Canon 200 - 400 f4 with 1.4 extender.

Messages
491
Name
Gordon
Edit My Images
Yes
I have always thought that good quality lenses hold their value, whereas bodies do not.
Browsing through the S/H market (dangerous) it surprised me that a canon 200 - 400mm lens with the 1.4 extender can be bought from a respected reseller for slightly less than 50% of the new price, which given the high praise it received when launched seems a big saving, goodness knows what the seller received. I would be interested to know what any current or past owners think of this lens and if it really is "the bargain" it appears to be. I say bargain with some reservation as it is still £5k.
 
Messages
1,643
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
They may lose a bit as they are EF fitting and Canon will go full Mirrow less in the end.
Rob.
 
OP
F
Messages
491
Name
Gordon
Edit My Images
Yes
That is a point Rob but I think there is a good few years in EF lenses yet especially as the 1DX Mk 111 has just been released.
 
Messages
5,196
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Its an incredibly good lens, extremely sharp and versatile. But then again, I loved my 100-400ii which was also very sharp. Just depends on if you need the extra aperture stop and the built in converter. If you do, then 5k is a relative 'bargain'

Mike
 
Messages
628
Edit My Images
Yes
I have noticed that as well OP. I think it's because, in all honesty, the lens may have been over priced when first released. Same as the Nikon equivalent lens and on that point, the Nikon 200-400 has herculean depreciation.

I like these fast super zoom lenses - however with how expensive and large these are - I think most users would prefer a fast (400 2.8 for example) prime or a longer (600 40 prime.

Nikon are about to launch their 120-300 2.8 - that'll be huge money and hugely versatile but I imagine will suffer epic depreciation too.

The used market usually reflects the true value of the lens.
 
OP
F
Messages
491
Name
Gordon
Edit My Images
Yes
Its an incredibly good lens, extremely sharp and versatile. But then again, I loved my 100-400ii which was also very sharp. Just depends on if you need the extra aperture stop and the built in converter. If you do, then 5k is a relative 'bargain'

Mike
Mike, All the reviews that I have read sing its praises but one or two say that is not comfortably hand holdable for long periods, whereas the 400 f4 DOmk2 with a 1.4 converter added (which I own) is. It is just not quite as versatile. My interest was sparked as I have a family trip to Florida coming up in April and I shall visit a nature reserve that is great for birds, gators etc. More importantly I will return to South Africa and Botswana at the end of May on a dedicated photographic trip where a good range of focal lengths to hand would be very useful.
 
Messages
1,406
Edit My Images
Yes
Had this lens for a long time... and now that I have switched away from Canon.. have been slowly selling all the Canon gear.
I sold my 200-400 with x1.4 in part exchange ... I got 6000 for it.
Have also noticed that the prices one gets for EF lenses.. they have started to go down from what they were even a year ago.
Maybe shops are starting to slowly price these down on second hand market.. as they expect the RF to take over in the years to come, so don't want to be stuck with lots of EF lenses.
Although .. I am sure EF lenses will have a good second hand market for many years to come.
 
Messages
5,196
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Mike, All the reviews that I have read sing its praises but one or two say that is not comfortably hand holdable for long periods, whereas the 400 f4 DOmk2 with a 1.4 converter added (which I own) is. It is just not quite as versatile. My interest was sparked as I have a family trip to Florida coming up in April and I shall visit a nature reserve that is great for birds, gators etc. More importantly I will return to South Africa and Botswana at the end of May on a dedicated photographic trip where a good range of focal lengths to hand would be very useful.
It's heavy, no doubt, I hand hold virtually all the time, but its not easy with something this size for prolonged periods.

It will be great for the Africa trip, all depends if you're taking 2 bodies. If you are, I'd recommend the 400DO with converter on one body, then a lighter zoom - either a 70-200 for wider shots and low light, or the 100-400 for versatility on the other body, which should cover the majority of shots.

With Florida, I'd be tempted with the 100-400 depending on your exact location as the light levels tend to be better

Mike
 
OP
F
Messages
491
Name
Gordon
Edit My Images
Yes
It's heavy, no doubt, I hand hold virtually all the time, but its not easy with something this size for prolonged periods.

It will be great for the Africa trip, all depends if you're taking 2 bodies. If you are, I'd recommend the 400DO with converter on one body, then a lighter zoom - either a 70-200 for wider shots and low light, or the 100-400 for versatility on the other body, which should cover the majority of shots.

With Florida, I'd be tempted with the 100-400 depending on your exact location as the light levels tend to be better

Mike
Hi Mike
That is the combination that I will take to Africa, for Florida it will be the 100 - 400 and the 70 - 200 f2.8 as I am going to a local Rodeo one evening which is after sunset and lit by floodlights.
 
OP
F
Messages
491
Name
Gordon
Edit My Images
Yes
Off topic but which reserve in Florida are you visiting? I’m off next week
It is the Circle B Bar reserve in Lakeland. I try to go a couple of times each time I go to Florida, it is an old cattle ranch that was given to the State about 20 years ago. It is fantastic for birds and wildlife, Plenty of Ospreys and a couple of Eagles. I also go to the Apopka wildlife Drive which is open at weekends. If you are down near Cape Canaveral then Merritt Island is well worth a visit.
 

George

Chasseur Haggis extraordinaire
Messages
3,667
Edit My Images
Yes
I borrowed a 200-400 from Canon when they first came out and used it on a safari in the Mara........great lens when you're on a vehicle but very restrictive for hand holding, ok you (or I) could hand hold it for short periods, but too heavy for constant use except with a monopod, bean bag or tripod (which really isn't possible on safari even with a row of seats to myself)

I also found that ok you got a stop extra at the long end (400) but it's weight stopped me from for instance following birds as easily as I could with the 100-400, and therefore could result in missed shots, and anyway with a modern body the loss of one stop is less important than it used to be.

My kit for safaris is 2x 1Dx II one with the 100-400 and the other with the 400DO ll and a 1.4x, and I also take a 24-70 2.8 but it's not used much so lens swapping isn't an issue (I don't like doing that obviously)

You see them a lot on TV at eg Wimbledon where the guys are using monopods, but optically I'd say the 100-400 mk2 is for all intents and purposes as sharp.

George.
 
Messages
9,778
Edit My Images
No
FWIW

Interesting ref to the weight ^ by @George ....when it was first introduced I was at a get together at BoP centre and one of the party that I knew had hired the 200-400mm and he was delighted with its performance but hand holding it for the length of time we were busy there I recall he did not like the weight of it ~ just too heavy! :(
 

George

Chasseur Haggis extraordinaire
Messages
3,667
Edit My Images
Yes
FWIW

Interesting ref to the weight ^ by @George ....when it was first introduced I was at a get together at BoP centre and one of the party that I knew had hired the 200-400mm and he was delighted with its performance but hand holding it for the length of time we were busy there I recall he did not like the weight of it ~ just too heavy! :(
Yup, from memory it was about the weight of the 600 f4 mk2, although that's now a bit lighter.
 
Top