# 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4



## wdh777 (Jun 13, 2013)

There was an old thread that went back and forth between these before the 200-400 was actually out. Now that it is out I wanted to revisit. Much of the thread was based on how the the IQ would be on the 200-400. The reviews are that the IQ is very good so you are not losing much by going with the zoom. I'm considering trading in my 400 2.8 pros/cons as I see it.

400 2.8
1 stop better aperture so better low light performance
Better bokeh/DOF

200-400 4.0
More versitile focal length. I lose many shots during sports games when the players get too close to me.
Worse low light performance but with my 1Dx is that really much of a consideration given the higher ISO performance. Shooting day games, evening games, and sometimes a play or concert inside?
Do I lose much of the Bokeh/DOF at 4.0 vs 2.8?

Tough call. I really like the versatility of the zoom but wonder if I will miss the DOF? 

Any thoughts?


----------



## Vossie (Jun 13, 2013)

I follow your pro/con analysis.

I've not seen any head 2 head comparisons on the net. Why don't you rent one? That will help you decide if it's worth the swap...


----------



## RGF (Jun 13, 2013)

Minimum focus is 2m (6.6 feet) for the 200-400 vs 2.7 m (8.9 feet) for the 400 II


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 13, 2013)

Well, I shoot sports, I've read Peter Read Miller's assessment, I'm not getting it. f/4 isn't open enough, considering my venues often require 1/500, f/2.8, ISO 4000-6400. A whole stop would be very bad. If you're good enough, you won't miss any shots. Afterall, that's why you have two cameras. If you don't already own the 400 and are going into sports seriously, then I'd consider it. But since I already have the 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8, I don't need it.

Peter Read Miller also admits that the 400 f/2.8 at f/4 is sharper than the 200-400 at f/4, but the zoom is sharper with respective lenses with teleconverters (ie 300 and 400).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 13, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> it's a bit difficult to change lenses in the middle of a match and even heavier for the back to use multiple cameras and a 200, 300 and a 400mm lens, I think the Canon sports Photographers will use 200-400/4 the same way as in international photo agencies use the Nikon 200-400 today and at sports events and that's why Canon has invested so much in their own 200-400zoom.
> The lens has major benefits



Awesome, I'm just saying I won't be.


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 14, 2013)

I'd love to have the new EF Canon 200-400mm f/4 1.4x USM IS lens.... and yes, I'd also have that over the 400mm f/2.8. The flexibility to have from 200mm (@ f/4) to 500mm (@ f/5.6) on tap is something I would love, particularly for wildlife (animals and birds). Most of my shooting is in good light - a blessing of being in Australia where there is plenty of light often. But even in darker situations, a capable photographer could make this lens sing!

No doubt the 400mm f/2.8 has the advantage in some situations (ie where you are perfectly positioned to fill the frame / compose at 400mm - and in darker light). That's not the style of photography for everyone. I can see many people really loving this lens and buying it (admittedly probably mostly pro's or enthusiasts with higher disposable incomes).

Even above the reviews that will no doubt start to trickle out over the interweb, I look forward to seeing some great quality PHOTOS from this lens too! 8)

Regards

Paul


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 14, 2013)

Ankorwatt... I really like the photos you have shared here... and am glad to read that you realise the Canon 200-400 would be able to take even higher quality images.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> it's a bit difficult to change lenses in the middle of a match and even heavier for the back to use multiple cameras and a 200, 300 and a 400mm lens, I think the Canon sports Photographers will use 200-400/4 the same way as in international photo agencies use the Nikon 200-400 today and at sports events and that's why Canon has invested so much in their own 200-400zoom.
> The lens has major benefits



The amazing thing here ankorwatt, is that I've provided very valid reasons why I can't buy this lens. Shooting at 1/500, f/4, ISO 10,000 is unacceptable to me, even with a 1Dx. Maybe you get well-lit situations, but I don't. Yes, MSU has well-lit venues, but the D2 and D3 schools I shoot for do not, and most of my football and soccer games this year will be at night. 

