New Thoughts on the Canon 200-400 f/4L IS and the Series II Super-telephoto Lenses

In the blog post here that noted the announcement of the long awaited Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Lens with Internal 1.4x Extender, I wrote, “It promises to be a great lens for wildlife and for trips to places like Africa, the Southern Ocean, and the Galapagos. At $11,799, it is quite pricey. I will surely try to borrow one before I buy one.”

So here I am at my Mom’s in Holbrook, Long Island, NY, getting ready to fly back to Florida on Monday morning. I will be leaving for my two-week Galapagos Photo-Cruise on June 30, and then heading to Africa departing on August 1. I currently own the 300mm f/2.8L IS II, the 500mm f/4L IS II, and the 600mm f/4L IS II. Along with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and two set of Series III teleconverters (2 @ 1.4x EF Extender III and 2x EF Extender III).

I used the 500mm f/4L IS II only a bit before I received my 600mm f/4L IS II. Since that time I have rarely used it and never traveled with it always opting for the greater reach of the 600 with my three full frame bodies–2 EOS-1D X bodies and my 5D Mark III.

I had always assumed that I would be bringing the 500 II to the Galapagos and still might go that route. But, there are at least three others on the trip who will be bringing their 600 IIs. And I just hate to be short man on the totem pole. In any case, the 300 II will be invaluable on the cruise for flight photography and for our panga (zodiac) cruises. And the 70-200 II is a necessity. So here is the problem: even if I could borrow a 200-400 for the trip to the archipelago there is simply no way that I could get it all there along with the three camera bodies, the 24-105, and the 15mm fish eye lens.

One must consider the option of making the trip with a 200-400 and without the 500 or 600mm. The 200-400 with the internal 1.4X TC in place and a second 1.4X TC added externally would yield an equivalent focal length of 784mm. This would be well on the short side as compared to either the 500 II or the 600 II with the 2X TC. Those work out to 1000 and 1200mm equivalent focal lengths respectively.

Another possibility would be to travel with the 200-400 and either the 500 or 600 II while leaving the 300 II at home. I have one very big problem with that. The 300 II is a superb flight lens, one that I can easily hand hold. The 200-400 does of course offer greater flexibility than the 300 II but, and this is a very big but: the 300 II weighs only 5.19 pounds while the 200-400 comes in at a relatively whopping 7.98 pounds, almost three pounds heavier than the new 300. The 200-400 weighs more than the 500 II at 7.04 pounds but less than the 600 II that weighs 8.65 pounds. Call me a wimp if you will, but I can hand hold the 500 II for short periods of time for both flight and routine bird photography. I can hand hold the 600 II only for a few seconds at most for flight photography and barely at all for routine photography. So ix-nay on that idea at least for me.

After getting these thoughts down here in writing in yesterday's blog pot I am thinking of taking the 500 II as my big lens to the Galapagos along with the 300 II and the other lenses mentioned above. But I still might go with the 600 as my big lens for the cruise. I am pretty sure that Denise Ippolito is going with the 300 II as her big lens for the trip.

That brings us to Africa. I know that Todd Gustafson travels routinely to Africa with his Nikon 600, a Nikon 200-400, a Nikon 28-300, a 10.5mm fish eye, and only two Nikon D4 camera bodies. But Todd is much younger and stronger than I am and can easily hand hold his Nikon 200-400 for flight. He absolutely loves, kills with, and swears by his 200-400 in Africa. I just got off the phone with him and have pretty much decided to sell my 500 II–heck, I rarely use it anymore, and purchase the 200-400. I am pretty sure that I can make it to Africa with the 600 II and the 200-400 while leaving the 300 at home. Or not. Yikes!

A final thought on a Southern Ocean trip (aka The Falklands, South Georgia, and possibly Antarctica): the Canon 200-400mm with the internal TC is pretty much perfect for that trip as the birds are both tame and curious. Though I would leave the 600 II at home I would surely have the 300 II along for flight photography and, with the 2X II TC, as a back-up big lens.

As soon as I order my 200-400 I will likely be offering my 500 II for sale….

You can find complete Canon telephoto lens specs here; be sure to bookmark this page for quick reference. The chart now includes data for the new Canon 200-400.

All comments and questions welcome.

ps: I do realize that I am quite blessed to have to deal with such difficult dilemmas.

I would be more than happy to go on those trips with no camera at all ;)

Let us know what your final choices were and if they were the right choices.

Have a great trip(s)

Thanks a stack Shane.

I think the key here is, will you be able to hand hold the 200-400mm? To replace your 300, that'll be a necessity. I suspect it's right on the border of what you can handle, given your shoulder injuries. I'm thinking that, for you, the 15/300/600 combo, with extenders is the way to go.

I hand hold 99.9% of the time with my 500mm S-I. I don't see much utility in the 200-400mm for those that can't hand hold it. There is some flexibility for when something big comes close, but being able to use it for BIF would be one usage where I think it'd shine.

David is very much correct. In my post on the Canon 200-400 here, this is what I wrote:

Another possibility would be to travel with the 200-400 and either the 500 or 600 II while leaving the 300 II at home. I have one very big problem with that. The 300 II is a superb flight lens, one that I can easily hand hold. The 200-400 does of course offer greater flexibility than the 300 II but, and this is a very big but: the 300 II weighs only 5.19 pounds while the 200-400 comes in at a relatively whopping 7.98 pounds, almost three pounds heavier than the new 300. The 200-400 weighs more than the 500 II at 7.04 pounds but less than the 600 II that weighs 8.65 pounds. Call me a wimp if you will, but I can hand hold the 500 II for short periods of time for both flight and routine bird photography. I can hand hold the 600 II only for a few seconds at most for flight photography and barely at all for routine photography. So ix-nay on that idea at least for me.

Besides actual weight, the weight balance is very important for hand-holding. The large zoom lenses are usually front-heavy (like Nikon 200-400) making it difficult to handhold and track fast BIF. AF speed is usually slower than primes too (I have no data though have to wait and see). Also you can't change the zoom or "engage" the TC when tracking BIF handhold.

I think it's a great lens for general purpose wildlife but it is not a specialized lens for birds or flight (it is too short). If you need to travel light 300 II is much lighter and smaller (fits in a backpack and smaller overhead bins). If you are carrying full size gear just take the 600 or 500.

Note that according to Cicala it is bit shorter than spec'ed at the tele end more like 380mm.

Agree on all counts. About the 380mm, I investigated that and learned the following: focal length is measured when focused at infinity. With rear focus zoom lenses like the new 200-400 focal length the "long end" will be shorter when focused closer.

From Chuck Westfall via e-mail:

The article is accurate, it just doesn't say why. Here are a few guidelines:

1. Focal length is technically measured only at infinity.
2. Rear focus zoom lenses effectively increase angle of view in proportion to the distance setting. (The closer the distance, the greater the increase.)
3. The EF200-400L is a rear focus telephoto zoom, and as such, it exhibits similar behavior. (You should expect a viewable difference even at 35 feet.)
4. The super-telephoto primes use inner focus rather than rear focus, so their change in angle of view according to distance is far less than a rear focus zoom lens.

Hey Artie,

yup it's called "focus breathing" it gets worse as focus moves to MFD.

Understood. I just bought one for my Galapagos and Africa trips. It should be great for both. I will bring the 300 II for flight stuff. I may leave the 70-200 at home....

ps: or not....