Found myself thinking Nikon yesterday :|

There I was with the 500 f4.5 shooting wild boar, which was great when I was stalking. Later I was patient and they came closer, too close Where is Canons 200-400 f4? Why haven't even Sigma thought this range would sell to Canon users? Come on

Is the Canon 100-400 not an option?

jwcdds wrote in post #10898391
Is the Canon 100-400 not an option?

Pretty dark in the forest, was already at 1600 ISO at f4.5, I would like an f4 zoom which would give the option of TCs for later use. I had the 1-4 with me. Would mean I no longer need to carry a long prime and a zoom, changing them over on the side kick means I gotta move, which scares European wildlife away that added to the speed of it....I WANT A 200-400!

If the wild bore came close enough to use a 400mm, I would have used my 7.62mm.

Supertac wrote in post #10898430
If the wild bore came close enough to use a 400mm, I would have used my 7.62mm.

My Remington .03-06 would come out pretty quick.

How about Sigma 120-300 f/2.8? Too short?

Supertac wrote in post #10898430
If the wild bore came close enough to use a 400mm, I would have used my 7.62mm.

Bacon is good...pork chops are good...

cedm wrote in post #10898964
How about Sigma 120-300 f/2.8? Too short?

Yes. My current 300 2.8 or 500 f4.5 allow me to have 500 or 600mm with good IQ. The sigma will take a 1.4TC but not a 2X, I have tried one - IQ was lower than sloppy. I also find Sigma AF a beast not worth pondering (I have had a few HSM lenses, none of them were to my liking).

Ho hum...

I like the idea of more of these high end super telephotos zooms, however in this case,. for me anyway, the existence of a Canon mount in 200-400mm zoom would not have benefited me, because if;' I'm lugging my 500mm, I am not going to want to lug another 8 pound lens along as my zoom.

My set up is a long prime and a zoom on a second body, therefore that zoom, be it the 100-400mm or 70-200mm f/2.8, needs to be a little more portable than an 8 pound f/4 400mm.

And one could argue the 200-400mm f/4 would mean ONE lens, but I disagree. It does not give me 500mm, or 700mm with a 1.4x, so it can not replace the 500mm f/4. With a t-con I will sacrifice the 500mm's native IQ,. for a zoom with a t-con to get to the same distance.

ie: in my mind, there is no "one lens to do it all" as we should already know. When we want the perfect Prime, only the perfect Prime will do.

So, I advocare a prime and a zoom to handle situations like the one described in this thread.

that said,. again, I do concur it would be awesome to see more lenses like the Nikon 200-400mm f/4, and the three amazing Sigma's that I consider in that category, (100-300mm f/4, 120-300mm f/2.8 and 300-800mm f/5.6) We just need Sigma to add OS to these three for perfection!

Nothing wrong in "just" thinking about Nikon

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #10900960
I like the idea of more of these high end super telephotos zooms, however in this case,. for me anyway, the existence of a Canon mount in 200-400mm zoom would not have benefited me, because if;' I'm lugging my 500mm, I am not going to want to lug another 8 pound lens along as my zoom.

My set up is a long prime and a zoom on a second body, therefore that zoom, be it the 100-400mm or 70-200mm f/2.8, needs to be a little more portable than an 8 pound f/4 400mm.

And one could argue the 200-400mm f/4 would mean ONE lens, but I disagree. It does not give me 500mm, or 700mm with a 1.4x, so it can not replace the 500mm f/4. With a t-con I will sacrifice the 500mm's native IQ,. for a zoom with a t-con to get to the same distance.

ie: in my mind, there is no "one lens to do it all" as we should already know. When we want the perfect Prime, only the perfect Prime will do.

So, I advocare a prime and a zoom to handle situations like the one described in this thread.

that said,. again, I do concur it would be awesome to see more lenses like the Nikon 200-400mm f/4, and the three amazing Sigma's that I consider in that category, (100-300mm f/4, 120-300mm f/2.8 and 300-800mm f/5.6) We just need Sigma to add OS to these three for perfection!

For me 200-400 f4 would be enough lens to not need 500mm, so carrying extra would not be necessary. When I go to Africa I will have to carry 300/500, 24-105 and 100-400 and all TCs....with the 200-400 I would not think twice about leaving with only that and a shorter zoom. Saving weight. I would ultimately like to upgrade the 500 f4.5 to the f4 IS, but before I do I am seriously thinking about that zoom, at 3.2 KG it is marginally more than my current 500.

Are you familiar with Nikon 200-400mm ?

"For short distances up to approximately 50-60 feet or so, it is a great lens but for distances of greater than that, you have to unscrew the meniscus protective front element to perform as well. Yes, you can leave it off but the actual front element will be exposed. We are not talking about a regular filter here."

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/93265​4/1#8833938

Neilyb wrote in post #10901169
For me 200-400 f4 would be enough lens to not need 500mm, so carrying extra would not be necessary. When I go to Africa I will have to carry 300/500, 24-105 and 100-400 and all TCs....with the 200-400 I would not think twice about leaving with only that and a shorter zoom. Saving weight. I would ultimately like to upgrade the 500 f4.5 to the f4 IS, but before I do I am seriously thinking about that zoom, at 3.2 KG it is marginally more than my current 500.

I have used it but only short distance, did not know about that. Thanks. Is this changed in the mkII I wonder?

Canon has the 100-400 but it's variable aperture, though it is a LOT easier to hand hold than the Nikon.

Nope it doesn't.

Neilyb wrote in post #10901303
I have used it but only short distance, did not know about that. Thanks. Is this changed in the mkII I wonder?