The other thing is, I don't really miss too many shots, because I can shoot far shots with the 400 f/2.8, and have the 70-200 zoom on my other camera, and I've gotten fast enough where I can switch quickly. 

But the whole topper is, this 200-400 lens didn't exist a year ago and everyone was getting along fine. Suddenly, you're arguing with me why I DO need this lens and how I cannot get shots without it, even though I've been doing so for quite awhile and others even longer than me. Not everyone shoots in ISO 100 conditions like your photos and reviewers have even admitted their concern about f/4. 

I don't even know why I'm explaining this, and am wondering right now why I even do this to myself...


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 14, 2013)

I shoot sports, and I must admit that there have been times recently when I have wondered about the 200-400 1.4X. I even asked Canon CPS for their opinion on it over the 400 f/2.8 ii.

I will try it at the next major event I am at, but I also agree with what bdunbar79 says in that using two cameras is really not that big of a deal. 

The 400 f/2.8 ii is an outstanding lens, wow, I smile just thinking about it - and it is considerably cheaper than the 200-400 1.4X. 

Anyone that was watching the men's final of Roland Garros will have seen a couple of 200-400 1.4X in use behind the players seats.

I am keeping an open mind. I use the 400 f/2.8 ii quite a bit but have not yet bought one, and as I have not yet used or even touched the 20-400 1.4X I really am in no position to pass judgement.


----------



## RGF (Jun 14, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> I shoot sports, and I must admit that there have been times recently when I have wondered about the 200-400 1.4X. I even asked Canon CPS for their opinion on it over the 400 f/2.8 ii.



What did CPS say?


----------



## eml58 (Jun 14, 2013)

It's back to age old question, use what's best for your own brand/style of Photography, I have both now & I've run some side by side comparisons with the 200-400/400f/2.8 v2/300f/2.8 v2 & 200f/2, the Primes still at the same range (200/300/400) & same f/stop, in my opinion have slightly sharper IQ, But it's minimal.

My first view was that I might off load my 400f/2.8 v2 as I know that in my Wildlife Photography the 200-400 will be King & no way will I off load the 300 or the 200, but, I shoot a lot of dawn/dusk so the 300f/2.8 & 400f/2.8 still have their place, the decision becomes what to take what to leave Home, that becomes dependent on conditions.

The 200-400 is a pretty fine Lens, sharp, fast, zooms, but, it's f/4, just something you need to consider & work within.

I can see inside sporting events in particular, under lights, difficult lighting conditions, the f/2.8 anything will rule.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 14, 2013)

RGF said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot sports, and I must admit that there have been times recently when I have wondered about the 200-400 1.4X. I even asked Canon CPS for their opinion on it over the 400 f/2.8 ii.
> ...



Considering I do sports mainly, they said I should stick with the 400 f/2.8 ii.

I will be trying the 200-400 1.4X and I am sure it is an excellent lens, and for those that shoot wildlife etc then wow, couple that lens with an extra 1.4 or even 2 and you have quite some reach. But for me, at the moment, it looks like the 400 f/2.8 ii will remain king.

I will let you know once I do try it out, though not sure yet when that will be.


----------



## pwp (Jun 14, 2013)

I'd have the 400 f/2.8 every time. For shooting action, especially indoor sports, that extra stop is HUGE! 
The 400 f/2.8 is Gold Standard when it comes to shooting sports. 
Shooting with two bodies, one with the 400 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8isII on the other is the way to go.

But if you're generally shooting in strong enough light most of the time, the 200-400 f/4 x1.4 does sound fairly compelling. 

-PW


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jun 14, 2013)

A friend will borrow me his 400/2,8 II. I am very curious. And excited.

In a year or two I will have to take this decision.
Today I would take the 200-400 because of the versatility.


----------



## wdh777 (Jun 14, 2013)

Good points. I understand for the pro photographer the 2.8 makes sense with another camera using the 70-200. I'm a advanced amateur shooting mostly middle and high school sports and only have one camera body. I also have a 70-200 but to change lenses during a game isn't great and I don't want to carry around two bodies. This the 200-400 is pretty intriguing. Maybe I'll try to rent one. You are right that there may the occasional night game where I need to crank the ISO up to a higher level. Do you think the bokeh would suffer much?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 14, 2013)

If you have one camera, and it's just an occasional night game, the lens sounds awesome. For wildlife you better believe I'd be using it, if it made sense economically. I've seen plenty of guys using Nikon's 200-400 during day sports. I don't really believe the bokeh would suffer much from f/4 to f/2.8. 

I enjoyed eml58's wildlife shots with the lens. IQ-wise it is as expected: oustanding.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2013)

The 200-400/4+1.4x seems like the perfect safari lens, and I do like the convenience of a zoom. The other day, I was a little too close to some herons/egrets I was shooting, zooming out would have been nice. But I just removed the 1.4x from my 600 II, framing was plenty loose enough, and I was still a stop faster and had better IQ than the 200-400 @ 560/5.6.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Question to Canon CPS?Why? Like you ask, you will get a answer.
> The ultimate zoom for hockey worldwide football indoor sports, handball etc have included the 200-400 from Nikon a long time and the lens has replaced a variety of lenses for the photographers. The quality are now so good from the cameras that a stop do not give much benefit and if Canon can show that their lens is a good as a couple of heavy fixed lenses then it is not much to discuss?
> Your own choice that you have a 300 or 400/2,8 ?
> For a newspaper or magazine there are no difference if the american football has been shooting with a 400/2,8 or 200-400/4 at F-4



No difference between ISO 5000 and ISO 10,000 for a newspaper or magazine? Maybe,

But:

I'M NOT SHOOTING FOR NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES, I'M PRINTING 8X10'S OR LARGER


----------



## Apop (Jun 15, 2013)

400mm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=741&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

560mm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=741&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=3&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


and 420vs400
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0



I wonder if the 200-400 breathes and what T value it has.
It would still be the dream lens for safari if one has an unlimited budget, otherwise the primes look a little more interesting due to the very high price of the 200-400


----------



## eml58 (Jun 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 200-400/4+1.4x seems like the perfect safari lens, and I do like the convenience of a zoom. The other day, I was a little too close to some herons/egrets I was shooting, zooming out would have been nice. But I just removed the 1.4x from my 600 II, framing was plenty loose enough, and I was still a stop faster and had better IQ than the 200-400 @ 560/5.6.



Yep, I agree, it's where the 200-400 does loose out, when your shooting the 200-400 @ 560 & f5.6 (1.4x engaged) when compared to the 600 @ f5.6 no converter, IQ in this situation with the 600 is clearly better.

I'm off to Tanzania for 3 weeks starting the 18th, so I'll be Posting on the 1Dx site some Images & my view of the Lens, I'll also be taking the 400f/2.8 v2 & 600f/4 v2 & 70-200f/2.8 L IS II so I'll be able to do some reasonable real world comparisons, at least where wildlife/safari type Shooting is compared.

The Chap I'm going with is a Pro & shoots a Nikon D3x & D3s with the Nikon 200-400f/4, so that will be interesting to see how the two lenses work side by side.

In the meantime I'm sitting on my front Porch with the 200-400 waiting to see if I can shoot some Squirrels.


----------



## SambalOelek (Jun 18, 2013)

Apop said:


> I wonder if the 200-400 breathes and what T value it has.
> It would still be the dream lens for safari if one has an unlimited budget, otherwise the primes look a little more interesting due to the very high price of the 200-400



According to TDP, the lens has a 0.15x magnification without the built-in extender. Presumably this is at 400mm with a focus distance of 2.0m. However, looking at the 400mm f/2.8 II, it achieves a larger magnification (0.17x), even though the MFD is 0.7m further away! That's a tell-tale sign right there 

Investigating further, we see that the 300mm f/2.8 II has the exact same MFD, but a higher max magnification (0.18x). In other words, when the two lenses are focused at 2.0m, the 300 II will frame the subject more closely than the [email protected]

This implies that the 200-400's effective focal length is less than that of the 300 II at the MFD. According to my calculations, at the MFD, the 200-400 has a similar FOV as an ideal lens with a focal length of ~200mm. 

