Hands-On Review: the New Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x Lens


Canon has just announced a new telephoto-zoom lens that covers a range of oft-used longer focal lengths and brings with it the quality and usability of their L series lenses: the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x lens. This lens takes the new top spot as the longest zoom lens for EOS cameras and incorporates a constant f/4.0 maximum aperture to provide consistent imaging performance throughout the range of focal lengths. Additionally, a 1.4x teleconverter is integrated into the lens’s design to provide an effective maximum focal length of 560mm. The efficiency of the zoom lens profile coupled with an internal teleconverter is further benefitted by the enhanced optical construction—including a fluorite glass element—as part of the L series of professional-grade lenses.

When I received this lens, the first impression I had was simply how impressive the whole lens and its components felt. It is delivered in a rugged hard case that is form-fit to the lens and includes with it an additional foot to support the lens's use on a monopod. Two straps are included—one for the lens, one for the case—a lens hood, and the lens caps. The whole package conveys an air of importance and excitement that is well-matched to the specifications of the lens; Canon users have been waiting for this lens for a long time.

The lens itself is quite large, weighing just about 8 lb, measuring 14.4” long and 5” in diameter at its widest point. While large, it is designed to suit handheld shooting as most of the controls are easily accessible from the rear of the lens, including stabilizer modes, focus modes, a focus limiter, a focus preset control and the extender control lever. The lens also accepts 52mm drop-in filters, which can be inserted in the rear of the lens via the included drop-in filter holder. On the barrel of the lens are the rubberized zoom and focus rings, the textured playback ring, and the front-most grip ring that incorporates four AF Stop Buttons.

If you're not working handheld, a built-in tripod collar is available that can rotate about the lens to facilitate easier switching from horizontal to vertical orientations. As with other super telephoto and telephoto-zoom L series lenses, this lens features durable construction quality that provides both weather and dust resistance to protect it in the great outdoors. Aside from the security the barrel construction provides, a fluorine coating has also been applied to the front and rear lens elements to shield these susceptible surfaces from fingerprints, smudges and other image-compromising artifacts.

The overall design of this lens places all of these controls in easy-to-reach locations that make handling intuitive and efficient, which benefits working in fast-paced circumstances. I became quickly acquainted with the lens’s layout and was able to navigate all of the controls easily and employ them in the same logical manner as I would the camera body itself. The focus limiter and preset focus control became especially useful while I was out photographing birds and other animals, that would change position quickly and spontaneously, which gave me more freedom to focus my attention on following the subjects and ensuring focus. The focus limiter control gives you the option to work within the full reach of the lens, or override it to focus only within a 2-6 m zone or a 6 m to infinity zone.

The closer-focusing setting was typically more helpful, since it covered such a narrow area of focus and suited working with subjects that moved about the entire composition more quickly. The focus preset control lent itself to working from a stationary position and previsualizing the exact area in which I wanted to photograph a moving subject. I would select this location and focus on it, then press the SET button to have that distance saved. I could then track my subject as it moved to this location and quickly rotate the playback ring to immediately jump to this point of focus and capture the moving subject in sharp focus.

It should also be noted that the general autofocus system functioned rapidly, precisely and reliably. The autofocus system revolves around an inner-focusing mechanism with a ring-type Ultrasonic Motor (USM), which employs piezoelectric ceramic elements to make focusing accurate and quiet. This near-silent performance is especially beneficial for recording video as well as when working in quieter settings. Particularly effective when recording movies is the Power Focus setting, which is controlled via the playback ring when the focus switch is set to PF.

When working with Power Focus, the autofocus motor is driven electronically in a very smooth, silent and controlled motion that eliminates focus jumping or the need to rack back and forth over the desired point of focus, due to the speed that the ring-style focusing provides. Two different focusing speeds are available in this mode and are chosen depending on how much the playback ring is rotated. Besides the range of autofocusing abilities available, this lens also supports manual focusing and has full-time manual-focusing override for fine-tuning the focus of an image after the AF system has already performed.

In addition to the focusing system of the 200-400mm f/4L, three distinct optical stabilizer modes are also available for rendering sharp imagery, albeit by minimizing the appearance of camera shake that becomes increasingly noticeable when working with lenses of this length as well as in dimly lit conditions. The three modes are selectable via a switch on the side of the lens, and all provide support to account for up to four shutter-speed steps of camera shake, which allows greater handholding potential with this lens.

