens prior to the commitment, than reviewing Photos on the Internet.

Fortunately for Canon there aren't too many people out in the real World that share your opinion, currently the 200-400f/4 is basically a back order almost anywhere you can find the Lens, and that's at US$16k compared to the 100-400f/4 at what ?? US1.6k, I wonder why all those Wildlife & Sport photographers are prepared to pay the huge premium to own the 200-400 over the 100-400, Oh yes I know, they clearly have no idea about how best to select gear, more money than Brains, didn't listen to mikea.

I've seen very little on the web re the 200-400f/4 being the ideal Lens for BIF Imaging, I've seen a load on the Web about the 600f/4, 600f/4 + 1.4x, 800f/5.6 being the ideal BIF lenses. And my own experience supports this view, the 200-400 is an amazing Lens for Wildlife & I imagine Sports, but for BIF it can't compare to the 600f/4 + 1.4x, and I own & use that Combo as well, so again, I speak from experience.

Maybe instead of spending your time on the internet reviewing those Thousands if Bird Images you might take some time out & go take some Images yourself with the 100-400f/4 & the 200-400f/4 (Hire them for a few days) & Post them here so we can be convinced you have any idea of what your talking about, I mean this only in a respectful manner of course, I'de love you to be able to convince me, I'm really not interested in convincing you.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 6, 2013)

Keep this up, we'll be at 10 Pages in no time I'm sure.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 6, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I don´t know what it takes to convince you, but I have attached the color version of my avatar, shot with a 1DX at 560mm, f5.6, 1/200s and ISO400.



Really Eldar, I thought the B&W was lovely, this is Superb, pity you didn't use the 100-400, you could have saved yourself....$15k ??

I have to come up there some time for some of these Lynx & Wolf Image opportunities, really Lovely stuff.


----------



## rpt (Dec 6, 2013)

Eldar said:


> mikea said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar, I'd rather be shown than assured.
> ...


Absolutely lovely! Both the BW and colour versions are great.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 6, 2013)

Ok, this isn't a Bird in Flight, I know the difference.

But this Female Cheetah is running down a Thompson's Gazelle at somewhere between 80kph & 100kph, I'm no BIF photographer in any way, I leave that up to People like Gary Samples who does an excellent job of it, but I don't think too many BIF are any more difficult to Photograph than this situation. And I don't for one moment say that this Image is an amazing Cheetah in Flight Image, but the 200-400f/4 does this amazingly well and in this Image you have the disadvantage of Tall Grass to get in the way of the Lenses ability to focus on the subject, not something you generally have to worry too much about with BIF.

To shoot this with the 100-400f/4-5.6, you would need the 1.4x converter attached and then your shooting an Animal running @ 100kph @ f/8, not an impossible task I admit but a lot more difficult than it seems, but the 200-400f/4 in this instance was on the 1Dx 560mm f/5.6 1/2000th ISO800 and just handled it supremely well, I don't think the 100-400 could have done it as well, but, I didn't have the 100-400 so it's conjecture, based on experience, mine.

Could the 100-400 have done it, I'm sure it could have, I'm just glad I had the 200-400 instead so I was more sure of getting The Shot.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 6, 2013)

We should call the 1DX+200-400 combo the "Safari Gun". The last thing you want to leave behind. (Maybe "Modern Safari Gun" if you want to be less ambiguous.)


----------



## Eldar (Dec 6, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I don´t know what it takes to convince you, but I have attached the color version of my avatar, shot with a 1DX at 560mm, f5.6, 1/200s and ISO400.
> ...


He looks a bit like the family dog, doesn't he?


----------



## eml58 (Dec 6, 2013)

Eldar said:


> He looks a bit like the family dog, doesn't he?



I suppose so, if your into keeping a Wolf as a Family Pet, Beautiful Animal & a Lovely Capture.


----------



## Harry Muff (Dec 6, 2013)

Why is there a poll for the Nikon DF at the top?


----------



## rpt (Dec 6, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > He looks a bit like the family dog, doesn't he?
> ...