Looking at the numbers for the big primes, they also do have reduced focal length at MFD (but less severe), so the 200-400 may still be a dream lens for safaris


----------



## Eldar (Jun 26, 2013)

Interesting read, with many good reasons to stay with the 400 or go for the 200-400. Most of the talk has been on flexibility with the zoom and f2.8 vs. f4. An additional thing is AF speed and performance. To gain full advantage of the 1DX and 5DIII you need f2.8 or faster. The review at The-digital-picture.com did say that AF was slower, but apparently fairly accurate. This is on top of the consequences of loosing one stop, double your shutter speed or double your ISO. The DOF and second-to-none bokeh you get with the 400/2.8 is of course also an issue.

I have not tried the 200-400 myself yet, but I am sure I would find it very tempting. For wildlife and birding I use the 600/4 IS II. And I would not concider swapping that for the 200-400. But on a safari, where your distance to the animals will vary a lot, where you will be restricted to the car most of the time and the lighting conditions will be good. I am sure it will be a winner. But I already carry an extra body with the 70-200/2.8L IS II and I would probably continue to do that and accept the need for some extra cropping.

One concern I have with the 200-400 is handholding. It is about as big and heavy as the 400, which I handhold a lot. But how easy/difficult will it be to handhold this and effectivly use the zoom? 

So yes, very tempting lens, but tempting enough to get rid of my 400 f2.8L IS II?? Probably not. If I get it it will be an addition and give me another 6 months on water and bread ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 28, 2013)

If I have to pick one, I would take 400mm f2.8 IS II. You can always step down from f2.8, but not the other way around


----------



## davidgator (Jun 28, 2013)

I will try to post some photos this weekend. However, after just having the 200-400 on a safari for 2 weeks, I can't understate how incredible versatile this lens was. During one shooting "session" I was photographing lions and cubs at 400 with the extender. A couple of lions from the same pack took down a zebra about 150 yards behind our vehicle and, as a result, about 8 other lions stood up and started to work their way towards and then right past our vehicle to partake in the meal. Without switching camera bodies or lenses or even really moving much from my original position in the vehicle, I was able to photograph each lion as it got closer and closer. My other friends were fumbling to switch camera bodies back and forth (missing shots) or found themselves very limited in their composure options as the lions got closer to the vehicle. The minimal focal distance was also a big advantage when we came up on wildlife very close to the vehicle. 

I'm not saying the 200-400 is better or worse than any other lens. I am saying it definitely has its uses. For those particular uses, I don't think it can be beat.


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 28, 2013)

davidgator said:


> I will try to post some photos this weekend. However, after just having the 200-400 on a safari for 2 weeks, I can't understate how incredible versatile this lens was. During one shooting "session" I was photographing lions and cubs at 400 with the extender. A couple of lions from the same pack took down a zebra about 150 yards behind our vehicle and, as a result, about 8 other lions stood up and started to work their way towards and then right past our vehicle to partake in the meal. Without switching camera bodies or lenses or even really moving much from my original position in the vehicle, I was able to photograph each lion as it got closer and closer. My other friends were fumbling to switch camera bodies back and forth (missing shots) or found themselves very limited in their composure options as the lions got closer to the vehicle. The minimal focal distance was also a big advantage when we came up on wildlife very close to the vehicle.
> 
> I'm not saying the 200-400 is better or worse than any other lens. I am saying it definitely has its uses. For those particular uses, I don't think it can be beat.



+1

That is what impressed me about the lens, the very versatile focal length - 200mm to 560mm. From all accounts it has very good image quality at all settings. 8)

As I don't do sports serious, I don't necessarily need f/2.8 - but as I DO wildlife photography - including BIF, and also love the 'tele-compression effect in various landscape settings', I would find the 200-400mm f/4 1.4x very useful.

