Going native at 400mm

[DominoDude]

A nice dilemma to have.
I would recommend my 400/5,6L any day. Mine has been to hell and back, and it still makes me happy. It's a tad lighter than the 70-200/2,8L that you have, and it balances nicely. If you nail the focus, the lens will bring you crispy shots already at f/5,6.

Good luck deciding which one to pick!

 

[wsmith96]

Looks like the 70-200 2.8 mkII with 2.0 Mk III converter hasn't been recommended here. Can anyone comment on the image quality here between the above combo compared to the 400 5.6L? This was a lens I was also considering so this thread caught my attention. This would be for a crop camera.

 

[Omni Images]

Hey wsmith96,
I wouldn't recommend that combo with the 70-200 and 2x
I have the 1st version 70-200F2.8L IS and the 2xIII extender.
The focusing is painfully slow. A lot of times it just goes blurry and searching for focus and I've missed the shot.
Much worse in shadow. I find I have to keep hitting the button to get it to re-focus till it hits the sweet spot.
From what I have read the 400F5.6 prime would focus better/faster, and have a much better image quality.
I find I am getting about the same image quality with the 2x on than if I just crop to the same from the 200 straight up.
So I have all but stopped using the 2x
I am wanting a longer lens, but really don;t want to buy such an old lens ..... I think that 400 F5.6 is about the oldest if not the oldest lens now in Canon's line up.
So I have buying it on hold as I want to wait for a new generation 400 F5.6 to come out .. sounding like perhaps September, but I'm not holding my breath ... still no firm news about a new one yet.
Only news about a new 100-400 but I don't want such a massive lens....
Give me the sleek and light 400 F5.6 prime lens over some heavy fat monster any day.
Of course I'd love the 2.8 but it's price is way out of reach to many.
These days with such good ISO handling bodies now an F5.6 would have a wider usage.
I do have the old FD 400 F4.5. For surfing shots, and using film back in the day, if was cloudy .. forget it.

So wait till the new generation 400 F5.6L comes out ... surly Canon you have a new one in the works ! if you don't get onto it ! we are all waiting for a new version.

 

[mrsfotografie]

• A 400mm prime would be nice especially if I can use my 1.4x II to go to 560mm occasionally.
  
  
  

  • The 400mm f/5.6 has no IS.

  
  ...

What else am I missing? What would you recommend?

Suggest you wait until mid-September if you can. A 400mm lens or newer 100-400mm zoom are likely releases for this fall.

Yes, that seems to be the consensus here. I can wait because since I already have the 100-400, it's a luxury problem to say the least.

Thank you all for responding. I'm happy to say that reading this thread has relieved me from some of my GAS for now and I will indeed wait to see what's up. Besides that, a new 100-400 would be nice to have for travel. We'll have to wait and see but I surely hope something good is announced this year.

By all means please continue the discussions, I think the 400mm focal length is one of the most challenging from an equipment point of view, because gear-wise there are so many ways to get there but none of them are entirely satisfactory.

 

[wsmith96]

Thanks for the insight Omni. I'll hold off on the teleconverter.

 

[Skulker]

Thanks for the insight Omni. I'll hold off on the teleconverter.

Don't be too quick to discount the tele converters.

They can be pretty good these days. Try one with the lenses you're thinking of buying. They can add a lot of versatility. But they depend on the camera and the lens combination. Like anything photographic there is a trade off to make your mind up about.

I'm very please with my converters. They get used with my 300 a lot and my 70 - 200 a bit.

Here is a shot taken with the 70-200 and x2 converter. If it was slow focusing I would never have got this shot, it was there for less than 1/2 sec.

 

[Omni Images]

Ok, maybe I was a bit quick to condemn the converters.
I think the first thing you need to decide on or have clear in your mind is what the end result would be used for.
What do you want to use the images for. ?
I want my images to be able to be printed at full size on my Epson A3+ 4900 ... so I have a much more critical eye on each image than if I just wanted to post it around on social media or look at it on a computer screen.
My printer prints at 360ppi .. and computer screen is at 72.
So what I have been saying is the converters for me are borderline good enough for what I want my images to be used for.
I do know that an image taken on say the prime 400 F5.6 would be twice as good, you would get better/faster focusing and it's lighter .. over using the 70-200 2.8 + 2X still at F5.6.... for us here in Aust the cost of the converter is around $530 .. the cost of the 400 F5.6 is about $1600 .... so for an extra grand I think your money is best spent on the lens. It's a lesson I have learnt.
The issue now I am harping on about is that lens is just too old .. I am in some sort of limbo just now, wanting that lens NOW ! ... but thinking there should be a new version out any day now.
So for a quick cheap fix .. go the converter, they have their place and can save the day, no doubt .. but for me I need or want a better image quality to print big .. it shows up... the better choice would have been to save my money and get the prime straight up.
So I say go native ...

 

[wsmith96]

Nice capture Skulker. I understand the effects of auto focus speed using teleconverters. I just purchased a 1.4 Mk III and I own at 70-200 Mk II 2.8. I've been photographing wildlife in my neighborhood lately and the 70-200 just is a little too short. I do have a non-L 70-300, but my copy is pretty fuzzy past 200mm. I'm not opposed to purchasing a 400mm lens, but if using a teleconverter will produce acceptable pictures I'd like to go that route for now. I have a lot of other home related projects at the moment so funds for "toys" are becoming scarce.

I guess I need to rent one and see how I like the results.

