200-400 f/4.0 1.4x - My hands on review and samples.

Hi all,

I was in New York last week and visited B&H. To my surprise they had a Canon 200-400 f/4 on the shelf as a sample. The salesman allowed me to attach my 1D X and I quickly shot some samples - the lens had apparently only arrived that day. I did not spend that much time, as the store was busy.

I was VERY impressed with the lens, and I have now decided that I will purchase one when they are more readily available - if B&H had stock I would have bought one then and there.

I found the lens to be surprisingly light.

Now I realise that it actually weighs 3.6 kg. But a lot of "hands on" that I have read mostly mentioned how heavy the lens seemed, more so than it's size indicated. I am used to using a 600mm f/4 USM (version 1) and will either have it on a monopod with Wimberley head or resting on my knee - usually in the back seat of a landrover. So when I picked the 200-400 up it stuck me as being much lighter than I was expecting.

The lens is very easy to hand hold. The position of the zoom lens makes it slightly tricky to operate as it is towards the objective lens end. However from a weight point of view it was very easy to manage.

I fired off a few shots both with and without the 1.4x extender in position. The lever to operate the extender is easy to use and feels very solid and positive in use. There is a locking switch, but I don't think would be used much (at least by myself) as the lever seems unlikely to be accidentally moved.

If hand holding I would operate the 1.4x lever with my camera hand (right hand) with my left hand supporting the lens. However if the lens was mounted on a tripod/monopod then I would likely use my left hand to operate the 1.4x lever - this would allow me to continue to operate the camera with my right hand. Likewise operation of the zoom would also be much easier like this.

I also fitted by own 1.4x (Mark I) extender and the lens continued to function and autofocus both with and without the built in extender.

Autofocus was very very fast and very smooth. It felt to me as fast as a 300mm f/2.8 USM (mark I) - I have only used this lens once, and I don't own one. It easily felt as fast if not actually faster than my 600mm f/4 USM.

Build quality was superb and everything about the lens screamed solidity, quality and precision.

I LOVE this lens and I now intend to sell my 100-400 L and 600mm f/4 L as soon as practical as purchase a 200-400.

I had the ISO in my 1D set to 2000 and in retrospect this was too low - it was not that bright in the store. As a result not all images are that sharp. However despite sometimes getting a shutter speed as low as 1/40th sec I am surprised that they are not more blurry. The IS system seems to be very very good. So don't blame the lens, blame my poor technique!

Please note that I do not know the people in the photo's, nor did I seek their permission. So please do not publish these photo's anywhere else.

I had been planning to post these earlier, but thought that some of the new owners would be posting their own (and better) images, but has nothing has appeared so far. . .

So here you go

http://www.flickr.com/photos/conanbutcher/sets/72157634099707005/

Exif data is all there and the last two shots are with the 1.4x extender engaged and also with my own 1.4x (Mark I) extender fitted - gives 784mm at f/8.0. The name of each image describes the settings and focal length used.

Regards,

Conan.

Conan Butcher wrote:

..snip..

I LOVE this lens and I now intend to sell my 100-400 L and 600mm f/4 L as soon as practical as purchase a 200-400.

Do you feel that using both the built-in TC coupled with an external 1.4 TC, provides much more versatility without compromise to image quality over the lens you plan to sell? I'm having a hard time accepting that the optics would be as good as the 600/4. Perhaps your 600/4 is not the latest generation?

riknash wrote:

Conan Butcher wrote:

..snip..

I LOVE this lens and I now intend to sell my 100-400 L and 600mm f/4 L as soon as practical as purchase a 200-400.

Do you feel that using both the built-in TC coupled with an external 1.4 TC, provides much more versatility without compromise to image quality over the lens you plan to sell? I'm having a hard time accepting that the optics would be as good as the 600/4. Perhaps your 600/4 is not the latest generation?

Hi,

I have not been able to compare these side by side. My 600mm is the Mark I USM with IS - it's not the latest Mark II. Also my 1.4x is only a Mark I.

Without having the ability to do a side by side comparison it's very hard to say. However with an external 1.4x you get 280mm to 784mm f/8.0 which is a huge range in a fairly light package.

I mostly use the 600mm on safari and I love it, however grabbing another body or changing lenses is less than ideal in a dusty and often bumpy situation. Also I plan to try gorilla trekking next year, and the 600mm is really too large and heavy for this - and taking a tripod not practical - as there is likely to be a lot of hiking involved.