The first mode is the standard stabilizer mode, which will correct for vibrations from all directions and is most suited for working with stationary or slow-moving subjects. The second mode is a more dynamic type of stabilizer that corrects for vertical shake during lateral panning shots and for horizontal shake when panning vertically. The third stabilizer mode functions the same as the second one does; however, it will only provide these benefits at the point of exposure—this allows for better tracking of more irregularly and fast-moving subjects, since there is no lag for the stabilization system to perform constantly. The other two stabilization modes will produce a stabilized image in the viewfinder to aid more careful compositions. Image stabilization can also be completely disengaged for instances where it can possibly be counterproductive, such as when working with your camera mounted on a tripod.

Both the focusing and stabilization mechanisms work together to benefit the most crucially designed aspect of this lens: its optical construction. One fluorite and four UD (Ultra Low Dispersion) elements are integrated into the lens’s makeup to provide an effective reduction in chromatic aberration and color fringing throughout the entire zoom range, leading to imagery with notable clarity, sharpness and resolution. Additionally, lens coatings have been applied to select elements to further improve image quality by reducing flare, ghosting and surface reflections to render images with vivid contrast and color neutrality.

This optimized optical design improves imaging performance throughout the zoom range, and when the 1.4x extender is in place, giving way to an effective focal-length range of 280-560mm. This bit of extra reach was especially crucial when photographing smaller targets from greater distances. By being able to toggle between having the extender locked in or out of place, you could use the 400mm setting to generally frame your shot, then quickly flip to 1.4x prior to releasing the shutter. When working from the native focal-length range—200-400mm—the constant f/4.0 maximum aperture provides consistent performance for lower light and selective-focus control. When the extender is seated, the maximum aperture is narrowed to an effective f/5.6. The diaphragm is constructed from nine rounded blades to form a nearly circular aperture, which helps to render out-of-focus backgrounds with a pleasing quality and out-of-focus highlights that take on an aesthetic circular shape.

The most enjoyable aspect of working with this lens was how seamlessly it was able to oscillate between different settings on the lens and truly utilize all of its features in a short span of time. This effectiveness and intuitive quality meant that I was up and shooting in no time, as if I had been accustomed to working with this lens for a significantly longer period of time. This handling ability is also especially useful when you're working with moving and spontaneous subject matter, when you have little time to get a shot off, let alone worry about a variety of camera or lens settings to adjust.

The lens is certainly aimed at those who need the ability to work quickly and deftly, and aside from the handling and speed afforded by it, the lens is also capable of producing imagery of the highest quality. The array of low-dispersion elements, fluorite and USD, coupled with the optimized optical structure and lens coatings resulted in imagery that left little to be desired. As with other L series lenses, the quality of imagery, overall performance, and design of the lens is suitable for any working situation, and the added benefit of this lens being able to produce such imagery with the convenience of both a zoom design and integrated 1.4x extender make it truly an effective tool that is ideally situated for sports, wildlife and nature photography.

For more information on this and other Canon lenses, speak with a B&H sales professional at our New York SuperStore, over thephone at 1-800-606-6969 or online via Live Chat.

Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x Lens
  When internal extender is
set at 1x
When internal extender is
set at 1.4x
Focal Length 200-400mm 280-560mm
Maximum Aperture f/4.0 f/5.6
Minimum Aperture f/32 f/45
Lens Construction 25 elements in 20 groups 33 elements in 24 groups
Angle of View (Diagonal) 12° - 6°10' 8°50' - 4°25'
Minimum Focusing Distance 6.6' / 2m 6.6' / 2m
Maximum Magnification 0.15x (at 400mm) 0.21x (at 560mm)
Field of View 6.2 x 9.25" / 157 x 235mm
(at 6.6' / 2 m)
4.4 x 6.5" / 111 x 166mm
(at 6.6' / 2 m)
Filter Size 52 (WII)-series drop-in filter 52 (WII)-series drop-in filter
Dimensions 5 x 14.4" / 12.8 x 36.6 cm 5 x 14.4" / 12.8 x 36.6 cm
Weight 8 lb / 3.6 kg 8 lb / 3.6 kg

Add new comment

I for one would love to see a comparison of this lens and the Olympus 75-300 (150-600 equivalent) on an Oly OM-D.
The Oly rig is under 2 pounds and $1500. The lens is $500. Are the images from this 8 pounder really 20 times better? At 2 pounds with IS in the camera I can shoot the OM D hand held all day. At 8 pounds plus a body I am going to need a monopod, and a Sherpa. Dunno. I am a long time Canon AND Oly user and I am not rushing to get my credit card...

