Just a size comparison shot

I picked up the 100-400 last week as a lighter weight option to replace the other two for general trips out and about like zoo's etc

Thought I'd share the size comparison shot between the 200-400, 100-400 II and 70-200 2.8 II

IMAGE LINK: http://s392.photobucke​t.com …5311_zpsbjvqaql​w.jpg.html

Interesting. The 200-400 sure is a monster. The 100-400L II sure is a sexy looking lens.

I think my back and shoulders are really going to like the 100-400

Why don't you add the price comparison next to it?

Just joining in the spirit of size comparison

There's a lot to be said for the weight and size on super telephotos. There's no question the 200-400 is sharper than even the 100-400L II. However it's also unhandholdable by most people's standards, which really will make the difference between carrying and not carrying a lens, which goes back to the old adage "the best camera is the camera you have with you".

Lbsimon wrote in post #17723860
Why don't you add the price comparison next to it?

Goes with out saying, if its a Canon and its white then its overpriced

vengence wrote in post #17724181
There's a lot to be said for the weight and size on super telephotos. There's no question the 200-400 is sharper than even the 100-400L II. However it's also unhandholdable by most people's standards, which really will make the difference between carrying and not carrying a lens, which goes back to the old adage "the best camera is the camera you have with you".

The 200-400 while a great lens is just too much for small outings and I'd usually bring the 70-200 which is a little FL limited or just go with out. I expect to get a lot more shots now that I'm not lugging around a big heavy pack for the day.

I was actually told the 200-400 L lens is a field sport photographers wet dream.

Me personally I like my 120-300 2.8 and use it for all sorts of things including basketball. Very awesome lens.

Talley wrote in post #17726445
I was actually told the 200-400 L lens is a field sport photographers wet dream.

At $11K I will only buy it if NFL hires me to shoot Pats vs. at a superbowl!

Lbsimon wrote in post #17726766
At $11K I will only buy it if NFL hires me to shoot Pats vs. at a superbowl!

Actually can be had recently at an amazingly low price of 9,999.00

Talley wrote in post #17726445
I was actually told the 200-400 L lens is a field sport photographers wet dream.

Me personally I like my 120-300 2.8 and use it for all sorts of things including basketball. Very awesome lens.

I imagine it would be, the 200-400 FL range is a good range for field sports, constant f4 and the built in TC make a very versatile lens.

Personally I don't have much interest in field sports, more water sports but mostly its my wildlife lens.

Wow that 200-400 is huge. I think I would like 100-400 II as well.

Nice comparison. Just pulled the trigger on the 100-400 II this afternoon. So, I have the one in the middle and the one one the right. No way in hell I can justify getting the big guy though!

Scrumhalf wrote in post #17728302
Nice comparison. Just pulled the trigger on the 100-400 II this afternoon. So, I have the one in the middle and the one one the right. No way in hell I can justify getting the big guy though!

Congrats

Its a handy combo with the 70-200 on the FF and 100-400 on crop