# 200-400 f/4 L IS vs 100-400 vII (hypothetical)



## FunPhotons (Mar 4, 2013)

I max out at 200mm with the 70-200 f/2.8 II and have been holding out for a 100-400 II which will come eventually, probably in the not too distant future would be my guess. I can wait however so no major problem either way. 

Now we know Canon is coming out with the 200-400, and while it will be horrifically expensive I could swing it. I'm looking to use a longer lens for wildlife photography. 

So I've not used any of the L telephotos, any thoughts on these choices versus any of their other tele's from folks more experience than me? Consider issues such as weight, usability (short and long focal lengths), etc. Thanks for your thoughts!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 4, 2013)

For the price, I'd strongly consider the 500/4 II or 600/4 II (depending on what you shoot), instead of the 200-400/4+1.4x. Just my 2¢.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 5, 2013)

The 100-400mm L has been coming for the last 7 or 8 years. The new Nikon 80-400 may turn out to be excellent, or just another disappointment with better IS. In that case, we won't see a 100-400mm MK II.
Do not expect a $3000 lens to be equal to a $11,000 lens. However, a lens that can be hand carried rather than require a truck load of accessories will likely get a lot more use.
I sold my 600mm L and the Wimberly Head and heavy tripod in favor of the 100mmL for that very reason.


----------



## FunPhotons (Mar 5, 2013)

Good thoughts. Thanks for the reminder NA - yeah I like the flexibility of the new zoom but for that coin getting a prime might make sense too. 

And Mt Spokane - yes I should carefully consider whether I'll want to carry that thing around!


----------



## DavidGMiles (Mar 6, 2013)

I handled the 200 - 400 L this weekend at Focus on Imaging - it is no way comparable to the 100 - 400, it's got the built-in TC which is smoot, it's way better for IQ, is faster focussing and much heavier, to the extent that you would not handhold it for more than a minute or three - it's a beast of a lens but is massively clever - thanks to handling it the lens is no longer on my "buy" list, but has moved to the top of my "hire" list when it comes out!


----------



## FunPhotons (Mar 6, 2013)

DavidGMiles said:


> I handled the 200 - 400 L this weekend at Focus on Imaging - it is no way comparable to the 100 - 400, it's got the built-in TC which is smoot, it's way better for IQ, is faster focussing and much heavier, to the extent that you would not handhold it for more than a minute or three - it's a beast of a lens but is massively clever - thanks to handling it the lens is no longer on my "buy" list, but has moved to the top of my "hire" list when it comes out!



What do you mean by clever, the built in TC? Also what do you mean by "hire"?


----------



## bwfishing (Mar 6, 2013)

I think he is referring to the clever way they tucked a TC (teleconverter) into the lens.

"CP+ 2011: Canon has announced it is developing the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x lens, which features a built-in switchable 1.4x teleconverter. With the converter engaged, it becomes a 280-560mm F5.6 lens." 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/2/7/canon200400mm

I think hire is short for :"For hire" or "rent".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 6, 2013)

Elevator :: lift
Apartment :: flat
Rent :: hire

Queen's English and all that...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 6, 2013)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Elevator :: lift
> ...


Oh. Except...that's how the many colleagues I have who've relocated here from the UK refer to it. Then there's Wikipedia, "_An *apartment* (in American English) or *flat* in British English is a self-contained housing unit (a type of residential real estate) that occupies only part of a building,_" and Merriam-Webster includes in their definition of *flat*, "_5. chiefly British : an *apartment* on one floor,_" and the the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language lists '*apartment*' as the American English equivalent to the British English '*flat*'. 

Now, if you want to state that a flat is not the same as a lens which is not the same as a camera, then I'll believe you...


----------



## DavidGMiles (Mar 6, 2013)

bwfishing said:


> I think he is referring to the clever way they tucked a TC (teleconverter) into the lens.



Exactly - and it's a very smooth operation - you could operate it without taking your eye away from the viewfinder



neuroanatomist said:


> Elevator :: lift
> Apartment :: flat
> Rent :: hire
> 
> Queen's English and all that...



100% correct!

It's a lovely lens, but aside from price the other criteria are wrong for me, it's just too large for my regular kit


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 6, 2013)

$11,000 vs $3000 - That is the question.


----------



## DavidGMiles (Mar 7, 2013)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Elevator :: lift
> ...


PS - on this point - neuroanatomist is correct, in the UK, flat is apartment, a 'block of flats' in our 'speak' is the same as an 'apartment block' in yours


----------



## RGF (Mar 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Elevator :: lift
> Apartment :: flat
> Rent :: hire
> 
> Queen's English and all that...



OT - but: amazing how a small bit of water (i.e., the pond) can change a common language so we no longer can understand each other


----------



## RGF (Mar 7, 2013)

FunPhotons said:


> I max out at 200mm with the 70-200 f/2.8 II and have been holding out for a 100-400 II which will come eventually, probably in the not too distant future would be my guess. I can wait however so no major problem either way.
> 
> Now we know Canon is coming out with the 200-400, and while it will be horrifically expensive I could swing it. I'm looking to use a longer lens for wildlife photography.
> 
> So I've not used any of the L telephotos, any thoughts on these choices versus any of their other tele's from folks more experience than me? Consider issues such as weight, usability (short and long focal lengths), etc. Thanks for your thoughts!