There is a saying, It's better to sell 100 hot dogs for a dallar then one for 20....I am not a marketing guerue , but if the lens was closure to $5000-$6000 I bet Canon would sell more and in turn make more money off it. If it was in that ball park, I'd be tempted to get one, but for now I'll stick with my 300 2.8 and 500 4.0 is's. Like other's may feel, it seems this lens may fill a nitch for some and get the shot while someone else is switching to a teleconverter or another lens in the traditional manner??....I imagine this internal teleconverter idea is something we may see more of in the future? Glad Canon does not sell hot dogs.....

with a limited one year warenty, why would anyone buy a $11,000 lens. I can say only one word, "RENT!"

At 8+lbs, There will be a lot of lop-sided photographers recovering from a day walking around with it. Although if you can afford the lens, have a 'lens sous' lug it around for you.

It's huge!

So... !! First how many callers will get one as free giveaway?? Oh! Wait! My birthday is around end of this month !!

Why bother showing this lens on a public website. If you don't work for the New York Times it means nothing. Virtually all of Canon's new L lens are so expensive they are out of reach of serious amateurs.

You are underselling the lens by showcasing these sample shots. I know the shots need not to be Pulitzer-worthy but the photographer here seem to have put the least amount of effort to get the shots...I mean, look at the 6th photo...to quote Seth Meyers: "Really?!"

It looks very nice, but the image quality looks not great, the 8 Pound weight is challenge for hand hold shooting too. the price also too high compare to canon 400mm F4.0 DO lens.

The image quality of sample photographs on online reviews is rarely indicative of lens quality. Many reviewers show laziness as their main attribute. Review after review of various lenses ( from both Canon and Nikon) appear to show 'so-so' images as one person here has called the samples for 200-400.

Look at the reviews of Andy Rouse and Joshua Holka (to name two) to see what this lens is capable of.

One can understand that expensive lenses (which covers all super telephotos really) are beyond many people's reach, which is a pity but to run down a lens or the company that makes it ONLY on this criteria is not fair. Canon like any other company (and that includes Nikon) is in the business to make money PERIOD To expect anything different is naïveté .

However any serious comments on this camera must stick to whether it will seriously offer an alternative to a couple of ( if not more) high priced telephoto primes in one's kit. The answer to that alone can justify the decision to buy it and . . . Canon's temerity to price it this high.

By and large, those who have used it over extended periods, mostly during the six months of per-launch usage trials Canon conducted, appear to give it a resounding thums up. To doubt these photographers might be understandable even for those wanting to own it. For them the way out is to try and rent one when available for renting before deciding whether to buy or not.

Till then bad-mouthing the company or those who have reviewers and praised the lens to heavens is unfair to put it mildly.

Just for the record, I own both the 300 f/2.8 mk ii and the 500 f/4 mk ii and have just placed the order for the 200-400. I plan to sell the 500 but keep the 300 due to its being in a different class on account of weight and Han-holdability. I might, I suspect, become more comfortable with a monopod over time and use the 200-400 for the 300mm focal length more and more. In such an event I just might find myself using the 300 f/2.8 much less. But I need to find that out and decide about that awesome lens only then.

So expensive, so heavy and so, so shots!........I suppose the tripod collar is $500 more! Yikes!

At 11K, Canon has better options, the 400mm 2.8L would be a better buy. Nothing represents colours better than a good fast prime lens.

Given the price I'll stick with my 100-400 IS with my 1.4X I can use with other lens. Lighter too.

Wow...almost $12,000 when the Nikon 200-400 - tried, trusted and well-proven is under $7000. OK, so add $500 for a TC14E 1,4x teleconverter...less than 7.5k! Gotta be something magic about this lens! Or not. (Its taken Canon a long time to iron out the wrinkles...this must have been announcved two years ago, right?

For $11,000 you sure did not do a very good job at this shots.
Maybe it's the lens that lacks that wow factor. Anyways I'm hoping
Pophoto.com and Review.com do a better review besides telling me what the controls do.