I was about to mention yesterday that he reminded me of our silver German Shepard that we got in 85. And yes, they do have wolf in them. They need space. The flat was not good for it so he went off to a sheep farmer when he was 4.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 6, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Ok, this isn't a Bird in Flight, I know the difference.
> 
> But this Female Cheetah is running down a Thompson's Gazelle at somewhere between 80kph & 100kph, I'm no BIF photographer in any way, I leave that up to People like Gary Samples who does an excellent job of it, but I don't think too many BIF are any more difficult to Photograph than this situation. And I don't for one moment say that this Image is an amazing Cheetah in Flight Image, but the 200-400f/4 does this amazingly well and in this Image you have the disadvantage of Tall Grass to get in the way of the Lenses ability to focus on the subject, not something you generally have to worry too much about with BIF.
> 
> ...


The proof of the pudding is in the eating ... 

I wonder what this would look like with your newly acquired A7R ...


----------



## eml58 (Dec 7, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I wonder what this would look like with your newly acquired A7R ...



Ha Ha !! Not a chance on a Cold Day in Hell, I doubt the EVF could keep up even with the Animal strolling, but once the actions over, and you want that Beautiful Panorama where the only thing moving are the leaves in the breeze ?? Maybe. I bought the a7r because I've never been Happy with the Canon M, and now v2 M is ...... the same as V1 really, so a7r for the Walk Around Camera in downtown Tokyo etc, plus I have a couple of Zeiss Lenses and I do Love the Zeiss Lenses. And so we convince ourselves.



Harry Muff said:


> Why is there a poll for the Nikon DF at the top?



Yes, Good question, I guess I've never noticed it until now.



rpt said:


> And yes, they do have wolf in them. They need space. The flat was not good for it so he went off to a sheep farmer when he was 4.



Have you checked lately that the Sheep Farmer is still around ??

In Australia the German Shepard (The Dog I mean) was an illegal Animal from after the 1st World War until the 50's, It was felt that if the German Shepard's (with their Wolf Genes) got into the Dingo population in outback Australia we would have an interbred animal that was capable of devastating the Sheep population, at some point someone decided it was a fanciful idea and allowed the Dogs into Aus. We've had little luck in Aus with introduced species, Rabbits (the long eared variety), Rats, Cane Toads, Fox's, English People (As against the Good Scots & Irish types  ), long line of disasters.


----------



## rpt (Dec 7, 2013)

eml58 said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, they do have wolf in them. They need space. The flat was not good for it so he went off to a sheep farmer when he was 4.
> ...


LOL!!! You forgot the Indians ;D But then you probably retired from Australia by then


----------



## arbitrage (Dec 7, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Ok, this isn't a Bird in Flight, I know the difference.
> 
> But this Female Cheetah is running down a Thompson's Gazelle at somewhere between 80kph & 100kph, I'm no BIF photographer in any way, I leave that up to People like Gary Samples who does an excellent job of it, but I don't think too many BIF are any more difficult to Photograph than this situation. And I don't for one moment say that this Image is an amazing Cheetah in Flight Image, but the 200-400f/4 does this amazingly well and in this Image you have the disadvantage of Tall Grass to get in the way of the Lenses ability to focus on the subject, not something you generally have to worry too much about with BIF.
> 
> ...



Even though you offered the concession that the 100-400 could have made that shot, I would argue that the 100-400 wouldn't be able to capture that shot. Why? Because the bokeh would look terrible as the 100-400 has a terrible time with grass/twigs in the background. Anyone who comes onto this thread and claims all pictures taken with the 200-400 could have been taken with the 100-400 are either delusional or just plain jealous.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 8, 2013)

arbitrage said:


> Even though you offered the concession that the 100-400 could have made that shot, I would argue that the 100-400 wouldn't be able to capture that shot. Why? Because the bokeh would look terrible as the 100-400 has a terrible time with grass/twigs in the background. Anyone who comes onto this thread and claims all pictures taken with the 200-400 could have been taken with the 100-400 are either delusional or just plain jealous.



Hi arbitrage, I in fact agree with you, it's a long while since I owned the 100-400, I remember it was a pretty good Lens, not great, but good (hated that push pull thing though) and I've seen a load of very good Images taken with that Lens, Mine just didn't seem to be among them, my comments previously are a result of experience combined with a need to keep my cool when faced with "delusional" statements from 3rd time Posters.

Haven't heard anything more from mikea, so I guess my guess may have been correct, his objective was to inflame, not to educate or enter into amiable discussion.