Paul


----------



## J.R. (Jun 28, 2013)

How would the 400 2.8 with a 2XII stack up with the 200-400 @ 400 with a 2XII? Just curious.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2013)

J.R. said:


> How would the 400 2.8 with a 2XII stack up with the 200-400 @ 400 with a 2XII? Just curious.



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=741&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0


----------



## J.R. (Jun 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > How would the 400 2.8 with a 2XII stack up with the 200-400 @ 400 with a 2XII? Just curious.
> ...



Thanks Neuro but I'm in a scotch induced semi-coma at the moment  ... how would you compare it in practical use? 

I don't have much experience of seeing images of test charts but the 200-400 @ 400mm + 2XII appears to be better ... the images off the 200-400 + 2XII appear (to me at least) to be sharper as opposed to the prime + 2XII at f/5.6 as well as f/8.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Question to Canon CPS?Why? Like you ask, you will get a answer.
> The ultimate zoom for hockey worldwide football indoor sports, handball etc have included the 200-400 from Nikon a long time and the lens has replaced a variety of lenses for the photographers. The quality are now so good from the cameras that a stop do not give much benefit and if Canon can show that their lens is a good as a couple of heavy fixed lenses then it is not much to discuss?
> Your own choice that you have a 300 or 400/2,8 ?
> For a newspaper or magazine there are no difference if the american football has been shooting with a 400/2,8 or 200-400/4 at F-4



At all the major int. sporting events I am at, I hardly ever see any zooms - Nikon or Canon. Most pros are using f/2.8 primes and operate a multi-camera system (two or more cameras each with different lenses). The only zooms you tend to see are the 70-200 f/2.8.

I can see the advantages of having a 200-400 1.4X and if they ever make a f/2.8 version, I will be one of the first to put my name down (although how much it would cost is a scary, scary thought  ). But at f/4 it is better suited for wildlife shooters etc rather than sport.

I still haven't tried it though but will be doing soon enough. Then I will know for sure.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 29, 2013)

J.R. said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



You did not ask me but as I have not opened my first beer of the day then I will take a shot at it. ;D

For me this comparison of the 400 f/2.8 ii + 2Xiii at 800 f/5.6 with the 200-400 1.4X plus 2Xiii at 800 f/8.0 gives you a slightly better image on the latter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=741&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

However when I compare the 400 f/2.8 ii + 2Xiii at 800 f/8.0 with the 200-400 1.4X plus 2Xiii at 800 f/8.0 then it is the prime that seems to be quite a bit sharper. The difference here seems to be greater than in the other test.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=741&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=4&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

Does that make any sense?

What scotch btw? Cheers. 8)


----------



## J.R. (Jun 29, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Haha ... Cheers brother!

Yes you are right. Now that I am seeing the images on a proper screen the mid-frame sharpness of the prime is apparent. However, I'm kinda surprised by the corner sharpness of the 200-400 + 2XII which appears better than the 400 + 2XII. 

Canon has delivered an almost perfect zoom lens here


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Canon has delivered an almost perfect zoom lens here



+1. They're not afraid to charge for it, either...


----------



## Apop (Jun 30, 2013)

@bdunbar79

Sorry, but why even bother with people who make such comments?
Even if someone does not know exactly what he is talking about, by implying you are and then making such a cynical comment should be a reason for people not to bite/comment on it.

I think he was just hoping for such a reaction.

OT, I think the 200-400 is a gem, but will probably only be bought by the real pros or people with enough budget to own 2-3 big tele's. Having it as your only big white because your ''budget limited'' would not work for me.

The 400/600 would make more sense from financial perspective.
Also 200-400 is 60-70% more expensive than the 300 2.8, while the latter has better/equal iq at 300-420 and 600 where the 200-400 goes to 560. Putting on converters all the time is not realistic.
With the money and weight you save you could get a 120-300 or 100-400 on a second body if flexibility is really needed. 

Flexibility is worth it that you lose 2.8 and little bit of IQ ( however slightly ), but the the increased price over the 300, and price equal to the 400/600 means it is a hard lens to justify(for me). *** Edit the 200-400 is equally priced to the 600 here, and 1100 euros more expensive than the 400 f2.8

The nikon 200-400 makes the choice a bit harder , it is 15-20% more expensive than the 300, yet the 400 2.8 is 40% more expensive than the 200-400. There i did decide to get the 200-400 for it's versatility and price!
If it was as expensive as the 400, I would have chosen the 300 or 400, not the 200-400.

If budget was less or no issue, I am sure the 300 2.8 , 200-400 and 600 would be with me.
Even then I would probably bring the 70-200, 300 2.8 and 600 on safari and leave the 200-400 home.
Switching between bodies is not that time consuming , situations where wildlife runes straight towards you is also rare , and as the cynical poster has suggested , the 200-400 with its bad servo tracking would probably miss such a shot  LoL

And a good guide + off roading ability will mean you are not in such a situation, because that is basically driving prey to predator and not very natural hehe
The times we did encounter chases/kills it was parallel to our position , or driving along(i.e) different directions while driving.( It is very hard to keep(or even get) a 400mm 3.6kg lens on target when driving 30-40km/h in the bush , for me it came down to luck to get a few shots in). If there were no seat belts it would have been impossible because if the driver hits an aardvark hole you and equipment will tend to go airborne !


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 30, 2013)

Before the comment from the digital picture gets too lost, whilst he did say he felt the tracking AF was slightly slower than the 2.8 primes he also pointed out that with the zoom he got a lot more keepers per event because of the flexibility it gave him in framing.

The worlds best sports pros were very happy to use the 200-400 at the Olympics, a four year event that can be a career builder or breaker, they wouldn't risk using them on a whim. The lens is a superb lens and anybody worrying about f2.8 vs f4 is worrying about the wrong thing.


----------



## eml58 (Jun 30, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Before the comment from the digital picture gets too lost, whilst he did say he felt the tracking AF was slightly slower than the 2.8 primes he also pointed out that with the zoom he got a lot more keepers per event because of the flexibility it gave him in framing.
> 
> The worlds best sports pros were very happy to use the 200-400 at the Olympics, a four year event that can be a career builder or breaker, they wouldn't risk using them on a whim. The lens is a superb lens and anybody worrying about f2.8 vs f4 is worrying about the wrong thing.



And this I have to agree with, half way through 4 weeks in Tanzania & South Africa (overnighting JoBurg), the 200-400 is just living up to every expectation I had, every one, this is simply a Superb Lens for Wildlife, nothing better, sports etc I cant comment as I don't shoot it, maybe in Sport the Primes will work better, I don't know, but I have the 300f/2.8/400f/2.8 both with me now, and I've pretty well left them at Camp after a week of shooting.

Early morning & night time shooting with a spotlight, the f/2.8 has a role, but as soon as you have light to shoot at f/4 to f/5.6, the 200-400 just doesn't have any competition, the ability to Track a subject at 560mm f/5.6 coming towards you then flick out the converter as it approaches and smoothly maintain the subject in focus then zoom back from 400 to 200, just changes the Game for me, previously I'de be juggling the 400 then the 300 then the 70-200, so 3 Bodies set to go, now I pretty well get away with 2 1Dx Bodies hooked up to the 70-200 and the 200-400.

I haven't compared the long end of the 200-400 @ 560 yet with the 600f/4 as I was already carrying too much gear, but Svalbard in August for Polar Bears will give me a chance to see how theses two compare.

I tried the 1.4 converter added to the 200-400 with 1.4 engaged, Image Quality is acceptable, not good, but usable, with the 2x converter installed with the 1.4 engaged, forget it, you can do it, but not sure why you would, Image Quality is Crap.

