Canon 200-400mm IS review

Looks like Andy Rouse has switched back to Canon because of 1DX.

http://www.andyrouse.c​o.uk/index.php?page_id​=174

I'm not a pro and can't justify a 200-400 but after reading his review I wish I could. Price aside it seems like Canon has a real winner on its hands.

Might be time to sell my 300L 2.8 II.. thinking aloud

I'd buy a 400mm f/2.8 II much faster than I'd shell out the same amount for a 200-400 f/4. But yeah.. price aside, that looks like a winner of a lens.

If I could swing the cash, I would get one no doubt. I am sure that it is an amazing piece of glass.

DarthVader wrote in post #15932577
Looks like Andy Rouse has switched back to Canon because of 1DX.

http://www.andyrouse.c​o.uk/index.php?page_id​=174

He also had one of the first Nikon D4's and it did not work very well, that is part of the reason. Having a 200-400 on loan for 6 months when it is not even official probably helped sway him too

Neilyb wrote in post #15940194
He also had one of the first Nikon D4's and it did not work very well, that is part of the reason. Having a 200-400 on loan for 6 months when it is not even official probably helped sway him too

I wonder if he had the D4 before the firmware update.

Toying with selling my 300 f2.8 II and 500 f4 II. A few things have me second guessing the decision though...
The 300 takes both TC's extremely well giving me 300, 420, 600. Having 300mm at 2.8 is nice for concerts.
And the 500 takes the 1.4 well giving me 700mm great for aircraft and wildlife.

Not having to swap lenses and TC's on location at the expense of range may be worth it as the 1Dx sucks up dust faster than any camera I've ever seen.
And the possibility of carrying 2 lenses/bodies covering 70-200 and 200-560 would be handy on some shoots. Fewer missed shots!

I would get a 600mm II instead

Nice. I have a guy coming later tonight to take one of my kidneys for 12K. Now I know its worth it....

yipDog Studios wrote in post #15941706
Toying with selling my 300 f2.8 II and 500 f4 II. A few things have me second guessing the decision though...
The 300 takes both TC's extremely well giving me 300, 420, 600. Having 300mm at 2.8 is nice for concerts.
And the 500 takes the 1.4 well giving me 700mm great for aircraft and wildlife.

Not having to swap lenses and TC's on location at the expense of range may be worth it as the 1Dx sucks up dust faster than any camera I've ever seen.
And the possibility of carrying 2 lenses/bodies covering 70-200 and 200-560 would be handy on some shoots. Fewer missed shots!

I wish you'd toy that idea in my general direction. I'm very seriously considering a 300mm f/2.8 II for the excellent qualities you referenced. Since I just shoot for fun, I never miss any shots, so the hassle of having to change out TC's doesn't concern me. The 300mm f/2.8 II is pricey, but it seems like an excellent multiple-application super-telephoto.

David Arbogast wrote in post #15941875
I wish you'd toy that idea in my general direction. I'm very seriously considering a 300mm f/2.8 II for the excellent qualities you referenced. Since I just shoot for fun, I never miss any shots, so the hassle of having to change out TC's doesn't concern me. The 300mm f/2.8 II is pricey, but it seems like an excellent multiple-application super-telephoto.

Won't make a decision til the 200-400 it available but I have the feeling you'll see a few pop up for sale around that time!