AccipiterQ wrote:
I've seen a lot of questions about the 200-400 f/4 vs. 500 f/4 vs. 600 f/4 when it come sot bird-watching; I have the 400 5.6 currently and will be upgrading, so I had the same questions. First on my rental list was the 200-400, and if I'm being completely honest, after using it for 3 days, I don't get the hype. So here are my thoughts, in bullet-point form (for those wondering, I'm using the 7Dii for my body).
- First point: The weight. The first thing you notice with the lens is the weight. That's been covered quite a bit in other reviews, but it's worth repeating. When you think about primary purposes for this lens, obviously one of them is bird-watching, particularly small birds. Therein lies a problem: often times migratory warblers/vireos/song-birds are extremely active, and using a tripod is not always an option. One of my other hobbies is power-lifting, and even I was getting tired lugging this thing around after a couple hours. I was able to hand-hold quite a bit, especially at 400, but I can't imagine taking a 6 or 7 hour trip and not needing to use a tripod for the majority of it. So if you're dealing with uncooperative song-birds, particularly ones that are foraging and not 'posing' while singing, you run into issues.
- Second Point: Auto focus speed. For reference, the United States used to be covered with glaciers. Eventually they melted and receded, inch by inch, year by year, spanning the millennia. This is roughly equivalent to the time it takes this lens to focus on a small subject. I don't know if I got a bad copy of the lens or what, but the auto-focus was terrible on this thing. Not bad enough that I would say something was broken, but maybe 40% of the time it had to spend over a second searching for a target that was center-frame. I lost several shots because of this. I was extremely frustrated with this aspect. Adjusting the 'distance selector' on the side of the lens didn't make a difference. Comparing the 400 5.6, I honestly feel like the 5.6 has this thing beat hands down. I know that sounds crazy, but the 5.6 is lightening fast for me.
- Third Point: Auto-focus accuracy. Using center-point only, or center cross even, the 200-400 would often focus on sticks, leaves, or other objects that were on the periphery of my shot. It also flat-out missed several shots that I initially thought were in-focus. Again, using the distance selector did not make a difference. I tried some experiments where I would focus on a bird exposed on a branch with nothing but blue sky behind it, and the lens would focus on the bird, then jump completely out of focus, then back to the bird, then out of focus...really weird. I've been photographing birds for 10 years, and I can't remember a lens that cost even close to this one performing so poorly with regards to AF. Again, this wasn't constant, so it doesn't seem as if something was broken in the lens, just that it's a bit 'clumsy'. Comparatively, when using the 400 5.6, I can snipe birds in dens brush probably 90% of the time. Maybe I just have a very good copy of the 5.6, but on this point as well, it's not even close.
- Fourth Point: Image quality. This is obviously the big one for most people. I break up my comments on image quality into the 'basic' type, and then 'with extender'. My logic is that if you're using the extender, you're most likely 'reaching' for a subject, and in my case that was definitely true; about 70% of the time I had the extender on was to reach for a distant bird.
- Without the extender this lens does take nice shots across the full 200-400 range.
The minimum focus distance is better at 400 than the 400 5.6, so that was nice for some full-framed shots. Image stabilization when used in appropriate situations was fine, nothing out of the ordinary. Obviously there's a learning-curve with every lens, but even if my shots with this lens could get maybe 20-25% better as I found the 'sweet spot' for it, I just don't see that big of a margin over the 400 5.6. The problem is the 200-400 missed so many shots that I didn't have a lot of 'good' data to compare...and what shots I did have weren't that much better than the 400 5.6, and frequently lagged behind it. Sharpness was very good, but not great, overall image quality was very good, but again nothing that blew me away. If I had this lens for a few months I'm sure I'd get better, but I can't imagine getting shots that were 60-70% better than what I was getting, which is what I would need to justify the price tag. So while quality of image wasn't terrible, I only got a few shots that made me say "wow" when reviewing later on. The Chestnut-Sided Warbler above is probably the best of the bunch. Most good shots were at about 370-380; jumping up to 400mm resulted in a surprisingly heavy degradation in quality.
- Fifth point: Image quality (with extender). As noted, this was mainly for 'reaching' distant song-birds, but I did try to get some shots that were closer up, and tried getting some stationary objects as well, so that I could examine quality. There's obviously going to be some drop off in quality with an extender, but I was not expecting it to be so extreme. It was nice to be able to pull in some shots that I wouldn't have gotten with the 400 5.6, but the quality was so low that I could only use them for "ID" shots (trying to identify something later on that I was unable to ID in the field). Even closer objects that were stationary came out very soft. The quality basically fell of a cliff with the extender on. If you've used the cheap 50-250 that canon makes, the quality was about the same. I had one "5-star" shot with the extender on over the several days I used the lens. If you want to use the extender to pull in distant subjects for later identification, this will absolutely get the job done. If you want it to pull in quality shots...you're going to have a bad time.
I don't know if I got a mediocre copy of this lens, or what. But even if I got one that focused 50% faster, was 50% more accurate, and produced 50% better quality images (or if I just got more experience with it and bled some extra quality out of it), I just could not justify the price tag. I'll be renting it again in a few months after trying the 500 and 600, just to see if I get better results. Maybe my expectations were too high, but after about 2000 shots, I just can not understand the price-tag here. With the built in extender, and focal range, when paired with the quality, I could understand maybe 5,000....but the fact that this is almost triple that price just baffles me, at least for bird-watching. Maybe if you're going on a safari and need to get shots of big-game animals from great distances, and can go off a tripod, across open terrain, then this lens would probably be great. You could take time to use mirror lock-up, shoot from a steady base, not have to lug the thing around if it's stored in the back of a jeep you're riding around in, etc. But for bird-watching...I just don't see justification for the price tag; I've
As expro mentioned, big whites focus faster with a 1 series body... a 1DX/ll. However, you then lose the reach you're after. You could have used a monopod instead of a tripod to move around easier.
As for birding and hand holding, the 400 DO ll has the light weight advantage over the 200-400 with the same F4/5.6 with a 1.4 @ 560mm and 896 with your 7D2. It is VERY FAST to focus. It's faster than the 400f5.6... and with IS.
Re: AF accuracy, sounds like you were set to case 1.
The 500 and 600mm are better for birding than the 200-400 and the 500 F4 ll comes in around 7lbs if you want to carry it on a strap and hand hold. It's lighter than the 600, but the 600 has the better reach advantage... obviously.
The AF speed on the 500 F4 ll works well on my crops, but not as fast as with my 1DX. And the IQ is amazing, especially on the 1DX.
Renting and testing is a good plan... have fun.