Focus tracking on two Cheetah Kills in the Serengeti was superb, the only time I lost Focus was if the Cheetah went completely behind a Bush, the Focus would begin to hunt, re acquiring was never an issue.

Weight, well I may now have the strongest right wrist I've ever had, this combo, 1Dx + 200-400 is no light weight, it's heavy, but perhaps half my shots to date have been hand held, i hand hold the combo much more than I ever did with the 1Dx + 400f/2.8 V2 Combo.

Attached shot 1Dx 200-400f/4, shot @ 236mm, f/7.1 & 1/1000th, ISO640


----------



## eml58 (Jun 30, 2013)

1st Cheetah Kill, Serengeti near the Grameti River, don't think this Lady was doing much more than 70-80Kph, so still had a gear in reserve, This mother Killed every single Day as she had 3 Cubs around 18 Months Old she was teaching & feeding as well as her self, Mothers, where would we all be without them.

1Dx 200-400, shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/1600th ISO800


----------



## eml58 (Jun 30, 2013)

Being an Aussie who grew up on a Farm I always thought Sheep were the Dumbest thing on the Planet, now I know it's actually wildebeest, these Guys would stand 1 meter from a roaring fire on the Serengeti Plains, and keep munching grass until they started to smoke.

Large Grass Fires presented a unique opportunity to see how the wildlife were reacting in front of the burn, amazing stuff.

1Dx 200-400f/4, shot @ 232mm f/4 1/125th Iso1600


----------



## J.R. (Jun 30, 2013)

eml58 said:


> 1st Cheetah Kill, Serengeti near the Grameti River, don't think this Lady was doing much more than 70-80Kph, so still had a gear in reserve, This mother Killed every single Day as she had 3 Cubs around 18 Months Old she was teaching & feeding as well as her self, Mothers, where would we all be without them.
> 
> 1Dx 200-400, shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/1600th ISO800



Superb shots eml58 and I mean all of them.  

Did you try out the 200-400 with the 2XII?


----------



## Darlip (Jun 30, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Being an Aussie who grew up on a Farm I always thought Sheep were the Dumbest thing on the Planet, now I know it's actually wildebeest, these Guys would stand 1 meter from a roaring fire on the Serengeti Plains, and keep munching grass until they started to smoke.
> 
> Large Grass Fires presented a unique opportunity to see how the wildlife were reacting in front of the burn, amazing stuff.
> 
> 1Dx 200-400f/4, shot @ 232mm f/4 1/125th Iso1600



Some really nice shots Eml, enjoy your new toy and your trip.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 30, 2013)

eml58 said:


> 1st Cheetah Kill, Serengeti near the Grameti River, don't think this Lady was doing much more than 70-80Kph, so still had a gear in reserve, This mother Killed every single Day as she had 3 Cubs around 18 Months Old she was teaching & feeding as well as her self, Mothers, where would we all be without them.
> 
> 1Dx 200-400, shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/1600th ISO800



eml58....I LOVEEEEEEEEEE this photo. Look forward to see more of your photos in the future


----------



## eml58 (Jun 30, 2013)

J.R. said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > 1st Cheetah Kill, Serengeti near the Grameti River, don't think this Lady was doing much more than 70-80Kph, so still had a gear in reserve, This mother Killed every single Day as she had 3 Cubs around 18 Months Old she was teaching & feeding as well as her self, Mothers, where would we all be without them.
> ...



Hi JR, I did Yes, not too impressed, you loose auto focus as soon as you fit the 2x converter, with just the 2x converter on 400, Ok, not bad but not great, about what I get on the 300/400/600 with a 2x converter, but if you enable the built in 1.4x plus the 2x it's not a pretty picture, usable yes, but not great. The built in 1.4x dropped in is about as much as I would like to use on this Lens, it's clearly built to provide best Images this way, and it really does work a treat.

After using this set up it makes me wonder why Canon don't build this 1.4x converter this way as an attachment to the other Long Whites, if they charged 3 times the price of the current converter I'de buy it just to use with the 300/400 & 600, in place all the time & just slot it into place as you require it.


