I think $12,000 is a lot for a lens that probably doesn't have as good image quality as any high end fixed focal length prime lens.

A Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4 costs maximum $1,500. A 1.4 teleconverter from Nikon costs $500. Put that lens on a D7100 and its a 450mm equivalent. Put the teleconverter and the lens on a D7100 and it's a 675mm equivalent. I'll bet the image quality on this $2,000 combo is better than the Canon super zoom. You've still got $10,000 left over to buy a whole slew of expensive camera bodies or even a Nikkor 600mm f/4.

I can see the usefulness of not having to carry around a lot of heavy glass, but it would still be cheaper to hire a porter for those days (especially in Africa) and get better image quality all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
I think $12,000 is a lot for a lens that probably doesn't have as good image quality as any high end fixed focal length prime lens.

A Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4 costs maximum $1,500. A 1.4 teleconverter from Nikon costs $500. Put that lens on a D7100 and its a 450mm equivalent. Put the teleconverter and the lens on a D7100 and it's a 675mm equivalent. I'll bet the image quality on this $2,000 combo is better than the Canon super zoom. You've still got $10,000 left over to buy a whole slew of expensive camera bodies or even a Nikkor 600mm f/4.

I can see the usefulness of not having to carry around a lot of heavy glass, but it would still be cheaper to hire a porter for those days (especially in Africa) and get better image quality all the time.

That Canon is too big and heavy. The aforementioned 300 f/4 and 1.4 converter is a better idea. I might even go to the 300 f2.8.

In my perfect world I would add the 20-200 VRII lens. With those two lenses you can cover almost every situation and have plenty of money left over for ammo and gas for the Land Rover.

I've owned the Nikon 300 f4 you referenced and while it's a nice lens the IQ isn't up to that of my Nikon 200-400 f4 and I assume the IQ of the news Canon lens is, at least, as good as my Nikon.

And I did try the 1.4X extender and the drop-off in IQ was very noticeable and the lens focused MUCH slower on both my D3s and D300s.

The 300mm f4 is a very good lens for a parent to shoot kid's soccer but don't confuse it with a pro quality lens.

And please don't try and compare any zoom lens - even the great Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR II, with any of these three lenses --- the Nikon 200mm f2, the 300mm f2.8 or the 400mm f2.8 - and I love my 70-200 f2.8.

The dealer has kindly promised to lend it to me for a few days when he gets one.

I will try it and let you all know.

Saeed,

I have seen some tests and reviews that indicate that the image quality is as good as prime lenses. What was your experience?

for $12,000 I WOULD HOPE SO!

All the hands-on reviews by pro photographers about this new Canon lens have been nothing but spectacular. This lens is designed for professional wildlife and sports photographers
who want the extra reach but do not want to carry a bunch of lenses.

In reality all the bases are covered with this lens from 200mm out to nearly 800mm. Buying several of the Canon L lenses to cover this range would cost nearly as much.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
Saeed,

I have seen some tests and reviews that indicate that the image quality is as good as prime lenses. What was your experience?

I was given one to test just before going on safari, so have not had any chance to use it.

I would have taken it to Tanzania if I did not have so much to carry already.

I will try getting on and see how it works.

Here are some photo samples taken with the Canon lens by a UK photographer:
http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/?page_id=174

Andy Rouse avoids making any comparison with the Nikon 200-400mm, but DxO Mark gives them both the same overall rating, with a score of 21, when the Canon is used on the EOS 1D Mark III and the Nikon on the D3X. The Canon has a marginally better sharpness score of 17p-mpx as compared to Nikon's 15p-mpx. When the Nikon lens is used on the D800 body it gets an overall score of 25 and the sharpness goes up to 17p-mpx.

Basically, the two 200-400mm lenses give the same performance in the 200-400mm range, with a slight edge to the Nikon when used on a D800 body.

Neither of them are close to the Nikon or Canon 400mm f/2.8 prime lenses with scores of around 30 when used on camera bodies having the highest resolution.

Conclusion: the huge difference in price gives you the semi-automatic change in focal length, adding to speed and versatility since you don't have to stop and add the teleconvertor to your lens. It might be worth it to a professional photographer.

who will pay 11.800$ or this lens. No noe privat person with a normal paycheek .
hunt safe
wisent

quote:

Originally posted by wisent:
who will pay 11.800$ or this lens. No noe privat person with a normal paycheek .
hunt safe
wisent

I don't know, some people will pay a lot more than that for a wristwatch that doesn't keep better time than a Casio.

I got a chance to have one of these lenses in my hands a couple of days ago at the Salon de Photo in Paris. These are very big lenses, so big and heavy that I wouldn't want to handhold it. It was displayed on a Gitzo tripod with a Wimberly Sidekick head. The Wimberly head is most likely the best solution to keeping this lens steady, but travelling with this kind of gear would mean that you are travelling on a photo safari, not a hunting safari.