# 200-400 spotted at Wimbledon



## Mick (Jul 3, 2012)

My new toy is about to arrive! I live in the uk, wonder how much a train ticket to Wimbledon would cost? 

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/lenses/ef_200-400mm_f4L.html

I sold my two primes for a very large profit to have the money for this baby. Funnily enough i've made quite a few £££'s over the years selling lens's. Dead easy.

Mick.


----------



## davehollandpics (Jul 3, 2012)

I really hope you are right. I would think that Canon would do everything possible to get these in the hands of Olympic photogs.


----------



## FarQinell (Jul 5, 2012)

davehollandpics said:


> I really hope you are right. I would think that Canon would do everything possible to get these in the hands of Olympic photogs.



Surely Olympic sports photographers would prefer the 400mm f2.8L IS II lens.
One stop faster and probably sharper as well!
Nevertheless I am sure it will be a good - although very expensive zoom lens.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 6, 2012)

So I see:
3-mode stabiliser (like all the new Big Whites)
Focus Preset
AF/PF/MF, I'm presuming the PF means Power Focus
Focus limiter 2m-6m, 6m-inf, 2m-inf
One big ring and one thin ring, dunno which would be zoom and which focus
AF stop buttons (even if they'd be a fair distance to reach by the looks)
Filter holder like all Big Whites
and the 1.4x Teleconverter, looks like it can be locked in either of the 1x or 1.4x positions (which would be very useful, I'd be locking it all the time for transport).

This lens is definitely shaping up to be a 'Cream Machine' (but i'm talking about my pants, not the Bokeh)


----------



## Mick (Jul 6, 2012)

Perhaps theres one other thought, 200-400 f4 plus converter at 560 f5.6 or 300 f2.8 plus 1x4 and 2x converters.

Each has its advantages. Stop of light, lightness, price and none converter use ultimate sharpness or wide focal range, no need to stop to change converters over. Decisions decisions. I'll probably buy the 200-400 but might wait to look at side by side image comparisons. Or i may just go insane trying to decide!!

Mick


----------



## Bennymiata (Jul 8, 2012)

It certainly looks big AND heavy!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 9, 2012)

I think the 200-400mm f4 is a great idea for well lit sports. The capability of framing in camera, with out post production cropping is very desirable. The loss of one stop vs a 400L might be a problem. 
It might also drop the ability to isolate from the background, so it depends on how close one can get to the action and what it's MFD is compared to the 400L. 
Watching the male finals on Saturday, i spotted a 200-400 L IS, a few 400L's (mk 1 and mkII) and a 500L (mkI). So I guess it's a game of what works for you. I suspect that a 500mm focal length was needed, and the 400L's had 1.4x converters or were post cropping. I'm guessing that the 200-400 LIS had it's TC engaged.


----------

