Hey Roger nice shots. can I ask which adapter do you use with the 400 and how do you find that it works on your Sony camera?
Thanks Alex
Canon 200 F2.8 and 400 F5.6...wonderful lenses!!!...and got together at 1/3 the price of the GM tele zoom
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Your telephoto choice, and why? (SEL70200GM)
- Thread starter baltimorecaesar
- Start date
PWPhotography
Forum Pro
Nice set of photos from both of you. Both Canon and Nikon 200mm F2.0 IS/VR prime are fantastic. However Nikon has newer generation (slightly sharper and has better image stabilization) while Canon still needs to update its 200L/2.0 IS and 800L/5.6 IS, the last two super tele-lenses Canon has not updated.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
Last edited:
Thanks.
Central Coastal California. All made from the window of my studio.
Jim
You are right about the Nikon VR II. It's gotten great reviews. However, I can't justify getting rid of the VR I and trading up given the amount of usage that lens gets. The 400/2.8D and the 500/4E both are getting more use now.
I used the 200/2 a lot more when I was using APS-C bodies.
Jim
--
http://blog.kasson.com
Last edited:
PWPhotography
Forum Pro
Yeap as implemented in 70-200G/4.0 VR which claimed 5-stop 'VR'. I also still keep old 500L/4.0 IS with 2-stop 'IS' that I used rarely. But I am looking for replacing it with EF 200-400L/4.0 IS /w 1.4x TC for zoom versatility. I should be able to spend more time in my bobby after both kids go to college as right now too busy in lots of other things such as moving from one town to another town soon right now. Nevertheless even last old generation of super-tele lenses are still fantastic per optical quality from both Nikon and Canon. They are the crowns of respective companies for professionals.
So the effective reach is the same as 300/2.8 on FF, both Nikon and Canon have updated their already very good last generation with VR/IS.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
Last edited:
I envy Canon shooters that lens (and the 17mm T/S). I have the (last gen, not the current one) Nikon 200-400/4, and I don't like it much.
Jim
Phamtastic
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 421
- Reaction score
- 213
The current Canon and Nikon 200/2.0 lenses were released within about 2 years of each other. Also, the Canon is kind of a pseudo mark 2 since it was a replacement for the 200/1.8. The only tech that the Nikon has which would make it seem more updated is the nano coating (which is not for optical performance so much as the ability to keep the front element clean/resistant).
With regard to sharpness, it has been debated which is sharper and has been said they are about the same in the center with the Canon being sharper in the corners. Most of this is trivial though since both are stunning but are used on completely different systems. The other futile part of this comparison previously was that we weren't able to test both lenses on the same body. It would be very interesting if someone had access to both at the same time to do this now.
With regard to stabilization, both claim 4 stops. I haven't had anyone I know that has used both, including myself, notice a difference in actual usage. I can shoot mine at down to 1/20th pretty easily/consistently. I'd say any differences that can be measured will more than likely be negligible at best. If anything, I found it easier to handhold the Canon since it is about a pound lighter and felt more balanced than the Nikon (which is a big deal for these super tele type lenses).
If Canon were to update this lens, I couldn't imagine them doing anything other than perhaps adding a nano coating to the front element and perhaps the blue spectrum refractive element they used in their new 35mm. I'd say objectively speaking, it would be a stretch to claim that the Nikon is a better lens even in both of their respective current iterations.
Phamtastic
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 421
- Reaction score
- 213
There was a little judicious photographically-oriented tree trimming involved...
Central Valley? Sierra Foothills?
Jim
PWPhotography
Forum Pro
I have not closely followed news in last two years. But I read a few years ago that Canon was developing mark II versions of 200L/2.0 IS and 800L/5.6 IS, both released in 2008, after Canon updated other super-tele lenses, 300L II, 400L II, 500L II and the new 200-400L /w 1.4x TC. Nikon has updated all those super-tele prime lenses but its 200-400G VR is a bit old, Canon stole the thunder with newer design, sharper and very smartly with 1.4x TC.
http://www.canonrumors.com/ef-800mm-f5-6l-is-ii-cr2/
My perception is that old generation of Canon super-tele lenses only have 2-stop 'IS' as in my 500L/4.0 IS.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
Last edited:
M
Mathieu18
Guest
I've always had a fondness for this lens, personally liked the 1 ring better. Didn't much care to use it as a MF lens though.
Purple fringing looks about right, it's always been worse that I remember it being. Still a nice lens with good contrast in the right light.
Purple fringing looks about right, it's always been worse that I remember it being. Still a nice lens with good contrast in the right light.
PWPhotography
Forum Pro
Well, technically you could get 17 TS-E and 24 TS-E II to mount on you A7r II that both work great. 17 TS-E is a great lens that I still 'have to' carry in trips despite its size and weight that is even slightly heavier than EF 24-70L II. It's just indispensable for me to take city building photos as I hate converging vertical and I could stand in front of others in crowded space.
Yes Canon 200-400L /w 1.4x TC is a great zoom. Sure super-tele prime at respective FL are still sharper but 200-400L is sharp enough. Still very expensive however with the world most-expensive 1.4x TC attached (compared to Nikon version) ;-)
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
Last edited:
Phamtastic
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 421
- Reaction score
- 213
Central Valley. Nowhere near as scenic. About the best I have locally is what I posted in the bw in my 200mm sample shots. Even then, it has to be a somewhat stellar day to see that clearly at that distance out here. lol.
Phamtastic
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 421
- Reaction score
- 213
Rokinon 135/2 in FE mount. I was seriously eyeing the Zeiss A-mount 135/1.8 but with the adapter I couldn't justify the expense for only personal shots. I "gave the wheel a spin" and ordered the manual lens and darned if I don't like it. This is my first third party lens and am seriously looking at the Voitlander uwa's now..............gas.......
PWPhotography
Forum Pro
Many FD lenses are still very good with bargain prices if you don't mind manual focus.
Rey66
Senior Member
SirSeth
Veteran Member
Thanks Mordi. Amazing little animals and the lighting was just right which helps so much.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum