Wittmund to the test - the new 400mm

[Leeuwarden]

Can you tell us a little bit about the difference between the old en new 400 with the 2xTC III. Is there any difference at all?

[Iwan Bogels]

Can you tell us a little bit about the difference between the old en new 400 with the 2xTC III. Is there any difference at all?

Well, phisically the old and the new 400mm are almost identical in size. The big difference is the weight, as the new 400 is a lot lighter. Next to that the IS is a big plus over my old non-IS lens. The results seem to be just that little bit sharper, but it's hard to define how much. This depends on the camera and subject too, in each different shot. To me (personaly) the new specs do not justify the extremely high price, so I won't trade in my old 400 for this new beast.

For me the best surprise was the 2.0x III. This extender performed amazingly well and is soooooo much better than my 2.0x II that I will get it ASAP. Personally I hardly ever used the old 2.0x II because of the focus problems, but the new 2.0x III seems to overcome them all. It also triggers me to find out about the new 1.4x III.

Does this help ?

Cheers,
Iwan

[Leeuwarden]

Yes Iwan, that helps

But you have to promise me one thing... Do not buy a Canon 1.4 mkIII before you have compared it to a mkII and also to a Kenko 1.4 pro 300 DG.

I use the 2xmkIII on my 300 IS USM 2.8 mkI for a while now. It is a lot better than the mkII but it still is a compromise...

[Iwan Bogels]

But you have to promise me one thing... Do not buy a Canon 1.4 mkIII before you have compared it to a mkII and also to a Kenko 1.4 pro 300 DG.

Thanks for the advise. Have you tried the 1.4x III yourself already ? I'm still happy with my 1.4x I, but I'm curious what the improvements will look like.

I see you are using the "old" 300/2.8L IS in combination with new 2.0x III. Why do you feel that it is stll a compromise ? Were do you loose out ? I know the apperture moves up two steps, but that's OK if you gain 300mm in the process.

Cheers,
Iwan

[Leeuwarden]

With the 300 + 2xmkIII I only use f/8. Higher f number does not improve the picture. Pictures are a lot softer with the 2xmkIII but a lot better than with the mkII. It helps when you can keep shutterspeed high and also a lot of light helps to keep the contrast up. I made some nice pics with the 2xmkIII but I would prefer a 500 or 600 mm.

Do you own the 1.4 mkI or mkII?

[Iwan Bogels]

Right now I have the 1.4x mk I and the 2.0x mk II.

And yes, I'm sytill considering to trade my 400/2.8 (+ more) for a 500/4.0 IS

[Pieter]

"Leeuwarden" can you tell me what you mean by this:

But you have to promise me one thing... Do not buy a Canon 1.4 mkIII before you have compared it to a mkII and also to a Kenko 1.4 pro 300 DG

Is the 1.4 mk II equal/better to the 1.4 mk III ?

I have, like Iwan, the 1.4 mkI and try to find out if I must go for a newer one.

Regards,

Pieter

[Warthog 71]

Hi Iwan,

I had the pleasure to test the new 400 as well and I really have to say "It's worth every euro". Compared to the non IS there is a huge difference, to bad I did not had the possibility to compare it against the IS version. The IS is the best Canon has ever produced, in combination with the incredibly fast AF it is the ultimate tool for high-speed action and reaction. The combination with the 2X III Extender performs great, I have never seen a better performing 2X Extender of any brand, keep in mind the type III extenders are developed for the new type II IS lenses, you can win some but not all when using it on older lenses.



Grtz,

Marcel

[wamovements]

Three comments:

1. Really great pictures from the Germany Phantoms.
2. Maybe this topic can be splitted into a "Aviation Photo Forum Topic" and a "Photography" 400mm 2.8 IS USM review
3. I read comments like: great lens, great combination with the 2x converter etc, but is it me, or isn't this what I could expect when I pay more than 7000 euro's for the combination?? The Lens is amazing, but so is the price!!!!

[Leeuwarden]

"Leeuwarden" can you tell me what you mean by this:

But you have to promise me one thing... Do not buy a Canon 1.4 mkIII before you have compared it to a mkII and also to a Kenko 1.4 pro 300 DG

Is the 1.4 mk II equal/better to the 1.4 mk III ?

I have, like Iwan, the 1.4 mkI and try to find out if I must go for a newer one.

Regards,

Pieter

From what I have read the Canon 1.4 mkIII is not better than the mkII (have not seen anything about the mkI vs the mkIII). If you search the internet you will also find the Kenko 1.4 300 pro DG equals the Canon 1.4 mkII but is a lot cheaper. I use the Kenko and I'm happy.

[Warthog 71]

Three comments:

1. Really great pictures from the Germany Phantoms.
2. Maybe this topic can be splitted into a "Aviation Photo Forum Topic" and a "Photography" 400mm 2.8 IS USM review
3. I read comments like: great lens, great combination with the 2x converter etc, but is it me, or isn't this what I could expect when I pay more than 7000 euro's for the combination?? The Lens is amazing, but so is the price!!!!

2: Don't split, we can't show more then just a couple of photos.

3: Dennis, It's not about the price at all. It's about the quality improvements made by Canon, especially the difference between the non IS 400.2.8 and the latest IS type II version, both in combination with the new 2X III extender. As with many things in life there is a big difference between what you could expect and what you finally get. Just one example: When the fist 400 2.8 IS came to the market It was around 7000 euro as well, great lens but the combination with 2x extender -> No good.

Back on topic!

EOS-1D Mark IV – Canon EF 400mm/f2.8L IS II (new lens)
1/1000 – f5,6 – ISO 200



Same shot, 100% crop



Grtz,

Marcel

[Andras]

-whistle- 2 stops shorted and this comes out?.. Nice

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Richard from Rotterdam]

@ Iwan: as an aside to this topic: I see you shoot quite a lot on ISO 400. Do you see any difference between 200 and 400 in favorably (sunny) light conditions?

@ Iwan and Marcel: I am curious to hear how many of the shown photos were taken with the IS on. Because that's one of the reasons in my opinion why people want to pay a small car for this lens.

[Warthog 71]

@ Iwan: as an aside to this topic: I see you shoot quite a lot on ISO 400. Do you see any difference between 200 and 400 in favorably (sunny) light conditions?

@ Iwan and Marcel: I am curious to hear how many of the shown photos were taken with the IS on. Because that's one of the reasons in my opinion why people want to pay a small car for this lens.

All my shots with IS on (mode 2 and 3)


Grtz,

Marcel

[Stefan]

Same shot, 100% crop

Flabbergasted...

Regards,
Stefan