Canon 400mm f/5.6 L

[mackguyver]

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.

Congrats on the lens! Be patient with it at first - once you get comfortable with it, the shots will come. Yes, a monopod works quite well with it, but a tripod is best. By tripod, I don't mean that you have to lock down the head and use mirror lock up and a release for every shot, though that will get the best results. Most of my shots are simply on a tripod, head with some play in it, finger on the shutter. Then again, if I look at my favorite shots with this lens, it's probably 60% tripod / 20% monopod / 20% handheld. It takes a fair amount of practice for the handheld shots, but they are possible. Burst mode is helpful to get a good shot if you're shooting at 1/400s.

As for the foot, it's plenty heavy / strong. I don't see any need to replace it and I'm not sure anyone even makes one.

 

[streestandtheatres]

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.

Have fun! I bought one about two weeks ago, and I can't take enough photos at the moment. So far all handheld... (I also added a few to the 400mm lens gallery thread...)
M

 

[quod]

I have owned all three lenses (I sold my 70-200 f/4 IS). I have also shot with two 100-400s. A few points:
- 400/5.6 the sharpest of the three, followed by the 70-200, followed by the 100-400
- The 400/5.6 is sharper than my 500/4 (version 1)
- The 400/5.6 AF speed is noticeably faster than the 100-400; I recall that the 70-200 was fast too
- Both the 400/5.6 and 70-200 are light weights; the 100-400 is noticeably heavier
- The 400/5.6 and 70-200 have better bokeh than the 100-400, which can get frustratingly ugly at times
- The 100-400 is the most versatile, followed by the 70-200, followed by the 400/5.6
- The 400/5.6 and 70-200 are smoother to use; the 100-400 push-pull is a little awkward for me
- The minimum focusing distance for the 400/5.6 is a lot longer than the other two
- All three work well with the 1.4x III teleconverter (although you will need a 5D3, 1DX, or 1DM4 to AF)

I sold my 70-200/4 IS because I found myself reaching to my 70-200/2.8 II more. That said, it is a wonderful little lens, it is sharp, and it has something like 3-4 stops of IS. It's really good.

Likewise, I am going to sell my 100-400 because the extra sharpness of the 400/5.6 is noticeable to me. That little extra detail in bird feathers is why I am keeping it over the 100-400. The 100-400 is good, but the 400/5.6 is great.

 

[scottkinfw]

I use the 400 5.6, and love it. I went through an evolution however. I calibrated the lens with Focal, and then I upped the shutter speed to over 1/focal length and put 5DIII with lens on sturdy tripod, and now when I use it, get great shots (when I don't, it's my fault). Learning curve in NOT steep, and with only a bit of practice, you can will get excellent images from edge to edge by all standards, and for a great price. Also, it is easy to carry as it is light, and relatively small, so it is a great lens.

Scott

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm a bit puzzled as to why your 70-200mmL f/4 IS has issues at 200mm. It is much sharper than the 400mm. Get it fixed, its one of the best lenses for the price.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

You should be aware that for panning while birds on fly IS isn't very important but the shutter speed you use. In this case what you need is a very fast Servo AF that can track the bird on the fly.
If you plan to take pictures on stationary subjects like birds in their nests, then IS is important for handheld shots or a good tripod.
Here in CR recently posted that the new version (II) of the excellent Canon 100-400mm is under tests, I hope it will have better AF and modern optics. If released, this will be inmediately in my wishlist.
In the mean time when I need extra reach I used the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II + 2X teleconverter, even though sharpness isn't on par with the 400mm f5.6.

 

[cervantes]

Am I the only one around here...

...who thinks a 400 5.6 is not a super telephoto lens?

:

 

[Viper28]

I owned a 400/5.6L for a number of year and used it on both 400D and 40D bodies, I sold it only when I moved to a 300/2.8L and to some extent regret doing so. The lens was light weight, very sharp and very fast focusing, certainly better than any 100-400 that I've borrowed (although the IS on that lens is a bonus). I could handhold it down to around 1/250th fairly successfully.

Few sample images

40D

400D

40D

 

[Frodo]

I've had my 400/5.6 since the days of film. I have had this lens for the longest of all my gear. There is a reason for this. It is sharp wide open and small. I shot some wonderful seabird shots with my 7D on a trip in the Southern Ocean last year.
Three tips: (1) Shoot wide open unless you need the extra depth of field. Quality does improve on stopping down, but not much.
(2) set up your autofocus properly (AF acquisition speed etc) on a 7D (and presumably 5DIII), as well as AFMA. Even at 5.6 depth of field is shallow, so the AF system needs to work.
(3) you should use 1/750th when shooting even on full frame - a 1/1000th on crop. I have steady hands but I need these speeds to have reliably sharp photos not only to stop camera movement, but also the movement of birds. A monopod is very helpful for e.g. windsurfing photos

 

[Tiosabas]

I'm a bit puzzled as to why your 70-200mmL f/4 IS has issues at 200mm. It is much sharper than the 400mm. Get it fixed, its one of the best lenses for the price.

