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.Leeuwarden wrote: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?
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.Leeuwarden wrote: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 ?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
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.Pieter wrote:"Leeuwarden" can you tell me what you mean by this:
Is the 1.4 mk II equal/better to the 1.4 mk III ?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 have, like Iwan, the 1.4 mkI and try to find out if I must go for a newer one.
Regards,
Pieter
wamovements wrote: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!!!!
Richard from Rotterdam wrote:@ 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.
Flabbergasted...Warthog 71 wrote:Same shot, 100% crop
As a member you get access to all our
premium content and benefits learn more