Could you send me one to try out?

Be just like trading cars to own one... you'd have to be a well paid pro or a tester to ever afford one... We can all dream though...

The adjustable range of 200-400 is good but that is about it. You can purchase a 400mm DO and an extender to boot for much less than this. Waaaay too over priced in my opinion!

While the review overall sounds pretty good, the photo's posted detract from any positive elements mentioned by appearing to have been shot from a point and shoot camera...
If you want to showcase what the lens will capture and how it will capture it, put some work into that part of it. As the saying goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words" and right now I'm going to myself, Meh, why would I spend that kind of money to get these type results? I got better results than that with the 70-300 kit lens that came with my first camera years ago..I have the 70-200 2.8 and the 28-300 f3.5-5.6 and the f-4 500 and all of them perform superbly, I would assume that this one will as well.
But based on these photo's why would anyone who doesn't have any experience with good Canon lenses even try it?

I agree with Larry. Shoulda let me test it for a few days.

Absolutely agree with you. These pics don't say any thing about the lens.

Just looking at these sample shots, well, I believe I can take as good if not better pictures with my Canon Power Shot SX50 HS, and it only costs $449.00

I can not believe this was posted by B&H as a review. it is certainly not up to the usual B&H standards. These are snapshots not pictures. If you want to see a real review of what this lens is capable of, look here.


Great review and the images match the expectations one would have of this lens at that price. I'm not sure anyone is accessing your review however as most of the posts following yours are still fixated on the 'snapshots' from BH. ;) Thanks for taking the time to post.

Great review Andy and yes you did that lens Justice which is something I can't say for B&H. If they stick with that review with those images Nikon stock will go way up and they will never sell one of these lens. Just goes to show that it's not just equipment , but the photographer as well!

Thanks for showing the capabilities of this lens. Your photos are beautiful. Your comments about not comparing Canon and Nikon are right on.
I like B&H reviews and the photos that they show don't compare to the one you took. I really like their article otherwise.

I agree with the previous comments. This lens is overpriced, compared to its competitors (Nikon, Olympus, etc.), and too heavy and bulky for handholding. The photos represented here by the tester are amateurish, at best, and should be deleted immediately. These photos can only hurt the sales of this lens.
Finally, it should be noted that most pros won't have to shell out real cash money for this lens because Canon will make it available for free as a loaner at major sporting events. Only well-heeled nature photographers and videographers can afford to buy this lens.

This review is useless. I am intrigued by the lens but the images here are lousy and the review seems very basic. How well can you shoot this hand held? At this weight, that has to be a big challenge, but I would like to know.

8 pounds? They must be kidding. Must be designed for pros (who will sign one out from a pool) who have assistants to lug this around. I'll stick with my 100-400.

For $11.799,00 you can get:
- Nikon 200-400 f/4 = $6.999,00
- Nikon D800 (30+ Mpixels) = $2.799,95
- AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Refurbish: $2156,00

In the end, you just switch from Canon to Nikon and spent $11.954,95 or $155,95 more than this Canon lens.

Do the math. And I though Nikon was crazy to ask $17.999,00 for their 800mm f/5.6

Looks to me both, Canon and Nikon are overcharging every pro lens so they can get enthusiastic amateurs to pay the pro sponsorship.. No way

I have to agree with all of the others about the poor quality of the example photos you chose to show, howver I didn't think that it was the biggest issue here. I've been waiting a lng time for Canon to come out with an alternaative to their 100- 400 zoom. Rather than to force me to go to Nikon and use their 200-400 lens. Now they are making it clear that they would like us all to switch. Why would I givee them my 11k$ when for the same amount I came get a Nikon D800 thier 200- 400 lens and one or more other lenses. Where's the value guys? Oh yeh, it's in those great pictures you took for us B & H. Thanks guys. Some times more is less. If my car tells me what time it is and my cell phone tells me what time it is, why do I need a Rollex?

I agree with all the other comments -- heavy, $$$, lousy images. What I want to know is where the extra eight! elements hide when not using the extender.

I don't know if it's just the jpg, but these images look like they were made at short distance with one of those plastic lens pocket shooters. I don't see the point in giving this as an L lens image of that bird - there's no three-dimensionality, nothing but 'it's a such-and-such bird' imaging. Nothing at all like what i'm getting with my 180 L lens. Data gathering for people who don't really need too much data?