I do know I absolutely enjoy the 200-400f4 and my Imaging has improved with the combo of the 1Dx + 200-400f/4, Some People can pull absolutely wonderful Images out of a Box Brownie, I'm just not one of them, I like the gear, I enjoy it, newer the better, I'm sort of hopeless when it comes to new gear, I even own the a7r, not sure I like it a lot, but I do know I like it more than my Canon M.


----------



## sanj (Dec 8, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> Why is there a poll for the Nikon DF at the top?



It went here by mistake. I am trying to delete it but do not know how. Could you guide?


----------



## sanj (Dec 8, 2013)

Lunch


----------



## rpt (Dec 8, 2013)

sanj said:


> Lunch


Too rare for me than you!


----------



## sanj (Dec 8, 2013)

rpt said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Lunch
> ...


----------



## eml58 (Dec 9, 2013)

Keeping with the "Lunch" venue.

1Dx 200-400f/4, Shot @ 560mm f/7.1 & 1/400th ISO640


----------



## eml58 (Dec 9, 2013)

And for those that aren't too keen on the Blood etc.

Lunch of a different kind.

1Dx 200-400f/4


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 9, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Keeping with the "Lunch" venue.
> 
> 1Dx 200-400f/4, Shot @ 560mm f/7.1 & 1/400th ISO640


Visually strong and compelling image. Perhaps not for Vegetarians.


----------



## rpt (Dec 9, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Keeping with the "Lunch" venue.
> ...


And it looks like it is bloody good!


----------



## winglet (Dec 9, 2013)

eml58 said:


> ... my comments previously are a result of experience combined with a need to keep my cool when faced with "delusional" statements from 3rd time Posters.
> 
> Haven't heard anything more from mikea, so I guess my guess may have been correct, his objective was to inflame, not to educate or enter into amiable discussion.



I thought your rebuttal to the troll a few days back was masterful - for sure a lot more restrained than my own reply would have been! ;D It's fine to have and express an opinion, but I'm still waiting for him to post his own images taken with the two lenses he feels are comparable, side by side as you suggested. I have a feeling it could be quite a wait. Talk is cheap, especially on the internet - actually backing it up takes some effort. 

If anything I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of many images from the 200-400 I've seen posted variously on the web, including your own. The quality speaks for itself! Some really great safari captures, I love the DOF in the cheetah pic.

My own copy of the lens is showing out for delivery today, can't wait! I mean, who needs TWO kidneys?!


----------



## eml58 (Dec 9, 2013)

winglet said:


> My own copy of the lens is showing out for delivery today, can't wait! I mean, who needs TWO kidneys?!



Hi Winglet, Yes, it's the small downside to the Internet, fortunately 99% of what we see & read about on CR make the experience enjoyable & worthwhile, life has it's mike's, I agree, I doubt we'll see any Images.

You will I'm sure Love the 200-400f/4, I am certainly enjoying the experience and the Images I'm getting from the Lens. Having the 200f/2, 300f/2.8 II, 600f/4 & had the 400f/2.8 II I am of the opinion that at those particular ranges the 200-400f/4 is not quite as sharp, have felt that since I first purchased the Lens, but you really do need to zoom to perhaps 3:1 before you will see the difference in sharpness, Canon have certainly put all their smarts into designing an exceptionally good Lens.

the only thing lacking is the ability to shoot @ f/2.8, that would be perfect, but not sure I could carry the thing if it was f/2.8 it would be very heavy, so a back up lens that's f/2 or f/2.8 is always in the Bag as well.

Enjoy your Lens when it arrives and look forward to seeing your Images and more importantly hearing about your experiences of the Lens & how the Kidney removal went.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 10, 2013)

Of the many many Lions I've seen, this Guy was the most memorable, the Eyes I've never seen quite so intense as they were on this Chap, he was the Alpha Male in a Coalition of 4 Brothers, the only one with these Rich Pale Yellow eyes, most Lions have that dark Yellow/Orange colouring, this Guy when he looked at you made you shiver.

Seemed to have the unfortunate habit of leading with his Nose as well.

1Dx 200-400f/4, Shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/640th ISO800


----------



## eml58 (Dec 10, 2013)

Not something I feel exceptionally comfortable with, but from time to time the opportunity presents & I have a go, so any failings are mine, not the gear.

This Guy was sitting in the top of a Tree so I had plenty of time to get ready for when he eventually took to the air.

It's a Bird, it's in Flight, so must be a BIF ??

And to top off my lack of knowledge of Birds in general, I've forgotten what this Guy is called, but the Image was taken in the Serengeti Tanzania, nice looking animal, bird, whatever.

1Dx 200-400f4, Shot @ 377mm f/5.6 & 1/3200th ISO400


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 14, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Not something I feel exceptionally comfortable with, but from time to time the opportunity presents & I have a go, so any failings are mine, not the gear.
> 
> This Guy was sitting in the top of a Tree so I had plenty of time to get ready for when he eventually took to the air.
> 
> ...



Is there a lot of cropping in that shot? It must have been pretty (really, extremely) close if that fills the frame at 377mm.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 15, 2013)

9VIII said:


> Is there a lot of cropping in that shot? It must have been pretty (really, extremely) close if that fills the frame at 377mm.



Screen Grab showing Crop.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 15, 2013)

eml58 said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a lot of cropping in that shot? It must have been pretty (really, extremely) close if that fills the frame at 377mm.
> ...



Nicely done, it must look amazing at full size. Hopefully I'll be able to get that close to something other than a magpie someday.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 15, 2013)

9VIII said:


> Nicely done, it must look amazing at full size. Hopefully I'll be able to get that close to something other than a magpie someday.



You must be an Aussie, only place I know they have Maggies, hated the damn things as a Kid growing up in place called Kallanie in the northern Wheat-belt of West Aus.

I still have the head scars to prove it.

This Eagle/Hawk (Guide did tell me what it was called but I instantly forgot), made the job easy, he was sitting in a Tree when we slowly drove up, allowed me to get set up, then did the right thing and flew straight towards us, veered left at the last, must have been someone's Pet.

The 1Dx set on 61 point/single point/auto select just zapped onto the Bird and never lost focus, love this set up for Birds & fast animals like cheetahs running down a Kill at 100kph.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 15, 2013)

eml58 said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Nicely done, it must look amazing at full size. Hopefully I'll be able to get that close to something other than a magpie someday.
> ...



It's a nice image for sure, great job! But frankly I think even the lowly Rebel T3 might (emphasize _might_) have grabbed and locked in servo mode with such a large slow-flying bird against a bright sky like that, even with an STM lens. Cheetahs are a farrrr different story though!! 

I do like how you said the bird waited and then flew just like you wanted it to! I find the larger birds tend to be easy to shoot in open spaces. What's hard are the small birds in flight...of course I don't own a 1DX or 5D3...or a great white. Yesterday I did receive a new 70-300L via UPS. So far I kind of think it AF's slower than my 70-200 F/4, but its image quality and contrast are even better than I expected. The IS is subtle in what it can achieve, but turns out to be astounding...haven't fully tested panning mode yet. I got some tack sharp shots at 1/2 second hand held toward the wide angle end, though (even at 145mm or so). It seems to be able to do repeatable 1/8 to 1/10-second handheld sharp shots at 300mm...slower than that is repeatable only maybe 1 in 5 times. That's IS performance almost on par with the 200 f/2L that I rented, but maybe not quite. It's also flare resistant to the extreme...as is commonly stated about this lens.

Do you find the 200-400 / 1DX able to servo track equally well for subjects _moving away from the camera_ really fast (such as a running cheetah), as it can for when they're running toward the camera?


----------



## Sauropod (Dec 15, 2013)

I have been using a CPS loaned 200-400 1.4x the last few days exclusively handheld at various local zoos, both to compare it with other handheld shots from other lenses in my stable of the same animals and to help my case to my CEO (the missus!) that, over the long haul, buying this lens is cheaper than a purchasing gym memberships because I'll actually use the lens! On the handheld front it was far lighter than I thought it'd be, so much so that I actually enjoy shooting with it handheld, that arm-burning sensation at the end of the day has an odd pleasantness to it. My wife wouldn't touch it without a monopod so definitely the hand-holdability is relative. 

It is an amazing zoo lens!!! Here in Arizona many of the animal enclosures are large, so much so I routinely take my 400 5.6. As eml58 stated if I zoom in whilst in LR I can tell that many images just aren't as sharp as my 200 2.0 or 300 2.8. However, I ran my favorite 200-400 images, interspersed with similar 200 f2.0 and 300 2.8 images, past family members and they "oohed" and "aahed" appropriately and never once complained about focus (in fairness they likely would have made the same sounds for any images). Many of the shots I couldn't have gotten without a lens change or multiple camera bodies.