Thanks again for your advice.

 

[wsmith96]

You are right, the 400 5.6L is an old lens, but from what I've seen, it still produces fantastic results. It's just about a month away from Photokina. Perhaps you should use the teleconverter until then to see if a new 100-400 will be announced.

 

[lexptr]

Wow, never looked at 400m f/4 DO, but after reading this thread got interested and that's what I found:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=338&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

There are samples of 3 copies of 400mm f/4 DO and all are worse than the 400mm f/5.6! It's less visible on the center, but obvious on corners. Even when it is stopped down to f/5.6. So seems like DO version has 2 advantages: wider max aperture and IS. May be a better sealing too. Other than that – the f/5.6 is better. Very surprising to me.

 

[ppritchett]

I don't have a full frame shot handy at this moment but here is a shot of some Turkey's taken in late June in upstate NY. Canon 1DX, 400f4DO with 1.4x III (560mm, ISO 4000, f5.6, 1/1250). This was a hurried handheld shot after jumping out of the car to get the shot. I did have to add in more contrast than usual due to the DO but I've been happy with the outcome of the pictures I've taken so far.

 

[nc0b]

I initially bought both the 1.4 III TC and the 2X III TC to go with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and 70-200mm f/4 IS. The 1.4X TC definitely gets more usage, but the 2X has hardly been used since I threw in the towel and bought the 400mm f/5.6. BIF with a 6D and the 400/5.6 has worked out well for me. Sometimes I use a 60D if I am shooting small birds.

My problem with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2X TC III was static shots were fine until a raptor took off and I would lose focus in the sky and I would have no image at all. I could never reacquire focus unless I focused on a tree or the ground. By then the subject was long gone. Focus speed is certainly slow with the 2X TC compared to the f/2.8 zoom alone, which is very fast. Of course it depends on where the lens was initially focused in the first place how fast it reacquires focus.

The 400mm f/5.6, however, has been great in normal daylight and keeping the speed up around 1/1000. Hindsight I would not have bought the 2X III TC for the lenses I have. From a purely image quality standpoint, I have no complaints about the 2X TC, at least the center portion of the image with the 2.8 zoom. If I shoot the same static shot 5 times with the 2X TC on the 70-200 2.8 IS II, and refocus on each shot, and then shoot the same subject 5 times with the 400mm f/5.6, I get more focus variation from shot to shot than between the lenses. This is with a subject about 20 feet away, and resting the lens on a bean bag.

 

[tomscott]

When in a pinch the 70-200mm F2.8 MKII with 2x converter work pretty well. I only have the V2 converter, its easier than carrying two lenses and the IQ is pretty good IMO close to the 100-400mm at 400 but the AF is slower... but with the 5DMKIII I missed very few shots, also the 4 stop IS works great with the 2x.

Couple of recent examples, all commercial. As you can see, they are very sharp, and two of the below are very quick and the combo had no trouble.

BMW CSL 1973, Batmobile, Colin Turkington, Jet Super Touring Car Trophy, Silverstone Classic 2014 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Puffin in flight, Cliffside, Inner Farne, Farne Islands by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Eider Duck chick, Sehouses Harbour, Farne Islands by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Although like the above image Bokeh can be a little distracting. The problem is I want to pull the trigger on a 400mm but the one I want doesn't exist atm and I think the 400mm F2.8s are overkill, too big and heavy and definitely too expensive, although the isolation of 2.8 would be great.

 

[mrsfotografie]

When in a pinch the 70-200mm F2.8 MKII with 2x converter work pretty well. I only have the V2 converter, its easier than carrying two lenses and the IQ is pretty good IMO close to the 100-400mm at 400 but the AF is slower... but with the 5DMKIII I missed very few shots, also the 4 stop IS works great with the 2x.

Couple of recent examples, all commercial. As you can see, they are very sharp, and two of the below are very quick and the combo had no trouble.

BMW CSL 1973, Batmobile, Colin Turkington, Jet Super Touring Car Trophy, Silverstone Classic 2014 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

What are your shutter speed and aperture for this shot? EDIT: ƒ/5.6 400.0 mm 1/250, I checked on your flickr page.


I've recently rediscovered my 100-400L given good light (from behind, it looses performance when shooting against the light). This is a quick an dirty crop, at f/7.1, 1/1000s. I'm waiting to see if the 100-400L II will be announced because the versatility of a zoom is kinda nice to have at the race track (I thought differently until I shot this event).

 

[mackguyver]

When in a pinch the 70-200mm F2.8 MKII with 2x converter work pretty well. I only have the V2 converter, its easier than carrying two lenses and the IQ is pretty good IMO close to the 100-400mm at 400 but the AF is slower... but with the 5DMKIII I missed very few shots, also the 4 stop IS works great with the 2x.

I think that combo works quite well, but I find it pretty unbalanced in terms of weight.

Although like the above image Bokeh can be a little distracting. The problem is I want to pull the trigger on a 400mm but the one I want doesn't exist atm and I think the 400mm F2.8s are overkill, too big and heavy and definitely too expensive, although the isolation of 2.8 would be great.

I gave up waiting for the 400 f/5.6 IS...and ended up with the 300 f/2.8 IS II (and both converters, which I already had). It's quite expensive and a beast compared to the 400 f/5.6, but gives excellent results and is much smaller and lighter than the 400 f/2.8 IS II, but I'd love to have 800mm...and f/2.8 at 400mm sometimes...

As for the