Sign in to follow this  
masterfisho7

Canon 200- 400 F4 Lens

Recommended Posts

My brother has one of these and they are an incredible piece of kit. 

He also shoots with a couple of 1D X's.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a prime 400 2.8 and have to say my daughter's 100-400mk 2 easely managed more keepers. She still has her lens but I sold mine loosing close to $10000 on the sale. You really have to ask yourself are you prepared to lug that thing around and use it enough to make it worth while.  I know the phone sounds like a low quality option but both my daughter and her boyfriend are supplying their sponsors with regular shots because they can carry the phone without the bulk and produce the images many of us are seeing in fishing magazines.

In terms of image quality, the very slight improvement most people wouldn't even notice is a huge price to pay, certainly not the $10000 more than the cost of the excellent 100-400mk2 .

Sorry for the non encouraging comments but from someone who once worked professionally and owned around $80000 worth of camera and obsessed with getting the best gear I found it simply wasn't needed. The hobby side of me had me carrying huge amounts of gear into tree tops photographing eagles to kayaking for kingfishers on rivers and lakes. I can honestly say after selling most of my gear apart from a small kit each for my girls I managed to get images in the first day of testing my Sony compact of wildlife than I had in eight years with the pro level gear. 

My advice would be either buy a 100-400mk 2 if you haven't already got one and spend the $10000+ you saved on a holiday away using it. Or save even more and get a great little compact, go on holiday, take heaps of photos with the compact and sell them to tourisum so you can go again.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops my mistake I should of said $12000 cheaper to put towards your safari. 

Canon 200-400 rrp $14400

Canon 1dx mk2  rrp $8500

Or Sony rx 10mk4 24-600 at $2000, no Sherpa or extra baggage charges and shoots more than twice as fast as the above canon. One you can carry almost anywhere, both will produce Geographic front cover quality, infact look at the review done by a leading Geo photographer on the compact Sony. 

This wasn't the Geo photographer I meant but it seems yet another has moved to the Sony https://alphauniverse.com/stories/rx10-iv--a-sleeper-no-more/

Edited by JonD
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although my kit is based more around wide angle and macro, I do own a 100-400 mkII and it can certainly take a sharp pic, even with my shaky old hands. 

This shot was taken with it on my 7d.

IMG_1202.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Green Hornet said:

Although my kit is based more around wide angle and macro, I do own a 100-400 mkII and it can certainly take a sharp pic, even with my shaky old hands. 

This shot was taken with it on my 7d.

IMG_1202.jpg

 

It really is a superb lens, must of hurt canons sales on their much higher price range gear. It's funny that there are also many reviews on the older 400 5.6 which gained the same high score as the $14000 more expensive 2.8. Also the 7d is a great body, both my girls love theirs, one uses the same 100-400 as you and the other the much cheaper 70-300 nano which is incredible for the money. For us much of our photography is in the boat where we do get sea spray on our gear, not the best for extremely high value kits. Not sure if you are on Instagram but my youngest daughter has lots of wildlife images mostly taken with the 70-300 if you are interested just look up Tess Poyner instergram.

Edited by JonD
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon I had a look at your Daughters Instagram page looks great mate love the phoyography

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The camera I will be getting soon to replace my Canon 1200 d . Canon EOS 7d Mark 11

canon is me.jpg

canon is me 1.jpg

canon is me 2.jpg

canon is me 3.jpg

canon is me 4.jpg

canon is me 5.jpg

canon is me 6.jpg

can0n eos 7d mark 11.jpg

Edited by masterfisho7
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a great outfit, what are you wanting to mostly target? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, JonD said:

That's a great outfit, what are you wanting to mostly target? 

Mate Wildlife Photography 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2018 at 12:45 PM, masterfisho7 said:

Mate Wildlife Photography 

Depends on what kind of wildlife you want to photograph really. You don't need to spend 12-13K to get a great lens. I didn't and admittedly until March last year I was a Canon snob big time and was dreading the amount of money I was about to spend upgrading my EF 500mm f/4L IS USM lens due to its age and my worry about lack of serviceablity going forward. Canon are pr1cks. Period. They make it very unattractive to want to spend big bucks on their gear, as they don't support them indefinitely. I ended up with a Sigma 500mm f/4 DG OS HSM Sport lens after CR Kennedy (local distributor) loaned me the lens for a month to test in the field. 

As mentioned, the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM is a pretty good lens and way cheaper than the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM zoom. Many people use that cheaper 100-400 who want to shoot wildlife (mostly birds in Australia as there's not much other easily accessible wildlife anyway). Coupled with an APS-C sensor camera like the Canon EOS 7D MkII it gives you very good quality images. 