This is the most beautiful lens I'll never buy.

INTERESTING, but what Nikon and Canon or perhaps Sigma should market is a 500/5.6 VRII/IS/OSII lens, far fewer lens elements for better sharpness and light transmission, overall definitely lighter, and hopefully much less expensive! With the newer EF bodies or the Nikon D7100, one could still use a 1.4X TC, for 700 mm, plus the 1.5X or 1.6X lens multiplier factor, for the equivalent of 1050 to 1120 mm. I would think that Sigma could make such a lens for around $2500. I think it would sell very well!

Dear Valued customers: While this lens might be costly for some of you, we do know that many photographers have been eagerly anticipating its arrival. In our haste to bring this information to you, we rushed to get images posted after having the lens in our possession for only a few hours. We sincerely apologize for not demonstrating the range and versatility of this lens more completely, and for the inadequate photos we published in the article. New photos will be coming soon and we appreciate everyone who took the time to comment on the article.

That makes a lot more sense and as a canon user I am very glad you did. I have a 3 day Miniature Indoor Horse Show this weekend and if you can get me that lens here I will be more than happy to match that bad boy up to my 1DX and show you what it can do :)

If Canon market's this at $11k+, I will be making the switch to Nikon. As a pro-sports shooter, it is the right focal length at the wrong price point. I can pick up the Nikon glass much cheaper and the Nikon strobe system works much more consistently than the Canon strobes. IMO this will be a BIG mistake for Canon.

If the Nikon lens is all you need then switch, my guess is that this lens will be optically superior, especially whn racked out to 400mm. I also find this lens far more convenient with the built in extender. And useful especially since the Nikon 200-400 doesn't play with converters well in my opinion,.. Not unlike the 70-200vr 1.

I think Canon has the lens priced in the right ball park for its target demographic, and relative to the pricing assigned to the other Canon superteles. Just like high quality photography... If you want it, pay for it. ;)

Before you jump across, do some maths...I did and quickly changed my mind!
Depending on what your system looks like, it might be false economy....
Like anything else which has two iconic brands in the market...Mercedes or BMW / Nissan or Toyota / M.A.N. or Mercedes and the same also goes for Canon or NIKON...
They keep leap-frogging each other but really the quality is generally awesome for both...
However, with this 200mm - 400mm f4+1.4X is in a league of it's own....At the moment...
Will NIKON try to improve on it? Most definitely..... Then Canon will leapfrog them and the game will contue....
This is really one very awesome piece of kit and if you can afford it, good luck to you.... If not, the people shouldn't try to obfuscate their "lust" or envy with non-sensical argument..

I agree that this lens is VERY expensive. I was able to use a prototype at the London Olympics and it was amazing. As crazy as it might seem, I think it might be worth the money, saving me carrying around more lenses. I can see using this one lens for most of my sports shooting, regardless of how close I am to the action (unless I am in 16mm or 100mm range).

You can see my post from the Olympics at:


Sorry new canon ,but I have a mach beter combination and at half price! Canon 200 F 2 + 1.4 and 2 Extenders (280 f 2.8 and 400 f 4)!!! B*

I suppose if you fancy putting teleconverters on and off your lens then the 200 f/2 may work for you. For others shooting action portraits, aerial photography, or political events, wasting time to put an extender on or off the lens is ridiculous.

It doesn't take genius to figure out that 560mm isn't a lot of reach on a full frame body. Face it, it's not a wildlife lens no matter what Canon says, it's a lens that fills a gap that many photographers can make use of. Just like the 400 f/2.8 fills a need for many photographers. If you don't need it, then you don't need it- however many other photographers will find the lens perfect for their work.

This lens will even increase in usefulness when Canon brings for a higher resolution pro body. Depending on the res (and subject matter), this lens could allow many photographers to skip the 600mm for the convenience of a zoom.

Try not to be so short sighted, many people have needs far different than yours.

@Teila K.Day... I have to respectfully say that your comment that this is NOT a wildlife lens, has to prove that you are not experienced about shooting in the wild....

The appeal of having a range from 200mm through to 560mm (1DX) or 260mm to 728mm (1D Mkiv) or even 320mm to 896mm (7D)is simply mind blowing to be able to compose a shot with very little time to waste...