This image, shot at 540mm, is a good representation of how sharp the lens can be with an extender:
http://500px.com/photo/54954232 

This one, shot at 400mm, was a family favorite:
http://500px.com/photo/54954252

Here is one from a tiger running towards me, leaping into a pool, shot through a fence, with the teleconverter on:
http://500px.com/photo/54956286

The shot isn't as sharp as I'd like (nothing other than cropping done on this shot) but with my primes I couldn't have gotten the sequence of him moving towards me. As he got closer I simply flipped off the 1.4x (I wish the lever was on the right hand side) and kept shooting on my 5D3.

CarlTN: regarding moving away from the camera really fast on ai servo I didn't have any issues shooting the big animals coming or going. Once focus locked initially it kept pace with everything I was shooting with no issues.

Overall I love the ability to zoom in and out, compose a shot on the fly, and pretty much handle most any situation with one lens on one body, especially in the dusty, windy conditions that I often face where changing a lens isn't peril-free or convenient and switching between two bodies isn't ideal. I did miss the 2.8 when shooting mounted sauropod cervical vertebrae indoors but a flash fixed that easy enough. 

Conclusion? I'm already looking around the house to see what I can sell Anyone looking for some old Star Wars toys???


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 15, 2013)

Sauropod said:


> I have been using a CPS loaned 200-400 1.4x the last few days exclusively handheld at various local zoos, both to compare it with other handheld shots from other lenses in my stable of the same animals and to help my case to my CEO (the missus!) that, over the long haul, buying this lens is cheaper than a purchasing gym memberships because I'll actually use the lens! On the handheld front it was far lighter than I thought it'd be, so much so that I actually enjoy shooting with it handheld, that arm-burning sensation at the end of the day has an odd pleasantness to it. My wife wouldn't touch it without a monopod so definitely the hand-holdability is relative.
> 
> It is an amazing zoo lens!!! Here in Arizona many of the animal enclosures are large, so much so I routinely take my 400 5.6. As eml58 stated if I zoom in whilst in LR I can tell that many images just aren't as sharp as my 200 2.0 or 300 2.8. However, I ran my favorite 200-400 images, interspersed with similar 200 f2.0 and 300 2.8 images, past family members and they "oohed" and "aahed" appropriately and never once complained about focus (in fairness they likely would have made the same sounds for any images). Many of the shots I couldn't have gotten without a lens change or multiple camera bodies.
> 
> ...



Thanks for letting me know your experience with the servo performance (I assume on a 5D3?) I have some Star Wars stuff I need to sell too, but it won't be getting me this lens anytime soon!

I liked your images although I didn't sign up for 500px yet and couldn't see the full size images, if there were any. Not to criticize but I would say this lens might be overkill for zoo photography, is that your primary use scenario?


----------



## Sauropod (Dec 15, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Thanks for letting me know your experience with the servo performance (I assume on a 5D3?) I have some Star Wars stuff I need to sell too, but it won't be getting me this lens anytime soon!
> 
> I liked your images although I didn't sign up for 500px yet and couldn't see the full size images, if there were any. Not to criticize but I would say this lens might be overkill for zoo photography, is that your primary use scenario?




Twas on the 5D3. Based on my 1Dx experiences (alas not with the 200-400 itself) it should perform even better on that superbly capable machine!

No criticism taken regarding if this would be overkill at zoos as the answer would be...depends! I think depending on ones goals (for pay/hardcore hobbyist) this lens could be justified. The zoos out here in Arizona often have large (for a zoo) enclosures and the time of day/year the animals can be hard to see as they are far off seeking shade or hiding from the public. A professional or (rich/dedicated) hobbyist could justify the purchase in time saved (and reduced dust risk) from lens swapping and reduced hassle in not needing to carry multiple bodies. All is relative, I suppose, depending on ones funds and/or dedication. I know I have missed some great shots (zoos and in the field) taking off/adding on teleconverters and/or lenses that the 200-400 1.4x would have captured with a level of sharpness that, in most cases, would have sufficed.

Funny enough I worry that at my desired primary use locales, places like Yellowstone and Africa, I might be better off with a 600 and 1.4x attached. Image quality on my 5D3 with the 200-400 and a second 1.4 attached fails to keep pace with a 600 and a single 1.4x. The versatility of the 200-400 is supremely awesome but, my goodness, the 600 is an amazing lens for those far away shots!