I bought the same 100-400mm Canon lens for my wife in October 2017, then sold it to buy a more useful lens for her, as she needs the focal length more and she was saving 2/3 of a stop of light with her new lens for a similar focal length (Canon 100-400 + 1.4x TC = 560mm f/8 versus 600mm f/6.3 on the Sigma = 2/3 stop saved). So we bought a Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary lens last year for her before our journey to South Africa where she used it with the 7D MkII. I was more than impressed with the image quality and I am as anal as can be when it comes to high quality results. Where she did suffer and still suffers to date was in low light, and very low light, where I was still able to shoot very good quality images at ISO10000 with my Sigma 500mm f/4 DG OS HSM Sport lens and Canon EOS 1DxMkII body. That's the kind of situation where one will thank for the more expensive equipment. 

Although now she also bought a 1Dx MkII body, because it runs circles around the 7D MkII when it comes to in field use and high ISO capability. And let's face it, don't believe when people tell you that you can get away with ISO100-200 shooting wildlife. You may if you use a tripod. However, tripods are useless in most instances (except at night or in a hide) and many more serious bird and wildlife shooters like to shoot hand held due to the flexibility you get hand holding and the weight of modern lenses allows for that more readily. Personally,  I rarely go below ISO800 and mostly use 1600-3200 to get as fast a shutter speed as possible and with the right capture of the RAW images noise is not really an issue. 

At the end of the day you always get what you pay for. The cheaper lenses come with compromises, but in reality most people are happy with the results and don't need to spend tens of thousands on gear. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My youngest daughter has two images in the final top ten of Aus geo again at the moment ( winner not yet announced). She uses a can 70-300 $250 lens on an old 7d she picked up secondhand under $500 with a sigma 17-50 2.8. She also had three images in the finals of Moran's and came third in earth watch, pretty good going for the lower end glass she's using. 

The more time she is spending in remote locations, the more she's understanding the importance of light gear ( luckily I'm still around to carry some of it!!)

Trpuble with big heavy expensive gear is that often people don't carry it in case they get it wet, dirty or stolen. I fell in a river on Sunday with a camera in each hand and my daughter's batteries in my pockets, my son rushed in to grab the cameras and also fell in with his camera and phone in his pocket.  Luckily I managed to tread water, only lightly splashing the cameras I was holding ( must admit it was dam funny ).

A couple of shots on from my daughter's efforts yesterday ( she sayed dry too). Size reduced for viewing on a phone.

_MG_8162.jpg.61d29a9bf26af1103841d6ed6e2d945d.jpg

_MG_8175.jpg.23e750183453d3ac99ee03206043dfa6.jpg

 

_MG_8194.jpg.25fce2d8a178b52b117e231321261665.jpg

 

_MG_8146.jpg.318bd4818edcccec80eb636c08eaee41.jpg

 

_MG_8113.thumb.jpg.8afd41359fb19ce7afef18c1a1fe3d66.jpg

 

 

 

 

_MG_8201.jpg

Edited by JonD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personaly I find carry just the GoPro gets me most of my fun memories.

GOPR0601.jpg.a298bbd37d3d8b8a7bc03a550f86134a.jpg

447925344_GOPR06231.jpg.0477d7b7b0be37af63fc54370c9827e9.jpg

518658298_GOPR06431.jpg.80f9f82f2b0c023b7e0b4340eb344216.jpg

1175116869_GOPR05941.jpg.7bd949a4fae863b72205e5bf0829b1fd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Amatteroflight said:

Depends on what kind of wildlife you want to photograph really. You don't need to spend 12-13K to get a great lens. I didn't and admittedly until March last year I was a Canon snob big time and was dreading the amount of money I was about to spend upgrading my EF 500mm f/4L IS USM lens due to its age and my worry about lack of serviceablity going forward. Canon are pr1cks. Period. They make it very unattractive to want to spend big bucks on their gear, as they don't support them indefinitely. I ended up with a Sigma 500mm f/4 DG OS HSM Sport lens after CR Kennedy (local distributor) loaned me the lens for a month to test in the field. 

As mentioned, the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM is a pretty good lens and way cheaper than the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM zoom. Many people use that cheaper 100-400 who want to shoot wildlife (mostly birds in Australia as there's not much other easily accessible wildlife anyway). Coupled with an APS-C sensor camera like the Canon EOS 7D MkII it gives you very good quality images. 

I bought the same 100-400mm Canon lens for my wife in October 2017, then sold it to buy a more useful lens for her, as she needs the focal length more and she was saving 2/3 of a stop of light with her new lens for a similar focal length (Canon 100-400 + 1.4x TC = 560mm f/8 versus 600mm f/6.3 on the Sigma = 2/3 stop saved). So we bought a Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary lens last year for her before our journey to South Africa where she used it with the 7D MkII. I was more than impressed with the image quality and I am as anal as can be when it comes to high quality results. Where she did suffer and still suffers to date was in low light, and very low light, where I was still able to shoot very good quality images at ISO10000 with my Sigma 500mm f/4 DG OS HSM Sport lens and Canon EOS 1DxMkII body. That's the kind of situation where one will thank for the more expensive equipment. 