The 200-400 is rather expensive so to justify the cost I would really need to sell my 100-400 and 600.

I do think that the versatility and weight of the 200-400 will make it much of a "go anywhere" package.

Whether it can match a 600 f/4 for quality remains to be seen - I hope someone does a comparison.

Conan.

Interesting perspective as you are coming from a much larger lens.  I was able to try out this lens at a show in Toronto.  While I loved the flexibility of the lens it would be too heavy to handhold for me except for very short periods.  I also tried out the new Nikon 80-400 zoom at the same time and while I expected it to be light (40% of the weight of the 200-400 1.4x) the difference seemed much larger when trying to handhold them.  I guess there is a limit to hand holding and once you pass that limit the weight seems onerous.

Unfortunately, it seem like the next jump up in IQ from the long 400mm zooms requires more than 3kg and can no longer be hand held.  Hopefully someone does a longer prime in the 2kg range.  Maybe the Sony 400mm F4 (coming this fall) without the added weight of OIS can be that lens.  I haven't heard of any rumors yet from Canon or Nikon for a lens in this range.

Johanfoto wrote:

SHood wrote:

Interesting perspective as you are coming from a much larger lens. I was able to try out this lens at a show in Toronto. While I loved the flexibility of the lens it would be too heavy to handhold for me except for very short periods. I also tried out the new Nikon 80-400 zoom at the same time and while I expected it to be light (40% of the weight of the 200-400 1.4x) the difference seemed much larger when trying to handhold them. I guess there is a limit to hand holding and once you pass that limit the weight seems onerous.

Unfortunately, it seem like the next jump up in IQ from the long 400mm zooms requires more than 3kg and can no longer be hand held. Hopefully someone does a longer prime in the 2kg range. Maybe the Sony 400mm F4 (coming this fall) without the added weight of OIS can be that lens. I haven't heard of any rumors yet from Canon or Nikon for a lens in this range.

Canon has the 400mm/4.0 DO IS USM lens... It weighs 1940 grams.

Yes, but that is using diffraction optics and contrast is not good.  You are also paying a premium for it.  The Minolta 400mm f4.5 weighed 1920g so it is possible to get down to this weight without diffraction optics and the higher price.  Should be possible for under $5k.

SHood wrote:

Johanfoto wrote:

SHood wrote:

Interesting perspective as you are coming from a much larger lens. I was able to try out this lens at a show in Toronto. While I loved the flexibility of the lens it would be too heavy to handhold for me except for very short periods. I also tried out the new Nikon 80-400 zoom at the same time and while I expected it to be light (40% of the weight of the 200-400 1.4x) the difference seemed much larger when trying to handhold them. I guess there is a limit to hand holding and once you pass that limit the weight seems onerous.

Unfortunately, it seem like the next jump up in IQ from the long 400mm zooms requires more than 3kg and can no longer be hand held. Hopefully someone does a longer prime in the 2kg range. Maybe the Sony 400mm F4 (coming this fall) without the added weight of OIS can be that lens. I haven't heard of any rumors yet from Canon or Nikon for a lens in this range.

Canon has the 400mm/4.0 DO IS USM lens... It weighs 1940 grams.

Yes, but that is using diffraction optics and contrast is not good. You are also paying a premium for it. The Minolta 400mm f4.5 weighed 1920g so it is possible to get down to this weight without diffraction optics and the higher price. Should be possible for under $5k.

the 300 f/2.8 II plus the 1.4 x weighs just a bit above 2500 g - which is very light compare to the new 200-400 1.4x and not much more then the 400 f/4.0 and it is most likely significantly better then the DO

I was waiting for the 200-400 1.4x to be published but then I gave up last year after waiting and waiting and seeing nothing happen. Now that we have the 200-400 1.4x it is just a question of the budget - I'd never give up my 300 f/2.8 II - the 200-400 1.4x would be an additional lens for other sujets but that is currently maybe a bit too expensive

I'd love to own the 200-400 1.4x but the 300 f/2.8 plus extenders gives a quite similar feature set for the poor man's budget

(knowing that this combinations is out of reach for many photographers)

@ Conan Butcher

THX for sharing the images!!! Great review

joger wrote:

SHood wrote:

Johanfoto wrote:

SHood wrote:

Interesting perspective as you are coming from a much larger lens. I was able to try out this lens at a show in Toronto. While I loved the flexibility of the lens it would be too heavy to handhold for me except for very short periods. I also tried out the new Nikon 80-400 zoom at the same time and while I expected it to be light (40% of the weight of the 200-400 1.4x) the difference seemed much larger when trying to handhold them. I guess there is a limit to hand holding and once you pass that limit the weight seems onerous.