Apologies for sending folk to 500px. I was going to upload my 3 images here but it was late and I was lazy and didn't want to convert raw to jpg to get under the 4096KB max file size. A weak, but honest, excuse! 

Sadly I re-assessed my Star Wars collection and, yeah, I think you are right. It won't buy me the 200-400 anytime soon (maybe when Disney released the next one though...). It could pick me up the double-dip-eligible 16-35 2.8 though!


----------



## eml58 (Dec 15, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> It's a nice image for sure, great job! But frankly I think even the lowly Rebel T3 might (emphasize _might_) have grabbed and locked in servo mode with such a large slow-flying bird against a bright sky like that, even with an STM lens. Cheetahs are a farrrr different story though!!
> 
> 
> Do you find the 200-400 / 1DX able to servo track equally well for subjects _moving away from the camera_ really fast (such as a running cheetah), as it can for when they're running toward the camera?



Hi CarlTN, your right of course, in the conditions I shot this Eagle you could have used pretty well anything, either lens or Body, my son was using a 6D on a 70-300L & got as good (I can't say better considering the difference in gear value and my Lads ego & my own). BIF etc are targets of opportunity, I rarely shoot them, although I have a mild fascination with Vultures, again, that's likely because they're big & slow & make the job easy.

Shooting a stooping Eagle with a 600f/4 + 1.4x Converter and getting sharp Images takes some real skill, Gary Samples Images spring to mind when discussing this particular subject, sharp & Beautiful.

I've owned the 70-300L since just after it was released, although I think it's an excellent Lens, Sharp & not heavy, I often found I'de leave it at home in preference to the 70-200f/2.8 L II and that Lenses ability to utilise the 1.4x converter. Now my Lad uses the 70-300L almost exclusively & just loves the Lens, he produces some remarkably good Images from this Lens on the 6D, on these trips with me to Africa he pretty well uses the 6D + 24-70F2.8 L II plus 70-300L, that's a pretty light load in the backpack considering I generally travel with 2 x 1Dx Bodies, 70-200f/2.8 II, 200-400f/4, 600f/4 II & 300f/2.8 II.

My only concern with the 70-300L was not being able to utilise the 1.4x on it, I think Canon made a small error of judgement there, my Lads Images would tend to say no, he does well with his lighter less expensive package. The combo 6D + 70-300L though is not likely to get some of the faster action shots though when compared to the 1Dx + 200-400f/4.

The 200-400f4 is an absolutely wonderful Lens, if I had to have just one lens this would likely be it, 300f/2.8 L II might squeeze it out on sharpness/weight etc, but sheer versatility, the 200-400f/4 is hard to beat.

On Servo Tracking the 200-400f/4 & 1Dx will track just as well in any direction, including away from the Camera, when tracking Cheetah you will loose Lock if the Animal goes behind a Bush or Tree, but I rarely have to Manually re acquire focus lock, in 90% of cases the Lens/Body automatically re acquires, amazing technology in these modern cameras.

But, as I've mentioned in previous Posts, you can get sharper Images at 200/300/400 & 600 Using Primes (I've never owned the 500 so I can't speak for that Lens, but from what I've seen it's in the same Class as the other Large Primes), there's very little in it, but the Primes I feel do provide the marginally sharper Image, but the versatility of the 200-400f/4 makes this Lens almost Magical (taking a word from Steve Jobs when describing the iPad).


----------



## eml58 (Dec 15, 2013)

Sauropod said:


> The shot isn't as sharp as I'd like (nothing other than cropping done on this shot) but with my primes I couldn't have gotten the sequence of him moving towards me. As he got closer I simply flipped off the 1.4x (I wish the lever was on the right hand side) and kept shooting on my 5D3.



Hi Sauropod, Love the Images, especially the Tiger into the water, this is a dream Image in the wild that few get the opportunity to capture.

The issue in this Image is one I often find with pretty well any of my White Primes/200-400f/4 etc, when I'm shooting Crocodiles into the water everything is as sharp as a button until the animal hits the water, i believe what happens then is the Lens/Body gets confused by the water splash and locks onto the water, the animal is then marginally out of focus but the water splash is sharp. I don't think there's any way to solve this issue except manual focus, and on a fast moving animal that's probably outside my skill levels.

If I was to Post examples of the Images I've docked up over the years there wouldn't be enough room on CR, fortunately it's like most things in life, screw it up enough you either learn from it & get better at not screwing up, or you get better at screwing up.


