Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM


Mangrove blue flycatcher (Cyornis rufigastra) by alabang, on Flickr

The mangrove blue flycatcher (Cyornis rufigastra) is a species of bird in the Muscicapidae family. It is found in Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Its natural habitat is subtropical or tropical mangrove forests.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangrove_blue_flycatcher

Location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mesa_Ecopark

EXIF: 1/30 f/4.0 560mm ISO 640

Best viewed at https://500px.com/photo/112821213/the-mangrove-blue-flycatcher-cyornis-rufigastra-by-paolo-dolina?from=user_library
 
Upvote 0

TheJock

Location: Dubai
Oct 10, 2013
555
2
Dubai
If you were about to splurge the money required for one of the big whites, and you shoot wildlife; but also some motorsports, would you consider the 400 f2.8 II (plus both versions of the mark III teleconvertors) a better option than the 600 f4 II?
I’m just curious to hear everyone’s thoughts on this as the financial outlay is pretty huge, and as a hobbyist I may only get one shot of spending this kind of money.
Will the 400’s performance be reduced to the point of frustration when using it with the 2x convertor compared to the 600 with the 1.4, or is using a convertor on any of these lenses frustrating?
I would like to be able to catch birds in flight and the like over great distance; as I consistently find that I’m at 400mm with my 100-400 and I’ve noticed that it’s a little erratic with the 1.4xTC on my 5D3 and even more so on my 70D.
I’m extremely grateful for any tips or advice from owners of either of these two great whites.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 17, 2011
5,514
15
Stewart K said:
If you were about to splurge the money required for one of the big whites, and you shoot wildlife; but also some motorsports, would you consider the 400 f2.8 II (plus both versions of the mark III teleconvertors) a better option than the 600 f4 II?
I’m just curious to hear everyone’s thoughts on this as the financial outlay is pretty huge, and as a hobbyist I may only get one shot of spending this kind of money.
Will the 400’s performance be reduced to the point of frustration when using it with the 2x convertor compared to the 600 with the 1.4, or is using a convertor on any of these lenses frustrating?
I would like to be able to catch birds in flight and the like over great distance; as I consistently find that I’m at 400mm with my 100-400 and I’ve noticed that it’s a little erratic with the 1.4xTC on my 5D3 and even more so on my 70D.
I’m extremely grateful for any tips or advice from owners of either of these two great whites.

I don't think we can go wrong with 400mm f2.8 IS II + latest 1.4x and x2 convertor. At the same time, the 600mm is also great. It works well with 1.4x, but not so much with x2 TC.

Here are some photos taken with 400mm f2.8 IS II + 2x TC III: https://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Sports/Surfing/
 
Upvote 0

TheJock

Location: Dubai
Oct 10, 2013
555
2
Dubai
Thanks Dylan I appreciate your reply.

The 400 f2.8 seems to be a more versatile option as it can be used bare, or with the 1.4 and 2xTC’s
So all this from the same lens;
400 @ f2.8
560 @ f4.5
800 @ f5.6
Only thing is that I’m always looking for more telephoto properties to help fill the frame, and already have the 100-400, so straight away I’ll be using it with my 1.4xIII, then I’ll also need to buy the 2xIII; but on the same hand I will have a seriously powerful lens for my track activities………this ain’t gonna be an easy decision!!!
If anyone wants to share their findings/feelings with using the 400 f2.8 with a 2xTCIII then please feel free to jump in! I’m feeling the pressure of this decision :eek:
 
Upvote 0

tomscott

Photographer & Graphic Designer
Stewart K said:
Thanks Dylan I appreciate your reply.

