I took the 200-400 on a bird watching (spring warbler) trip. Thoughts, and 400 5.6 comparison too.

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 never been more disappointed in a lens, I was looking forward to trying this thing for over a year.

Neil Schofield wrote:

Can't speak for the 200-400, but your findings come as a surprise to what I have read about the lens, however you might want to consider the EF 400DO mark 2 as well, it's a lot lighter and takes Teleconverters well

I was shocked too, although I did find several reviews that echoed portions of my sentiment.  It seems like the copy I rented had every negative that could possibly occur in the lens, based on other reviews.  I'm definitely renting again in a couple months after I circle through the 500, 600, and maybe the 400DO as well.

This lens will fly on 1dx/2. You have a poor lens body match.

plus I agree this is not a birding lens. 600ii would be much better.

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.

Thanks for taking the time to do this thorough review.

My main birding lenses are Nikon 200-500, Canon 100-400II, Canon 400DOII, Canon 600II.

I also own the 200-400.  It is my last choice for the type of birding you attempted with it.

I would recommend 400DOII with TCs if you are looking into this type of birding.  It is by far the best out of the 5 big lenses I own for your type of warbler test.  Unless you can really get close then the 100-400II (with or without TC) gives you much better magnification and is my pick for hummingbirds.  The Nikon D500/200-500 is also very good at warbler birding.

To address some of your points at least compared to my copy of the 200-400:

1) AF...I have not experienced the issues you had with AF...mine focuses super fast, accurate and in line with my other lenses mentioned above.  Granted I sold my 7D2 as that thing is useless for AF most of the time and use it now on 1DX, 1DX2 and 5D4.  That said, I did use it for a couple years on 7D2 and had no issues specific to that lens.  My 7D2 issues occurred with all lenses.

2) TC use.  I can't even tell IQ degradation with the internal TC engaged and I actually use mine a lot with external 1.4 and internal 1.4 without issue.  With both TCs I have had to do AFMA to get it critically sharp and it does a bit better stopped down a little bit.  But with only one TC it is tack sharp.

So I'm not sure what the main issue was with your copy.

Here are a few examples of what I can get out of 200-400 even with TCs on it....

I also included a few from 400DOII/2xTCIII which is my choice for warbler birding.

400DO/2xTCIII

200-400 with internal 1.4 at 560mm

200-400 with internal and external TCs at 784mm f/11

200-400 with internal 1.4TC

Absolutely beautiful shots...the more people talk about it, the more I think I have to try the 400DO, the quality on the Wilson's Warbler shot with the 2TC is phenomenal..The yellow-rump too; that beats any shot I got with the 200-400.   Thanks for the reply, seems that you've used 3 of the lenses I need to test, so it was really helpful to read.

500-600 native length for birds

Adam2 wrote:

Did you climb a tree to get the eagle shot or where was the nest?

No...no tree climbing involved. The nest is halfway down an embankment leading down to the Yukon River. There is a well used hiking/walking trail on the top of the cliff. You basically look down into the nest and can walk down the embankment a little further to get eye level. These eagles have nested there for at least 10 years and it is amazing that they don't even react to your presence so near their nest. I have photos of mom sleeping on the nest, dad sleeping on a tree above me and the two little ones napping at the same time.

If you want to see more photos from that outing they are here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1491753