F55: Test footage with F55 and Canon 200-400mm f/4

Doug Jensen

Doug Jensen

Carbonite Member
I bought a Canon 200-400 f/4 zoom lens this week, and decided to go out and see how it performed by shooting some stock footage around the area where I live. This lens has a unique built-in 1.4x teleconverter that transforms it into a 280-560mm f/5.6 lens with the flip of a lever. In addition, the Sony PMW-F55 has a mode called "Center Crop" that essentially doubles the focal length of any lens when shooting HD (not 4K). So this Canon lens can be used to mimic a 560-1120mm f/5.6 zoom. The footage in this video is a mixture of all those different modes and focal lengths.


Camera: Sony PMW-F55
Codec: 4K XAVC @ 30 or 60 fps, and 2K XAVC @ 180 fps
Lens: Canon 200-400 f/4 with 1.4x converter

 
Do guys know how the 100-400mm L IS II compares to this at 1/5 the price? This is a big premium with a shorter range and not much aperture change either so I wonder what's special here? (aside from the slight iris ramp whilst zooming + internal vs. external teleconverter)
 
I don't know much about the 100-400mm, and it is probably a good lens for the price, but I'm not interested in a good lens for the price. I need a lens that will do what I need it to do, regardless of price, and that lens won't. Here's why I would not be interested in 100-400.

1) The aperture is not constant through the zoom range. Not only is that a hassle when shooting, it also is a sure sign of a second tier lens. I won't own any lens that does not have a constant maximum aperture.

2) f/5.6 at 400mm isn't fast enough.

3) I don't need a lens that can zoom out to 100mm.

4) There is no rear filter slot on the 100-400.

5) The 200-400 has a built-in 1.4x teleconverter, so the lens is really a 200-560mm. 560mm makes this lens 40% longer than the 100-400mm, which is significant. Yes, you can add a 1.4x converter to the 100-400, but then you've got an f/8 lens with inferior optics -- not to mention the extreme hassle of taking it on and off out in the field.

6) The 200-400 will hold most of it's value and will be easy to sell if I need to. I did not spend $11000 on a lens, I invested $11000 in a lens that will only slightly depreciate.

I'm sure the 100-400mm is a fine lens and would fit the needs of some people, but for me, it would make a poor choice because it wouldn't do what I need it to do.
 
Last edited:
I own the 100-400mm, and it's a fine lens: very sharp, highly flare resistant, and with excellent contrast and color rendition. But I still covet the 200-400mm for all the reasons Doug Jensen mentioned. The more expensive 200-400mm is a stop faster at the long end, has a constant aperture, and has that super convenient built-in, matched extender, all features that make it more suitable for video work. In fact, I use my 100-400mm much more for stills.

Is the 200-400mm worth five times as much? For me, at this time, no, not to own, because I wouldn't use it enough to justify the difference in cost; but I would happily rent one if a specific job required it, and there are certainly things it can do that the 100-400mm isn't capable of. The images Doug captured certainly illustrate some of these. On the other hand, the 100-400mm has made some lovely pictures for me, and is certainly worth having, whether or not you can also afford the bigger and more expensive lens.

- Greg
 
We have a 100-400 also and it's been really good for stock footage. Very sharp with excellent contrast as Greg said above.
 
Thanks, Dennis. I always appreciate your feedback.

Here's some more footage using the 200-400mm this week with various types of grading -- just for the hell of it. Very foggy day. I estimate the ship was still about 1.5 miles away in the first few shots. There's an ungraded shot at about 4:40 that really illustrates what you can pull out of an S-LOG signal. This happened to be RAW, but I don't think XAVC would have been much different.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top