The 400 f2.8 seems to be a more versatile option as it can be used bare, or with the 1.4 and 2xTC’s
So all this from the same lens;
400 @ f2.8
560 @ f4.5
800 @ f5.6
Only thing is that I’m always looking for more telephoto properties to help fill the frame, and already have the 100-400, so straight away I’ll be using it with my 1.4xIII, then I’ll also need to buy the 2xIII; but on the same hand I will have a seriously powerful lens for my track activities………this ain’t gonna be an easy decision!!!
If anyone wants to share their findings/feelings with using the 400 f2.8 with a 2xTCIII then please feel free to jump in! I’m feeling the pressure of this decision :eek:

Im in the same boat really.

If your instantly looking at the lens to use it with a tele and its not long enough your looking at the wrong lens. Teleconverters are extremely useful but if you find 400mm on the 100-400 short it will be short with the 400F2.8, the 500 or 600 might be more useful for you, you can still put a 1.4 and get a F5.6 lens.

Both teles will work very well on the 400 with good technique with not a huge amount of slow down certainly more than manageable. Have you tried the 1.4 on the 100-400mm to see the extra reach? I use it on my 100-400mm when I need to and it still focuses quickly. Only downside is subject isolation but at 560mm DOF its still good but obviously noting like F4 would be.

For me the 400DO MKII looks more attractive because of weight and size makes it more useable in more situations imo. but the 200-400mm is even more versatile but again weight. 500 is great too but then I think will 100mm make the difference? Probably not.

I will use mine for motorsport and wildlife, so F4 will be fine for motorsport and ok for wildlife can never have enough DOF with wildlife but again usually poor light. The other combo I've been looking at is the 300mm F2.8 because of its size and cost then maybe adding something else later. But it will be used with teles all the time probably which puts me off.

For the time being the 100-400mm is proving the best bang for buck and its IQ is really very impressive 80% of the 200-400mm half the weight and size and again 1/3rd the price. 1.4 in a pinch, used on a 7DMKII because again its performance has really impressed me.
 
Upvote 0
about the 100-400 (Version 2 i guess?): If 400 is to short, then maybe get a 7dii first, it will give you 640 aequiv with full AF capability. This gives great results. Add the 1.4iii in between gives 900mm but not great AF and significantly reduced IQ. If light is critical (that you have to push up ISO on top), then in my opinion the bare lens is better with cropping in post.

i could try a 500 f4 ii in a shop with the 7dii and i tried both converters as well. the bare lens was amazing, and with the 1.4 i saw no significant reduction at 1120mm aequivalent. With the 2x (and 1600 äquiv) i am not absolutely sure, but it seemed it was similar like the 100-400 1.4x Combo.

i have no expierience with the 400 2.8 ii but i would expect it to take the 2x better than the 500ii



if you need so long focal lenght i would not recommend the Version i superteles, because the image stabilizer is so much better on the new ones. Before the 100-400ii i had a 300 2.8 is (vers 1) and with the zoom i got better results, just because the image stabilisation is so much better, but this depends on the shooting conditions
 
Upvote 0
Thanks Dylan I appreciate your reply.

The 400 f2.8 seems to be a more versatile option as it can be used bare, or with the 1.4 and 2xTC’s
So all this from the same lens;
400 @ f2.8
560 @ f4.5
800 @ f5.6
Only thing is that I’m always looking for more telephoto properties to help fill the frame, and already have the 100-400, so straight away I’ll be using it with my 1.4xIII, then I’ll also need to buy the 2xIII; but on the same hand I will have a seriously powerful lens for my track activities………this ain’t gonna be an easy decision!!!
If anyone wants to share their findings/feelings with using the 400 f2.8 with a 2xTCIII then please feel free to jump in! I’m feeling the pressure of this decision :eek:

Probably a bit late, but...

The 400 with the 1.4x is very usable (both day & night at the Dubai 7s & various athletics meets)
With the 2X, the focussing was just a little bit too slow = more misses than I would have liked, so stopped experimenting. F/4 was about as slow as I would have liked for night time (floodlights), but I’ll have another proper go this year during the day time.

Can't fault the decision to get the 400 II though, it produces my best images, and is earning its keep!
 
Upvote 0