It s pretty well known the 70-200 f4 IS perfoms poorly when at 200mm and at or close to MFD. I have it and this problem is noticable. Mine also suffers from the dredded slipping focus problem. Buyers beware to check for this issue if buying new or second hand. Sorry for going off topic. Otherwise its a very sharp lens.

 

[Click]

I owned a 400/5.6L for a number of year and used it on both 400D and 40D bodies, I sold it only when I moved to a 300/2.8L and to some extent regret doing so. The lens was light weight, very sharp and very fast focusing, certainly better than any 100-400 that I've borrowed (although the IS on that lens is a bonus). I could handhold it down to around 1/250th fairly successfully.

Few sample images

Great shots. I especially like the first one.

...And welcome to CR

 

[mackguyver]

I'm a bit puzzled as to why your 70-200mmL f/4 IS has issues at 200mm. It is much sharper than the 400mm. Get it fixed, its one of the best lenses for the price.

It s pretty well known the 70-200 f4 IS perfoms poorly when at 200mm and at or close to MFD. I have it and this problem is noticable. Mine also suffers from the dredded slipping focus problem. Buyers beware to check for this issue if buying new or second hand. Sorry for going off topic. Otherwise its a very sharp lens.

I'm with Mt Spokane on this one, and "well-known" to whom? I owned the 70-200 f4 IS and it was as sharp at 200mm as any other focal length and even with the 1.4x at 280mm, it's sharper than most other lenses. I think you definitely need to have your lens calibrated/repaired. Here are some results at 200mm from DxO, LensTip, and Photozone, all showing the lens to be extremely sharp. Now back to the 400mm 5.6...

 

[Don Haines]

I'm a bit puzzled as to why your 70-200mmL f/4 IS has issues at 200mm. It is much sharper than the 400mm. Get it fixed, its one of the best lenses for the price.

It s pretty well known the 70-200 f4 IS perfoms poorly when at 200mm and at or close to MFD. I have it and this problem is noticable. Mine also suffers from the dredded slipping focus problem. Buyers beware to check for this issue if buying new or second hand. Sorry for going off topic. Otherwise its a very sharp lens.

I'm with Mt Spokane on this one, and "well-known" to whom? I owned the 70-200 f4 IS and it was as sharp at 200mm as any other focal length and even with the 1.4x at 280mm, it's sharper than most other lenses. I think you definitely need to have your lens calibrated/repaired. Here are some results at 200mm from DxO, LensTip, and Photozone, all showing the lens to be extremely sharp. Now back to the 400mm 5.6...

I Concur.
The 70-200F4 is one of the few lenses that you can put a 1.4X teleconverter on (with a crop body) and not see much degradation in quality. Mine is very sharp.

 

[Tiosabas]

I'm a bit puzzled as to why your 70-200mmL f/4 IS has issues at 200mm. It is much sharper than the 400mm. Get it fixed, its one of the best lenses for the price.

It s pretty well known the 70-200 f4 IS perfoms poorly when at 200mm and at or close to MFD. I have it and this problem is noticable. Mine also suffers from the dredded slipping focus problem. Buyers beware to check for this issue if buying new or second hand. Sorry for going off topic. Otherwise its a very sharp lens.

I'm with Mt Spokane on this one, and "well-known" to whom? I owned the 70-200 f4 IS and it was as sharp at 200mm as any other focal length and even with the 1.4x at 280mm, it's sharper than most other lenses. I think you definitely need to have your lens calibrated/repaired. Here are some results at 200mm from DxO, LensTip, and Photozone, all showing the lens to be extremely sharp. Now back to the 400mm 5.6...

The weakness of this very good lens as I stated earlier is at MFD. "Well known to whom"? Google is your friend.

 

[kirispupis]

Personally I have owned the 400/5.6 along with the following other solutions over the years
300/4 IS - awesome lens, great for frogs, dragonflies and small birds. Not so great with extenders.
70-200/4 IS + 1.4x - bare lens is very nice, mediocre with an extender
70-200/2.8 II + 2xIII - sharper than the 70-200/4, takes a 1.4x very well, but 2x loses a lot. AF is poor with extender.
100-400 - nice lens, but only slightly sharper than 70-200/2.8 + 2x III and AF is poor
Sigma 80-400 - extremely soft, not worth it

I absolutely love my 400/5.6 but personally I have noted that it's really a lens that a photographer uses - not a hobbyist. It has no IS and poor magnification, so in order to get the shots you really need to understand what it is capable of. Still, it is far sharper than any of the solutions above and has the best AF @ 400mm.