Although now she also bought a 1Dx MkII body, because it runs circles around the 7D MkII when it comes to in field use and high ISO capability. And let's face it, don't believe when people tell you that you can get away with ISO100-200 shooting wildlife. You may if you use a tripod. However, tripods are useless in most instances (except at night or in a hide) and many more serious bird and wildlife shooters like to shoot hand held due to the flexibility you get hand holding and the weight of modern lenses allows for that more readily. Personally,  I rarely go below ISO800 and mostly use 1600-3200 to get as fast a shutter speed as possible and with the right capture of the RAW images noise is not really an issue. 

At the end of the day you always get what you pay for. The cheaper lenses come with compromises, but in reality most people are happy with the results and don't need to spend tens of thousands on gear. 

 

Sorry to disagree but we rarely shoot wildlife above 400 ISO, 100-200 is where we keep most of my range at for wildlife.

All the wildlife images we've had published by the Aus Geo have been at 100 ISO with the exception of one underwater image which was at 125 ISO.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man Jon those photos are so good wish mine looked like that 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2019 at 10:39 PM, JonD said:

Sorry to disagree but we rarely shoot wildlife above 400 ISO, 100-200 is where we keep most of my range at for wildlife.

All the wildlife images we've had published by the Aus Geo have been at 100 ISO with the exception of one underwater image which was at 125 ISO.  

 

 

 

 

That's fine. I guess I will always get more shots and faster shutter speeds, which are needed when you're tracking fast flying subjects in the air. ISO 100-200 just does not cut it for fast shutter speeds! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Amatteroflight said:

That's fine. I guess I will always get more shots and faster shutter speeds, which are needed when you're tracking fast flying subjects in the air. ISO 100-200 just does not cut it for fast shutter speeds! 

 

Yes I agree you need some fast speeds on some species, the little azure kingfishers we have locally being one. Problem with those though is it's extremely hard to keep the camera and focus points on them even when you know they are diving directly bellow their vantage point, was near impossible when I used the big gear ( 400 2.8 on a 1d mk3, back in the days when I had the gear) . As for bigger hunting birds such as sea eagles 1250s was the sweet spot for me shooting them hunt fish on our local lake. 1250s -1600 on 100 ISO was achievable in the last part of the afternoon light. Trying to shoot any birds back then with any white on them was to problematic due to the high difference between the shadows and highlights. Egrets are one example of trying to get good feather detail in direct sunlight without turning the backgrounds incredibly dark.

Not sure how canon is going with this these days but Nikon always had much better detail in those bright contrasty conditions on white birds. Funny enough my first test with the Sony compact after selling off all my pro gear totally shocked me. Not only did the Sony cope with those middle of the day white birds but it handled birds in flight so much easier too, partly because of the weight of using the camera. I used to use a wimberley tripod head at times which help when you could set up tripods but most of my birds in flight were from the kayak or boat. By the way if you know anyone interested in purchasing a wimberely head let me know. 

I also manage to crack off some good kingfishers and eagle shots on the very first test session with the little Sony, this was simply because I could paddle close and shoot from a comera around my neck rather than remove a canon from its box and hope everything stayed in place as I get set up.

If you are ever down in this neck of the woods feel free to contact me, the eagles and kingfishers etc are often in the same areas and a few hunting reef egrets catching fish are often at a dead easy place to photograph, literally 20m from the footpath.

These are heavily reduced in quality for ease of uploading but for an easy carry compact they all meet the required needs for comercial tourism and other publications, which is why I gave up that hunt for perfection in equipment.  I have a couple of guys coming here from the UK with simular high end gear to you, also well experienced like you so I'm keen to see how we all go on the keeper rate.

IMG_0836.JPG.841fa5065574a99979f2aeb9afaada1a.JPGIMG_0844.JPG.1766ab12f1b0d15dad9dd77454e7bc32.JPGIMG_0859.thumb.JPG.9d353975fe01fc2097baa8e5888140f1.JPG_JDP1439.jpg.987d6bd3209003ee13bfe7425841869a.jpg1433455057_Georgebass55copy.jpg.e26d082cc8d10f296c0bc320c9b9017f.jpg192909549_Georgebass25copy.jpg.0c781fd776e7f25447c81e45012e239a.jpg1378512872_Georgebass48.jpg.b2996fa565ffaf1033087f3a547804ca.jpg_JDP5168.jpg.f55970bb0ad6e0e85f0862850a74f9f7.jpg_JDP8048.jpg.c62bfd8be6e6932cb5164616f9743322.jpg_JDP8235.jpg.0220327430296c2544e817fbb66a5dcd.jpgIMG_2028.JPG.df37ce0f4a36c116e050ff3cd20fb693.JPG

 

_JDP1800.jpg

_JDP5407 1.jpg

_JDP5619.jpg

_JDP6161.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the advice just love your photos also Jon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      64,787
    • Total Posts
      519,390