Canon 400mm f/5.6 L

[Jemlnlx]

Looking into a super telephoto. I have my 70-200 F/4 IS which is great. I have rented to 100-400mm L which is found to be great, just not as sharp as I would like it to be at 400. I figure the 400L with a monopod should make for some good birding shots...Any experience?

And yes, I saw a few past postings but they are all over a year old...

 

[dolina]

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2849.0.html

 

[mwh1964]

Go with what you found great the 100-400 zoom. There is no difference in f stop compared to the prime, you get more flexibility, IS and thus better resell price once you would opt for a big white. I went for the 70-300 L which is a far more modern lens and will give you 480mm on a crop. Also I find the 70-200 L plus 2xextender a very useful option but of course also more expensive. Good luck choosing.

 

[Lenscracker]

I have this 400mm lens, but I seldom use it. It is very sharp. The numbers on it are right up there with the $10, 000 lenses. The problem I have with it is the lack of IS. Most of the time I will opt for my 300mm f4 L IS lens because I can hold it still enough to get a sharp picture. I use the IS even while on a tripod.
The 400 5.6 L lens is extremely difficult for me to use even with a tripod. I would not attempt to use this lens with a monopod. I am sure others can do it, and I even read where people use it handheld for BIF, but I can't do it. I have four very good tripods that I choose from depending on the situation, but this lens needs sandbagged onto Gibralter.

 

[Duckman]

Looking into a super telephoto. I have my 70-200 F/4 IS which is great. I have rented to 100-400mm L which is found to be great, just not as sharp as I would like it to be at 400. I figure the 400L with a monopod should make for some good birding shots...Any experience?

And yes, I saw a few past postings but they are all over a year old...

I have it and I think it's worth the money... I always found the autofocus snappy and accurate on my 7D and 5Diii. It's surprisingly light and I handheld shooting is no problem at all(with sufficient shutter speeds ) and on a mono pod would be even more forgiving. IS at these focal lengths is key, but not necessary. If you want quality reach on the "cheap"... I think it's a really good option.

 

[9VIII]

I have seen this lens referred to as the best choice, bar none, for handheld shots of birds in flight.
This lens was the primary reason I have a Canon system and not Nikon, essentially there is nothing like it. You will not find more reach for the money (at least not something with comparable AF, the Sigma 400f5.6 Macro is a better lens otherwise).

When I was doing my pre-purchase research the best information I could find indicates that the 400f5.6 prime is slightly sharper (especially in the corners), and probably focuses a little faster than the 100-400. It is definitely an improvement, but not a world of difference like getting a big white would be. If you like the zoom aspect of the 100-400, I would get that. If you only find yourself using the lens at 400mm and cropping after, then go ahead and get the 400mm prime.

 

[Jemlnlx]

Thanks for all the responses. I did like the 100-400 as previously mentioned, but I found myself like many, going to 100 or 400.

I have read opinions on the lack of IS and have found mixed reviews. On one end, its 400mm, where's the IS, hello!! and on the other end, most cameras these days, are capable of great results at ISO 1600, 3200 and higher, so shooting handheld at 1/1000 or with a monopod at 1/400 isn't too far fetched.

I have also heard that this lens is corner to corner sharp at wide open (5.6), which helps.

I have also tried the Sigma 120-400mm OS which had fair reviews, but I found it to be (my copy at least) not sharp enough, and soft, especially at 400mm.

I might pull the trigger on the 400mm 5.6, the good thing about buying gear is that most of it holds value pretty well. I can buy something in good used condition (i.e. $925 for a UZ copy of the 400 5.6, box and all), shoot around with it for a month or two and resell it and will most likely break even, or even make a few $$.

 

[Don Haines]

Thanks for all the responses. I did like the 100-400 as previously mentioned, but I found myself like many, going to 100 or 400.

I have read opinions on the lack of IS and have found mixed reviews. On one end, its 400mm, where's the IS, hello!! and on the other end, most cameras these days, are capable of great results at ISO 1600, 3200 and higher, so shooting handheld at 1/1000 or with a monopod at 1/400 isn't too far fetched.

I have also heard that this lens is corner to corner sharp at wide open (5.6), which helps.

I have also tried the Sigma 120-400mm OS which had fair reviews, but I found it to be (my copy at least) not sharp enough, and soft, especially at 400mm.

I might pull the trigger on the 400mm 5.6, the good thing about buying gear is that most of it holds value pretty well. I can buy something in good used condition (i.e. $925 for a UZ copy of the 400 5.6, box and all), shoot around with it for a month or two and resell it and will most likely break even, or even make a few $$.

I have the Sigma 120-400 F5.6. It is nowhere near as sharp as the 400F5.6 from Canon and considerably heavier. The 70-200F2.8 and a 2X teleconverter will give you better results than the sigma 120-400....

I have used the Canon 400F5.6 and really like it. I wish it had IS but by leaning against a tree or something else solid you can greatly increase the stability of the lens. I keep thinking of upgrading to it, but the desire for IS is holding me back.... If they come out with an upgraded model with IS and even better optics I will be first in line to get one.

I am also waiting to hear/see some reviews on the upcoming Tamron 150-600. I expect it's sharpness to not be as good as the Canon.... but time will tell.

 

[mackguyver]

I used it for years and once mastered, it's an incredible lens. The color, contrast, and sharpness are incredible. You must use a tripod for best results, but it works handheld for bird in flight shots, and any time you can get 1/800+ shutter speeds. 1/400 is sketchy at this focal length. Also, I have done some tests with the 70-200 2.8 IS II and 400 5.6. It's quite close to the 400 5.6 at 400mm at f/5.6, closer still a f/8 but still not as sharp.

It's hands down the best super telephoto for the money and if you can live without IS, I wouldn't hesitate to buy it.

 

[Sebring5]

I used the Canon 400mm f/5.6 for a long time until I discovered what the Sigma 150-500mm could do. I've heard the Sigma 50-500mm is even sharper. I've moved on to the Sigma 300-800mm and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 but you should consider the 500mm zooms from Sigma at this price point. IS is unimportant if you shoot with a tripod or use a shutter speed of 1/focal length of the lens or faster. I have IS on the 120-300mm but I turn it off.

 

[mackguyver]

I used the Canon 400mm f/5.6 for a long time until I discovered what the Sigma 150-500mm could do. I've heard the Sigma 50-500mm is even sharper. I've moved on to the Sigma 300-800mm and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 but you should consider the 500mm zooms from Sigma at this price point. IS is unimportant if you shoot with a tripod or use a shutter speed of 1/focal length of the lens or faster. I have IS on the 120-300mm but I turn it off.

I'm not sure where you heard that, but the (low-end) Sigma zooms are not even remotely close to the 400 5.6 - here's the 400 compared to the 150-500 compared @400mm, wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=683&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
The Canon is sharp from center to corners with just a hair of CA, while the Sigma is blurry mush with CA from mid-frame to the corners.

The Sigma 120-300 is a huge step up from the 150-500, but at 420mm with the Sigma 1.4x it's still not as sharp as the 400 5.6, even stopped down to 5.6:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=3
The 120-300 is a fine lens, but if you want a sharp lens at 400mm, you can't beat the 400 5.6. The only lenses that are sharper at the focal length are the 300 2.8 IS II + 1.4x III ($7,299) or the 400 2.8 IS II ($10,999). Even the 200 2 IS + 2x III and 400 DO aren't as sharp.

The 400 5.6 is by far the best 400mm for the money and gives professional results.

 

[Canon1]

This is a great lens when you have plenty of light. It is not a low light lens. I do most of my shooting around sunrise and sunset so this lens does not work well for what I do.

I prefer my 100-400 over the 400 because the IS really helps. I can shoot at 1/125 of a sec and get very sharp images. With the 400 I needed to shoot at 1/400 min but 1/640 and 1/800 to get sharp images. (Handheld).

The 100-400 is really a sharp lens (if you get a good copy) and most importantly have it AFMA calibrated. Did you calibrate the copy you used?

Both lenses are great and have their place. I think the biggest consideration between these two is how strong the light is that you plan to use it in.

 

[Don Haines]

I used the Canon 400mm f/5.6 for a long time until I discovered what the Sigma 150-500mm could do. I've heard the Sigma 50-500mm is even sharper. I've moved on to the Sigma 300-800mm and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 but you should consider the 500mm zooms from Sigma at this price point. IS is unimportant if you shoot with a tripod or use a shutter speed of 1/focal length of the lens or faster. I have IS on the 120-300mm but I turn it off.

I'm not sure where you heard that, but the (low-end) Sigma zooms are not even remotely close to the 400 5.6 - here's the 400 compared to the 150-500 compared @400mm, wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=683&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
The Canon is sharp from center to corners with just a hair of CA, while the Sigma is blurry mush with CA from mid-frame to the corners.

The Sigma 120-300 is a huge step up from the 150-500, but at 420mm with the Sigma 1.4x it's still not as sharp as the 400 5.6, even stopped down to 5.6:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=3
The 120-300 is a fine lens, but if you want a sharp lens at 400mm, you can't beat the 400 5.6. The only lenses that are sharper at the focal length are the 300 2.8 IS II + 1.4x III ($7,299) or the 400 2.8 IS II ($10,999). Even the 200 2 IS + 2x III and 400 DO aren't as sharp.

The 400 5.6 is by far the best 400mm for the money and gives professional results.

About 1 1/2 years ago I did a comparison between a Sigma 120-400, a sigma 150-500, a Canon 100-400, and a Canon 400F5.6 on a 60D. The test was to see how much detail I could resolve on a liscence plate 200 meters away.

My rating was:
Sigma 150-500 - worst
Canon 100-400 - slightly better
Sigma 120-400 - better
Canon 400F5.6 - best

I went with the Sigma 120-400 because it was a zoom. I regret that choice as I mostly use the lens at the long end and anywhere else, the 70-200 is a far superior lens.