I usually shoot 1D Mkiv + 500f4 + 1.4X plus 1DMkiv + 70mm-200mm f2.8 Mkii + 2X and a 7D + 18mm-200mm.... I can now hang my new 200mm-400 f4+1.4X on the end of the 7D and the 70mm-200 f2.8 on one of the 1D Mkiv's and get a very versatile range when working in open areas...

If I am working in more confined areas , at a closer range I drop down to a a 1 D Mkiv + 200mm-400mm f4 plus a 1D Mkiv + 70mm-200mm f2.8 as is....

Three bodies are a real handful and I have had to build a special rack in my game viewer vehicle to accommodate that lot.Not to mention having to rip Velcro to release the big gun and make a real noise, usually scaring the birds / animals.... Now I can place both "whites" on the special centre console, under a towel and draw quicker than John Wayne ever imagined!

Truth be told....The new lens cost the price of a small car or one decent safari!

If you were offered a 200mm-400f4+1.4X at say US$ 5,000.00... Would you still feel the same way about this lens? ;-)

Plenty experience behind big glass and for me and many others, unless you're shooting large animals, a 200-400 lens (even with the 1.4x built in) is a bit of a stretch, especially with birds on a FF body. It will be less of a detriment with higher resolute body of course. For me, it doesn't have enough reach for a hard core wildlife lens, and like most shooting a 200-400 (Nikon) with or without a TC, you spend a lo of time with the lens racked out to the larger focal lengths on a 1.5 crop, let alone a FF body. Been there done that. You were presumptuous about my opinion of the lens however. :)

What do I think about the lens? I love it and will consider it at its current price point which I think is reasonable. The lens fits nicely between the 600 and 400 primes + you get zoom capability. For what I mostly shoot (2 legged animals) the lens is very enticing for location work.

So to answer your question... Yes, if the lens was offered at $5k, I'd feel exactly the same about the lens as I do now. What does price have to do with the usefulness of the lens? Either it fits my needs or it doesn't, irrespective of what Canon calls the lens.

My point was, FF shooters better be prepared to crop if you only have this lens to shoot wildlife that isn't in a zoo.
No matter if Canon calls it a "wildlife" lens or not. Canon cracks me up with their labels... They also made me chuckle with their line about the 1Dx bridging the 1Ds and 1D lines. Hogwash I say. That's marketing fluff. The reality is that the 1Dx is just a temporary plug until Canon releases a proper high res body to replace the aging 1Ds.

The 200-400-1.4? ... No more a wildlife lens than it is a glamour/fashion/portrait lens. Whatever works for what you're shooting at the time and place you're shooting it. That's the bottom line. I skipped the 200-400 on my Nikons because it offered little reach- I am interested in the Canon version for my Canon(s) as it offers a better useful focal range without fiddling with teleconverters/extenders.

Best in photography to you

With due respects Teila, one tends to disagree on use ability for wildlife. Most people are okay with the 500 f/4 for wildlife(remember I said most) I was and am. A 300 f/2.8 and the 500 f/4 (both newer versions) sufficed for me. It was for birds that one found the need, every now and then for more reach.

I have ordered the 200-400 to try and I hope I will carry just this one lens for wildlife (with my 70-200 f/2.8 on another body for all else). For birds, where irrespective of what reach you have, one keeps wanting more, I am hoping a new version of the 800 will come sooner rather than later.

But I do expect the 200-400 to help me replace my present load of the 300 f/2.8 and the 500 f/4. I am planning to keep the 300 because it is in a different class in weight (besides being such an awesome lens in every which way) and use it for the many occasions where it's reach is enough although, I suspect I may use it less and less if I get used to using the 200-400 on a monopod and am willing to forego the hand-hold ability of the 300


Nobody is seeing the advantage of having an extra 160 mm just in one click, though I am not a wildlife photographer, but I think when it is needed, it worth saving the time adding an extender to get the shot!

I agree with Terry, where the extra eight elements hide when not using the extender!

Really? The lens was shipped to Bjorn in Africa and he just scuttled out to find a lion in the grass? You could have done so much better. I had a hard time believing that the sleepy lion was shot with the lens at all.

This lens is garbage and provides no further optical advantage over the 75-300mm USM Canon lens

Dead fact.