Although I love this lens, I am currently selling mine in order to fund a 200-400/1.4x. Ideally I would like to not sell it, but as nice as this is the 200-400 outdoes it.

Below are some photos taken with it.

JSC_3936-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


JSC_4686-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


JSC_5053-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

 

[Jemlnlx]

I never said that my 70-200 wasnt sharp at 200. In fact I love that lens. I find it sharp on both ends. The reason for getting the 400mm is well...200mm v 400mm.

 

[AlanF]

Arthur Morris is the doyen of bird photographers. For many years, the 400 f/5.6 was his "favourite toy" lens. Here is a typical quote from his blog:

http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4isor4f56.html

Which is a better lens, the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom lens, or the 400mm f/5.6L lens?
I'm asked this question almost every day (sometimes more than once) -- either in person, on-line, or by phone. I always answer it with a question, "Do you want to use the lens primarily for bird photography?"
If yes, then the straight 400 is clearly the lens for you. It is the world�s best flight lens. It is lighter than the 100-400 zoom. It costs less. It will give sharper results with the 1.4X teleconverter than the 1-4 zoom. The speed of initial focus acquisition is unmatched. When used with an EOS 3 body and mounted on a fairly sturdy tripod, you'll have a great starter outfit for bird photography -- a sharp 560mm f/8 lens with functioning autofocus.

But, a few years later comes this confession:

http://www.birdsasart.com/b13.html

Confession #1: Though I still consider it the best lens in the world for photographing birds in flight (see FAQs on web site for details), I no longer carry my beloved "toy lens"--the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L--on my shoulder as my auxiliary intermediate telephoto. It has been replaced by the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L Image Stabilizer zoom lens. I have been using the 1-4 more and more every day and--contrary to some reports from other users--have been making razor sharp images at all focal lengths with wide open to moderately stopped down apertures. In addition, I have it used it wide open, handheld with the 1.4X tele-converter with excellent results (with static subjects) at 560mm. For bird photography, the versatility of this lens is unmatched; I find myself making images that I would never even have thought of before--especially of groups of birds in their surroundings. And though it is heavier than the 400 f/5.6L, it is also a superb flight lens. At Bosque Del Apache NWR late this fall, I used the 1-4 on a tripod before sunrise for "bird-scapes" and then again almost exclusively for the spectacular blast-offs. I only wish that the zoom were a bit smoother. I am even considering selling one of my 400 f/5.6s; I never ever thought that I'd say that when the 1-4 first came out.....


In my opinion, it is simply preposterous that Canon still makes a 400mm lens without IS. When I want a 400, I put the 1.4xTC on my 300mm f/2.8 II. It's expensive but not too heavy, and four stops of IS make all the difference in use. Or, I take the 100-400mm when weight and size are concerns or I need a zoom. What's the pint of carrying a lightweight lens if you have also to carry a tripod to get the best out of it?

 

[Canon1]

In my opinion, it is simply preposterous that Canon still makes a 400mm lens without IS. When I want a 400, I put the 1.4xTC on my 300mm f/2.8 II. It's expensive but not too heavy, and four stops of IS make all the difference in use. Or, I take the 100-400mm when weight and size are concerns or I need a zoom. What's the pint of carrying a lightweight lens if you have also to carry a tripod to get the best out of it?

I agree with all of this and find myself doing the exact same thing... I love my 300 II and my 100-400. Never liked the 400 5.6 when compared to these other two lenses.

 

[dslrdummy]

In my opinion, it is simply preposterous that Canon still makes a 400mm lens without IS. When I want a 400, I put the 1.4xTC on my 300mm f/2.8 II. It's expensive but not too heavy, and four stops of IS make all the difference in use. Or, I take the 100-400mm when weight and size are concerns or I need a zoom. What's the pint of carrying a lightweight lens if you have also to carry a tripod to get the best out of it?

I agree with all of this and find myself doing the exact same thing... I love my 300 II and my 100-400. Never liked the 400 5.6 when compared to these other two lenses.

I find that I need a shutter speed of at least 1/1000, preferably higher, to get sharp images with the 400f/5.6 hand-held and it is not much better with a monopod.

 

[Eimajm]

To reiterate others view, this is a great little lens, quick to focus, sharp and hand-holdable all day long. With a solid stance you can shoot static subjects down to 1/400. Yes IS would be nice but you are looking at a substantial increase in cost. Best bang-for-buck birding lens IMO. If you would like to see some images visit my flickr site http://www.flickr.com/photos/eimajm/, any birds prior to 21Sept this year are shot with the 400mm.