This fall, I had my hands on the same 100-400 used in the earlier test and was using it on a 5D2. (AFMA had been adjusted). This time the Canon 100-400 was significantly sharper than the Sigma 120-400. I re-tried the lens on the 60D and realized that it's lack of sharpness on the crop body was due to focusing issues.

Moral of the story.... AFMA your lenses.

 

[vargyropoulos]

I've had this lens for about a year and as others have mentioned if you have decent light, it will get you great images probably on par with the other big whites. personally I found it to be better than the 100-400 even though it lacks IS.

I use it hand held on a regular basis for BIF, ideally you want 1/640 or faster shutter for such images. for perched birds you will probably want to use a tripod.

 

[AlanF]

I have this 400mm lens, but I seldom use it. It is very sharp. The numbers on it are right up there with the $10, 000 lenses.

It is simply not true that the numbers are up there with the $10,000 lenses. The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but use one of the big whites and you see immediately how sharp is a really superb lens. I sold my 400mm f/5.6L after I bought a Sigma apo 400mm f/5.6L tele macro for £120. It's sharper than the Canon in the Photozone MTF measurements and also in my experience. For cropping the centre portions, my 100-400 was as good as my 400 L.

Here is a comparison of the 100-400 L with the 400 L, combined from various sources.

 

[dpc]

Hi! I had the 400mm f/5.6L for a time. It is an excellent lens, very sharp. However, I found the lack of image stabilization an impediment. I know others find it possible to get sharp shots handheld with this lens, but that was not my experience. I also found it a pain having to haul a tripod everywhere. I eventually traded it in for the Canon EF 300mm 1:4 L IS with the Extender EF 1.4x III. I find this a very good combination even with the old image stabilization system. I did own the Sigma 150-500 for a while. This is not a bad lens at all, especially for the price and focal range. However, for me it was a bit soft at the long end and the 500mm focal length is what I wanted the lens for.

 

[mackguyver]

I just added 10 additional photos to the 400 f/5.6 thread so you can see what the lens did for me :
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2849.msg345918.html#msg345918

 

[Ninjajack]

I used the Canon 400mm f/5.6 for a long time until I discovered what the Sigma 150-500mm could do. I've heard the Sigma 50-500mm is even sharper. I've moved on to the Sigma 300-800mm and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 but you should consider the 500mm zooms from Sigma at this price point. IS is unimportant if you shoot with a tripod or use a shutter speed of 1/focal length of the lens or faster. I have IS on the 120-300mm but I turn it off.

I'm not sure where you heard that, but the (low-end) Sigma zooms are not even remotely close to the 400 5.6 - here's the 400 compared to the 150-500 compared @400mm, wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=683&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
The Canon is sharp from center to corners with just a hair of CA, while the Sigma is blurry mush with CA from mid-frame to the corners.

The Sigma 120-300 is a huge step up from the 150-500, but at 420mm with the Sigma 1.4x it's still not as sharp as the 400 5.6, even stopped down to 5.6:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=3
The 120-300 is a fine lens, but if you want a sharp lens at 400mm, you can't beat the 400 5.6. The only lenses that are sharper at the focal length are the 300 2.8 IS II + 1.4x III ($7,299) or the 400 2.8 IS II ($10,999). Even the 200 2 IS + 2x III and 400 DO aren't as sharp.

The 400 5.6 is by far the best 400mm for the money and gives professional results.

Thank you Mackguyver for ruining my day! Haha!

I have the Sigma 150-500mm and knew it was a mushy mess already, especially when I picked up a Canon 70-300L last year, wow what a difference. But I hadn't seen that direct comparison between the Sigma and the Canon 400 before. Holy shit that is horrible!

I was already going to sell the Sigma and pick up the Canon 400, but damn, I can't sell that thing fast enough! I think some of my family may be getting smaller Xmas presents this year so I can afford that sexy little 400, I love how small it is too!

Jack

 

[mackguyver]

Thank you Mackguyver for ruining my day! Haha!

I have the Sigma 150-500mm and knew it was a mushy mess already, especially when I picked up a Canon 70-300L last year, wow what a difference. But I hadn't seen that direct comparison between the Sigma and the Canon 400 before. Holy S___ that is horrible!

I was already going to sell the Sigma and pick up the Canon 400, but damn, I can't sell that thing fast enough! I think some of my family may be getting smaller Xmas presents this year so I can afford that sexy little 400, I love how small it is too!

Jack

Jack, you're welcome and I'm sorry And yes, it's so small - I sold mine to get the 300 2.8 IS II, which is a killer lens, but I can't toss it in my pack or bag like I used to do with the 400 5.6. I definitely miss it and this thread makes me kind of sad I sold it!

 

[Jemlnlx]

Thanks for all the comments. I pulled the trigger and got a pretty good deal on one. UZ code with all accessories box and case $925. I am expecting the lens to be sharp but my concern, from what I have read before is the lack of IS. Though I will give it a solid attempt, I expect to be using at least a monopod, which I am hoping to get satisfactory shots at 1/400ish. If that fails I will have to step it up to a tripod.

Also, I hear the lens isnt super heavy...any need for an upgraded foot?

Thanks again for all the input, very informative.