The 200-400 is fairly certain. The fate of the 100-400 is unknown. 

If weight is of course stay away from the long glass - 400F2.8, 500F4, 600F4, 200-400F4, and maybe even the 300F2.8

All are very sharp and expensive.

Compromises might be the 300F2.8 (repeating myself) or the 400DO which sharpens up well.
For lighter class the 100-400 (current version) has mixed reviews and variation lens to lens. Or consider the 70-300L, great lens, light weight but a bit shorter, and finally consider the 400F5.6. Light weight but no IS.

Wait (for Godot) for replacement for the 100-400 (if it comes) or an update to the 400 F5.6. All seem reasonable that Canon would replace so consider them definite maybes.

Bottom line is do you want long fast glass. Then you will lighten your wallet and weigh down your camera bag. If you can accept slower glass (perhaps not as sharp, but never-the-less good), look for a good copy of the 100-400, 70-300L (not quite as long) or the 400 F5.6


----------



## jasonsim (Mar 7, 2013)

I would forget about the 200-400mm L. It has been announced for over 2 years (I think) and has yet to come out. I wonder why it is taking so long to come out with that lens...makes you wonder. 

I would get the 300mm f/2.8L IS II. Armed with the 1.4x and 2x III converters you have a very capable 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6 lens. It is cut your eyes sharp using either extender wide open. Fast AF too.

Plus it is probably lighter and cheaper than the 200-400mm will be.

Cheers,
Jason


----------



## 278204 (Mar 7, 2013)

Rather than wait I got myself a 2nd-hand 100-400 for Xmas and went a'shooting in Kenya. The idea is to wait for future announcements, reviews & maybe price drops, and then sell the 100-400 to offset whatever comes next. A couple hundred euros or so for a years rental seems worth it. Really happy with the results, though my only other experience with L lenses is my trusty 24-105. Before that I was a Rebel user. Would have been cool to have a 1.4x TC but had already spent too much. Pull zoom didn't completely lock, this looks like a common issue as most 2nd-hand lenses on the site mentioned this defect. Not too big an issue in most cases, this isn't exactly a walkaround lens.

Hand held leaning on the van roof (roof comes up) didn't even use the beanbag I brought along. Glad I read ahead and learned the tripod would have been pretty useless. Main difficulty was handling my kids at the same time ;-)


----------



## DavidGMiles (Mar 8, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> I would get the 300mm f/2.8L IS II. Armed with the 1.4x and 2x III converters you have a very capable 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6 lens. It is cut your eyes sharp using either extender wide open. Fast AF too.


This I 100% agree with this - it's likely what I will be doing - the 300mm f/2.8L IS II lens is just amazing - the attached image was shot in Kenya last September, fading light getting worse, leopard probably about 40' away, Teleconvertor on, shot from the top of a vehicle - all the factors say that this should not have been usable but it is

PS I hired this lens as I was still mulling over the 200 - 400


----------



## docsmith (Mar 8, 2013)

sposh said:


> Rather than wait I got myself a 2nd-hand 100-400 for Xmas and went a'shooting in Kenya. The idea is to wait for future announcements, reviews & maybe price drops, and then sell the 100-400 to offset whatever comes next.



+1. I own the 100-400L. It isn't perfect, but takes great pictures and is one of my two most used lenses. Great for birds and other wildlife. 

So, my recommendation would be to buy what is for sale now and sell it if something better comes out. It is the difference of having a picture versus not. Based on what you said, that would leave you with either the current 100-400L or or one of the current big white lenses.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Elevator :: lift
> Apartment :: flat
> Rent :: hire
> 
> Queen's English and all that...


and never try to hand-hold a lens that won't fit in your boot 

and Neuro is right.... an apartment is a flat


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> and never try to hand-hold a lens that won't fit in your boot
> 
> and Neuro is right.... an apartment is a flat



Wait, wait...*boot*...is that the things on my feet today, to make it easier to walk through the 11" (or is that 28 cm?) of snow that's fallen so far here in Boston...or is that the large compartment in my car where I carry groceries, etc.? Because a 70-200/2.8 won't easily fit in the former, but an 800/5.6 will easily fit in the latter.


----------



## FunPhotons (Mar 8, 2013)

Great advice. Here's the thing, I can wait. Actually I prefer to wait, I am busy with my normal and wide angle and am holding off wildlife as a closer to 'retirement' (8 years away) activity to explore. So I'd rather get the ultimate later rather than a compromise now. Sometime in the next 4 years is fine.


Th 300 is an interesting idea. TCs are a bit of a pain though.

What then do you think is the ultimate? I suspect the 200-400 is.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > and never try to hand-hold a lens that won't fit in your boot
> ...



How about either? BTW, I have a pair of size 13 boots that I use in the far North that you could slip you 600 f4 into.


----------