----------



## rpt (Dec 20, 2013)

9VIII said:


> Hopefully I'll be able to get that close to something other than a magpie someday.


Tell me about it!


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 28, 2013)

Sauropod said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for letting me know your experience with the servo performance (I assume on a 5D3?) I have some Star Wars stuff I need to sell too, but it won't be getting me this lens anytime soon!
> ...



Still sounds like your Star Wars collection very far exceeds mine, bravo to you sir!

It kind of sounds like the rumored 300-600 f/5.6 with built in converter would be more up your alley, if you are needing more focal length but still want a zoom. I can certainly understand you not wanting to constantly change lenses. I don't like doing it a lot, whether it's very dusty or even if I'm indoors on a very clean table!


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 28, 2013)

eml58 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > It's a nice image for sure, great job! But frankly I think even the lowly Rebel T3 might (emphasize _might_) have grabbed and locked in servo mode with such a large slow-flying bird against a bright sky like that, even with an STM lens. Cheetahs are a farrrr different story though!!
> ...



Thanks very much for answering about the servo tracking going away from the camera, and for all the considered thought process you put into explaining the comparisons. I'll try to forgive you for bringing up Steve Jobs and iPads, haha...

Hope you are having nice holidays! I am, pretty much.

So far I like my 70-300L pretty well on the 6D, but it definitely does not autofocus as fast as my 70-200 f/4L. It's image quality is superior, though, which is saying something. 

That's an impressive array of equipment that you take with you on safari. I confess that if it were me, given the same access to funds, I would probably go somewhere in between you and your friend. I would just take the one 200-400 and use it on a single 1DX body, and take a 6D with 70-300L, along with a couple of other wide primes and zooms for it. I definitely would not take several big whites on safari...in case I had to I dunno, try to outrun a cheetah...or some militia or something!


----------



## ethanz (Jan 9, 2017)

Eldar said:


> As Edward said, with the 200-400 it feels as if an arm is missing, to control the zoom and the 1-1.4x switch. But I´m sure it´ll work with a bit of practice.



After lots of practice, did it get better, Eldar?


----------



## Eldar (Jan 9, 2017)

ethanz said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > As Edward said, with the 200-400 it feels as if an arm is missing, to control the zoom and the 1-1.4x switch. But I´m sure it´ll work with a bit of practice.
> ...


He he, That was an old thread being brought back to life 

No, I can't say it got any better. Having had the lens for more than three years and (I don't know how) many thousand shots, my conclusions are pretty much the same. It is a fantastic lens, which I would only part with if a lighter version, with similar optical performance, came along. However, it is hardly the most practical lens to use. It is smaller than the 400, 500 and 600 L-lenses, but it is just as heavy and you need to operate both the extender in/out and the zoom ring, which cries out for a third arm. If you can decide on which focal length to use in advance and not use the zoom ring during composition, it is like operating one of the other big whites though.

In a safari situation, it is not a problem. Either you’ll be standing, with your head up through the roof, with a beanbag for support, or you'll be sitting in an open vehicle, with your elbow resting on your leg (or something). For many photographers, I believe a 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II, with an optional 1.4xIII extender, might be a better choice, provided you have a 1DX-II or 5DIV. You'll lose a little bit of optical performance, but the size, weight and manouverability is worth a lot. Try a couple of BIF situations and you'll see my point.


----------



## ethanz (Jan 9, 2017)

Thanks Eldar.

I'm looking to get a 400mm this year. I'm still in the process of testing all the 400's but some other photographers said I should check out the 200-400 and the 500 too, so I am doing lots of reading on here (hence resurrecting an old thread). I shoot a lot of different things, so I do like the idea of a zoom. This isn't my day job though, so I'll only be buying one great white and need to do a lot of justifying for it


----------



## Eldar (Jan 9, 2017)

The 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x is a fantastic lens. However, you should be pretty clear on why you want it. I am using the 600 f4L IS II more than the 200-400 and most of the time with the 1.4xIII extender. So if I could only have one big white, it would be the 600, probably combined with the 1.4x/2xIII extenders and a 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II.

If I were you, I´d try to rent one for a week and check out if it answered your expectations.


----------



## ethanz (Jan 9, 2017)

I shoot sports and video too, not just wild life and birds.


----------