----------



## eml58 (Jun 30, 2013)

Darlip said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Being an Aussie who grew up on a Farm I always thought Sheep were the Dumbest thing on the Planet, now I know it's actually wildebeest, these Guys would stand 1 meter from a roaring fire on the Serengeti Plains, and keep munching grass until they started to smoke.
> ...



Doing both Thanks Darlip


----------



## eml58 (Jun 30, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > 1st Cheetah Kill, Serengeti near the Grameti River, don't think this Lady was doing much more than 70-80Kph, so still had a gear in reserve, This mother Killed every single Day as she had 3 Cubs around 18 Months Old she was teaching & feeding as well as her self, Mothers, where would we all be without them.
> ...



Thanks Dylan777, I'll post more on the 1Dx side when I get home in around 2 weeks, currently waiting to Fly out to Sand River area South Africa, back to the Leopard Country, cant keep away.


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 30, 2013)

eml58 said:


> 1st Cheetah Kill, Serengeti near the Grameti River, don't think this Lady was doing much more than 70-80Kph, so still had a gear in reserve, This mother Killed every single Day as she had 3 Cubs around 18 Months Old she was teaching & feeding as well as her self, Mothers, where would we all be without them.
> 
> 1Dx 200-400, shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/1600th ISO800



I too like this one. How much of the image is cropped, if any?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 30, 2013)

Another issue is that the photogs for SI and people like Peter Read Miller can shoot at f/4. They are allowed to bring in portable lighting, and strobes, and really whatever they want with as many people as they want placing the lighting and strobes. And I'm not making this up, I know how this works from speaking with photogs from SI the The SN. I won't speak for everyone, but I can't. I'm not allowed to do so. So I can't shoot at f/4 indoors or night outdoors. Why do some want to tell everyone else what is best for them and what should work for them? If I shot for SI or Sporting News, or whatever, I'd have the zoom lens already in my possession. But I don't get those luxuries so I use my f/2.8 primes and even f/2 primes. So again, it really hasn't anything to do with AF speed, but rather aperture, FOR ME. The 1Dx takes care of any AF speed issues.


----------



## eml58 (Jul 1, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > 1st Cheetah Kill, Serengeti near the Grameti River, don't think this Lady was doing much more than 70-80Kph, so still had a gear in reserve, This mother Killed every single Day as she had 3 Cubs around 18 Months Old she was teaching & feeding as well as her self, Mothers, where would we all be without them.
> ...



Hi CarlTN, Cropped top & bottom only to give the Image more length, overall perhaps 10% of the Image has been cropped, most of my shots of this Kill included only the Cheetah, at 12 fps the sequence still only included the victim in 3 frames, that's how fast the Cheetah was moving, the Thomson's Gazelle was ******* the moment the Mother Cheetah decided he was on the Menu. Once she Killed she stepped back and kept a look out for Lions & Hyenas while her 3 Cubs fed, only when they were filled did she then feed herself, remarkable Animal Behaviour.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jul 1, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Being an Aussie who grew up on a Farm I always thought Sheep were the Dumbest thing on the Planet, now I know it's actually wildebeest, these Guys would stand 1 meter from a roaring fire on the Serengeti Plains, and keep munching grass until they started to smoke.
> 
> Large Grass Fires presented a unique opportunity to see how the wildlife were reacting in front of the burn, amazing stuff.
> 
> 1Dx 200-400f/4, shot @ 232mm f/4 1/125th Iso1600


I always thought the moose were the dumbest animals, but this has me doubt that ;D

As always fantastic pictures from you. All of them!


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 23, 2013)

eml58 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...



Thank you, and that's a nice story. I've seen cheetahs on the various animal channels. On Nat Geo Wild, they aired a show done by two brothers (can't think of them right now), shot a few years ago. They were on the Serengeti. The mother cheetah climbed on top of their truck to watch her cubs play.


----------

