400mm f5.6 - Why ?

[mb66energy]

Been pondering my long tele options over the last few months... A 100-400mm is looking very likely, but I'm left pondering, why would anyone but the 400mm f5.6 prime ?

Serious question, what does it offer other than being very slightly cheaper and lighter ?

Just another list of pro's for the 5.6/400 for ME:
* IQ (sharpness, contrast) because I want to use it with my 2x TC (mark 1)
* contralight flare rejection (assumed to be better due to the low number of lens elements)
* sturdy construction
* fast reliable AF
* built in lens hood
* I like the idea of a 24mm - 40/50mm - 100mm - 200mm - 400mm prime set since I startet photographing

The prime won against the 100-400 zoom because I really like shooting "perfect" primes. The 70-200 4.0 is an exception because it delivers excellent IQ (except direct contralight situations).

Sometimes I missed the flexibility of a 100-400 zoom because I like to walk with ONE lens / body.

Another point about sharpness/resolution: Under real world conditions the excellent IQ of the prime goes down to roughly 1 MPix when you do landscape photography - due to shimmering atmosphere.

If I were NOW in the situation to decide between the 5.6 400 and the 100-400 I would perhaps wait - if possible - for the mark ii version of the zoom. If it has similar IQ like the prime, a 4x IS system and sells for 2.5 kEuro it would be my choice.

Just my 2ct - Michael

PS: An example of 5.6/400 with 2x TC (mark i) from an HD video with 3x zoom (EOS 600D, 1 sensor pixel = 1 image pixel), effective focal lenght is roughly 4000 mm.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
I also owned the 400mm 5.6L and the reason I choose over the 100-400mm is basically faster AF and cheaper... basically the best budget birding lens out there.

Also, I try hand holding 100-400mm @ 400mm and the IS really didn't help much @ 400mm, so I figure out I'll be need a tripod even if I had the 100-400mm L, so I go for the cheaper option and had been very happy with it.

By the way, the 400mm F5.6L can AF with the new Teleplus Pro 300 DGX (the one with the blue dot) without the tapping trick.... Just that on my 60D, the centre point AF don't work well, but the surrounding AF point work very well and AF quite fast.

Have a nice day.

 

[CarlTN]

Been pondering my long tele options over the last few months... A 100-400mm is looking very likely, but I'm left pondering, why would anyone but the 400mm f5.6 prime ?

Serious question, what does it offer other than being very slightly cheaper and lighter ?

Just another list of pro's for the 5.6/400 for ME:
* IQ (sharpness, contrast) because I want to use it with my 2x TC (mark 1)
* contralight flare rejection (assumed to be better due to the low number of lens elements)
* sturdy construction
* fast reliable AF
* built in lens hood
* I like the idea of a 24mm - 40/50mm - 100mm - 200mm - 400mm prime set since I startet photographing

The prime won against the 100-400 zoom because I really like shooting "perfect" primes. The 70-200 4.0 is an exception because it delivers excellent IQ (except direct contralight situations).

Sometimes I missed the flexibility of a 100-400 zoom because I like to walk with ONE lens / body.

Another point about sharpness/resolution: Under real world conditions the excellent IQ of the prime goes down to roughly 1 MPix when you do landscape photography - due to shimmering atmosphere.

If I were NOW in the situation to decide between the 5.6 400 and the 100-400 I would perhaps wait - if possible - for the mark ii version of the zoom. If it has similar IQ like the prime, a 4x IS system and sells for 2.5 kEuro it would be my choice.

Just my 2ct - Michael

PS: An example of 5.6/400 with 2x TC (mark i) from an HD video with 3x zoom (EOS 600D, 1 sensor pixel = 1 image pixel), effective focal lenght is roughly 4000 mm.

Very nice video still of the moon! At 4000mm, I can certainly see why atmospherics are a factor, and why many astro photographers use video rather than shooting a lot of stills. The shutter vibration would definitely also be a factor at 4000mm...not to mention you get to choose the best shot from hundreds or thousands of frames of video. Nice job! I personally would have sifted out some of the deep aqua sky saturation, whether you think you remember it looking like that to your eye, or not...Also the moon has some subtle yet rich browns and olive green hues if you push its saturation...

 

[mb66energy]

CarlTN, thanks for your comments!

And for the info about astrophotography:
* I never heard that this is a common "method" for good images - but now I remember a talk about
an mathematical method called "triple correlation" to suppress atmosphere effects
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-22-24-4028 (the abstract is helpful as
general information)
They used a sequence of 100 or 1000 images and analyzed the set to gain Hubble-like resolution
without traveling into an orbit ;-)
* I never kept in mind during my video filming about the missing mirror motion - but that is a
good argument. Especially with my 25 year old Manfrotto 190 Pro tripod!
(Now I have a hangup between 190cxpro3 and 055cxpro3 but I think after realizing 4000mm
after your comments I will tend to the sturdier 055cxpro3!)

Michael

 

[CarlTN]

CarlTN, thanks for your comments!

And for the info about astrophotography:
* I never heard that this is a common "method" for good images - but now I remember a talk about
an mathematical method called "triple correlation" to suppress atmosphere effects
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-22-24-4028 (the abstract is helpful as
general information)
They used a sequence of 100 or 1000 images and analyzed the set to gain Hubble-like resolution
without traveling into an orbit ;-)
* I never kept in mind during my video filming about the missing mirror motion - but that is a
good argument. Especially with my 25 year old Manfrotto 190 Pro tripod!
(Now I have a hangup between 190cxpro3 and 055cxpro3 but I think after realizing 4000mm
after your comments I will tend to the sturdier 055cxpro3!)

Michael

Michael, I'm glad I could help in any way. Actually you know a lot more about astrophotography than I do, so I will be happy to learn from you!

I really do like how your image shows very subtle shadows of even the shallow craters present in the center of the image, far away from the sunset shadow part! Impressive because the shadows there are small anyway because the craters are shallow, but then also because the angle of sunlight falling on them, makes the shadows even more slim.

Have you heard any more about the upcoming comet "ISON" that is supposed to be so bright this fall, and how will you photograph it? I hope it's not a dud...it was thought it might be brighter than the full moon!