Anyone using a Canon 200-400?

[Morgo]

Hi everyone,

I'm considering buying the Canon 200-400 for an upcoming safari in Botswana this year.

I would be really keen to hear from anyone who has used or owns this new lens, especially how it compares to the 400 2.8 IS and 500 f4 IS models (not the new IS II's) in terms of AF speed, IQ and sharpness)

[mongo]

Interesting question. However, Mongo thinks you might be hard pressed to have anyone who has even tried the 200-400 Canon - let alone owned one to be able to answer your question.

from Mongo's experience, he has had the 200-400 f4 Nikon for a few years. Not the same lens in many respects. However, Mongo can say that if he had his time all over again, he would have bought the 400 f2.8 instead. Main reason being that he uses the lens at 400 mm 98% of the time and has a x 1.4 converter the rest of the time. The 200mm up to 400mm range almost never gets a look in.

if Mongo were you, for your purpose, he would also take along that second camera body he has with the 70-200 f 2.8 ( with or without a X 1.4 converter) or just the lens combo without the second body and take your chances swapping lenses. Not ideal but it is an option.

[Morgo]

Thanks Mongo

I was thinking about using the 400 2.8 IS I already have but its a bit too heavy to take with the weight restrictions and then its kind of large and awkward for in a vehicle, not that the others are much smaller though. From what I've been reading a lot of people seem to think the 300 with extenders is a good setup for the focal ranges in Botswana, not really wanting to be swapping TC's all the time I see the 200-400 with the built in TC as a good option to cover essentially the same focal ranges.
I'll likely be taking 3 bodies, short/medium/long setups, the medium will be the 70-200 IS II or a Sigma 120-300 2.8 more likely and mounted on a full frame with the larger telephoto on the 1dIV, 7d will likely end up on the short lens which makes a lot of sense
Having the 3 different sensor bodies is an idea I like as I can get there and find out what focal length and lens combos work the best and swap them around to suit what I need with out using TC's if I'm lucky.
200-400 on the 7d should give me a very good range and hopefully better quality then using a TC with the other bodies.

[unistudent1962]

I was about to direct you to POTN, but when I did a thread search for the 200-400 I saw an Aus.Morgo asking a similar question.
I assumed the two of yuo are one and the same person.

[mongo]

Not sure if it is possible and/ economical to hire the 200 -400 for this trip ???frankly, Mongo is keen to get a look at the new 150-600 tamron as an inexpensive, small, light and may be better quality than we think alternative where weight and space may be an issue. Just another thought.

also, why not just your 120- 300 with a X 1.4 ?

[Morgo]

I was about to direct you to POTN, but when I did a thread search for the 200-400 I saw an Aus.Morgo asking a similar question.
I assumed the two of yuo are one and the same person.

Yep thats me, seems not many people have played with the 200-400

- - - Updated - - -

Not so much, would cost about $3k to hire it for the 3 weeks!

The Tamron is interesting though are they even available yet? All the places I've checked in the past few weeks still list them as pre order or not available.

I might get a sigma 1.4 for the 120- but then it might still be a little short on the long end and I really want to keep the 2.8.

[Roosta]

Hay Morgo,

Some great reading and images here on 200-400 mm

Hiring also sounds like a good option, as it's a bloody expensive exercise if like Mongo has hinted to, that it's used mainly at the long end.

A friend of mine hired the new 600 mm whilst over there with no regrets, and used his 300 mm 2.8 + 1.4 TC

You already have the 400, so the 200 - 400 sounds like a lens replacement for several lenses, or a complete waste, and at best F4.

[patrol50]

Hi everyone,

I'm considering buying the Canon 200-400 for an upcoming safari in Botswana this year.

I would be really keen to hear from anyone who has used or owns this new lens, especially how it compares to the 400 2.8 IS and 500 f4 IS models (not the new IS II's) in terms of AF speed, IQ and sharpness)

hi - have look at this C 400 comparison review by lens rentals USA might be worth a quick read http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013...ick-comparison - big tick for the 200 - 400 !


cheers rob

[acko]

Having done a sort "safari" in Kruger National Park for a few days, I found that the 70-200 did everything that I wanted. Yes, there were a few times when I could have used more power, but as an all round tele lens for that sort of work, I was happy with what I had.

[patrol50]

Having done a sort "safari" in Kruger National Park for a few days, I found that the 70-200 did everything that I wanted. Yes, there were a few times when I could have used more power, but as an all round tele lens for that sort of work, I was happy with what I had.

quote:- "Yes, there were a few times when I could have used more power" - yep, and that says it all

cheers rob

[fabian628]

I reckon you would be better off with a 500 f/4 and a 70-200 2.8 on a separate body, price wise. Depends on your budget, I don't know if Id pay that much for a 400mm f/4 lens; and im sure it has a market somewhere.
I would go for a 400mm f/2.8 IS II before the zoom, 2.8 is pretty nice once it gets dark, at with new IS it would be so nice to use. The old IS version is nice, and you can hand hold around 1/100s with a bit of difficulty but optically I cant image seeing 5k worth of difference.