Unfortunately, it seem like the next jump up in IQ from the long 400mm zooms requires more than 3kg and can no longer be hand held. Hopefully someone does a longer prime in the 2kg range. Maybe the Sony 400mm F4 (coming this fall) without the added weight of OIS can be that lens. I haven't heard of any rumors yet from Canon or Nikon for a lens in this range.

Canon has the 400mm/4.0 DO IS USM lens... It weighs 1940 grams.

Yes, but that is using diffraction optics and contrast is not good. You are also paying a premium for it. The Minolta 400mm f4.5 weighed 1920g so it is possible to get down to this weight without diffraction optics and the higher price. Should be possible for under $5k.

the 300 f/2.8 II plus the 1.4 x weighs just a bit above 2500 g - which is very light compare to the new 200-400 1.4x and not much more then the 400 f/4.0 and it is most likely significantly better then the DO

I was waiting for the 200-400 1.4x to be published but then I gave up last year after waiting and waiting and seeing nothing happen. Now that we have the 200-400 1.4x it is just a question of the budget - I'd never give up my 300 f/2.8 II - the 200-400 1.4x would be an additional lens for other sujets but that is currently maybe a bit too expensive

I'd love to own the 200-400 1.4x but the 300 f/2.8 plus extenders gives a quite similar feature set for the poor man's budget

(knowing that this combinations is out of reach for many photographers)

@ Conan Butcher

THX for sharing the images!!! Great review

The is another possibility but again we are looking at $7k including extender.  A native 400mm f4 should get down to $5k with better results.

SHood wrote:

joger wrote:

SHood wrote:

Johanfoto wrote:

SHood wrote:

Interesting perspective as you are coming from a much larger lens. I was able to try out this lens at a show in Toronto. While I loved the flexibility of the lens it would be too heavy to handhold for me except for very short periods. I also tried out the new Nikon 80-400 zoom at the same time and while I expected it to be light (40% of the weight of the 200-400 1.4x) the difference seemed much larger when trying to handhold them. I guess there is a limit to hand holding and once you pass that limit the weight seems onerous.

Unfortunately, it seem like the next jump up in IQ from the long 400mm zooms requires more than 3kg and can no longer be hand held. Hopefully someone does a longer prime in the 2kg range. Maybe the Sony 400mm F4 (coming this fall) without the added weight of OIS can be that lens. I haven't heard of any rumors yet from Canon or Nikon for a lens in this range.

Canon has the 400mm/4.0 DO IS USM lens... It weighs 1940 grams.

Yes, but that is using diffraction optics and contrast is not good. You are also paying a premium for it. The Minolta 400mm f4.5 weighed 1920g so it is possible to get down to this weight without diffraction optics and the higher price. Should be possible for under $5k.

the 300 f/2.8 II plus the 1.4 x weighs just a bit above 2500 g - which is very light compare to the new 200-400 1.4x and not much more then the 400 f/4.0 and it is most likely significantly better then the DO

I was waiting for the 200-400 1.4x to be published but then I gave up last year after waiting and waiting and seeing nothing happen. Now that we have the 200-400 1.4x it is just a question of the budget - I'd never give up my 300 f/2.8 II - the 200-400 1.4x would be an additional lens for other sujets but that is currently maybe a bit too expensive

I'd love to own the 200-400 1.4x but the 300 f/2.8 plus extenders gives a quite similar feature set for the poor man's budget

(knowing that this combinations is out of reach for many photographers)

@ Conan Butcher

THX for sharing the images!!! Great review

The is another possibility but again we are looking at $7k including extender. A native 400mm f4 should get down to $5k with better results.

encouraged claim

A 400 F/4.0 would have to have a front lens diameter of some > 100 mm - the 300 f/2.8 has a front lens diameter of some 108 mm - I doubt that a native 400 f/4.0 would be significantly cheaper but let's see !!

Looks incredible but at that price........

The original size frames are amazing and much better than I anticipated especially considering poor light, handheld, ISO 2000 and slow shutter speeds.

A dream lens but too rich for me as a hobbyist.

Thanks for posting though.

Bob