Going native at 400mm

[mrsfotografie]

Maybe you can help.

I've been bending my mind over the 400mm focal length for quite some time but can't make up my mind. Too many options but none that really stand out. Here are some of my considerations, all for full frame use:

I'd like something better than my 100-400L that I can shoot hand held.

I don't require a zoom and use 400mm mostly for motorsports or animals in a zoo environment.

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

I don't want to break the bank or my back. I'd like to keep the weight of the lens under 2.5 kg if possible, investment below 5000 Euro's.

I previously owned the Sigma 150-500 OS, but couldn't live with the handling (focus ring in the wrong place) and the performance at the long end was only so-so. That lens also felt really heavy but looking at the figures I think the weight distribution was more to blame than the actual weight (front heavy).

I know some of you use the new Tamron 150-600 and the resolution looks good at 400mm but it reminds me too much of the Sigma, and I no longer want any lenses that have a maximum aperture of f/6.3.

And..

• The 400mm f/5.6 has no IS.
  
• The 400mm f/2.8 I or II is too heavy and big for one. The cost is a killer too.
  
• The 400DO has a mixed reputation. I know of a shop that has a used one, with one year warranty for €3999. The shop is not exactly around the corner but I'm actually really tempted by this one...
  
• The 300mm f/2.8II is a stretch, and I'd have to use it with a 1.4x II or buy a 1.4x III making the stretch even longer.
  
• The 300mm f/4 IS looks great but less so with a 1.4x
  
• 70-200 f/2.8II with a 2x TC? Maybe not.
  

What else am I missing? What would you recommend?

 

[Loswr]

Tamron 150-600?

 

[Sporgon]

I've heard good reports of the 400 DO in practical use - as opposed to the reviews......

 

[mackguyver]

I've heard good reports of the 400 DO in practical use - as opposed to the reviews......

I would check that out, too, though I can say that the 400 f/5.6 is a great lens if you can get used to the lack of IS. Many of my best photos were taken during the 4 years I owned this lens. The 300 f/2.8 II IS + 1.4x III and 2xIII is what I upgraded to and other than the cost, size, and weight, I can recommend it without reservation.

Also, your post scared me a bit as "going native" means going without clothes in American slang

 

[mrsfotografie]

The 300 f/2.8 II IS + 1.4x III and 2xIII is what I upgraded to and other than the cost, size, and weight, I can recommend it without reservation.

I can see that combination making sense, but I don't use such long focal lengths enough to justify the cost.

Also, your post scared me a bit as "going native" means going without clothes in American slang

Catchy subject title, isn't it

 

[Jeffrey]

I went to the combination of lens and extenders that MackGuyver uses and am very happy not only with the lighter weight, the choice of lengths with the extenders, but spending nearly half the cost of the 600mm lens. Sure the 600mm lens is superior at 600mm but not all that much imo. But if you suddenly need a 300mm lens you are out of luck unless you have a lens toting assistant along in the field to carry both lenses.

The 300mm is the way to go until something better comes along.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Looking at your list I have owned/do own all of them (though mine were Mk1 versions) bar the 400 DO and the 400 F5.6 both of which I have used a fair bit.
The 400 F5.6 is probably the most popular choice due to it's combination of price, reach, quality and light weight. F5.6 can be limiting, depending on your camera, though this should rarely be a problem with your 5D3.
The 400 F2.8 (any version) is simply stunning - but big heavy and expensive. The pre IS versions are now pretty reasonable but even heavier!
400 DO - approach with caution! I have tried 3 examples. Two were simply stunning with excellent sharpness and detail (certainly better than my (then) 600 F4 L IS Mk1, the third was distinctly average and not worth the money. Try before you buy!
I have not been convinced by 70-200 F2.8 lenses with extenders - though others seem happy with them.
The 2 300mm lenses are my personal favorites. The F4 is light, cheap and gives excellent quality. The IS is a bit old and clunky but it works well for fairly static subjects. I didn't bother much with the 1.4 extender as on either a 1D4 or a 1DX this lens allows a lot of cropping before the image suffers too much. Unfortunately I couldn't justify keeping mine when I bought the F2.8 version!
The 300 F2.8 is the best option in my opinion. Yes it is fairly heavy, far from cheap and you will end up using extenders much of the time. However, as a bare lens it outperforms pretty much anything and works exceptionally well with extenders (especially the Mk3 versions). if the price is a bit scary then have a look at the Mk1 IS version as it gives up very little to the Mk2 and is cheaper. Having recently had quite a long play with the Mk2 version (4 days ago) I am not thinking of "upgrading" to the Mk2, it is better but it is barely noticeable and not worth the extra to me.

Hope some of the above helps.

 

[jthomson]

The 400mm f5.6L with the 1.4x converter will work fine on your 5D3 assuming you upgrade to the firmware that lets it focus at f8.
I used the combination for several months before upgrading to a 500mm f4L.

I have had the Tamron 150-600mm since march and unless I am going out specifically for birds, I'll take it for the zoom.

I had the Sigma 150-500mm as well and I agree that it was a dog at 500mm.

 

[AlanF]

I've heard good reports of the 400 DO in practical use - as opposed to the reviews......

I would check that out, too, though I can say that the 400 f/5.6 is a great lens if you can get used to the lack of IS. Many of my best photos were taken during the 4 years I owned this lens. The 300 f/2.8 II IS + 1.4x III and 2xIII is what I upgraded to and other than the cost, size, and weight, I can recommend it without reservation.

Also, your post scared me a bit as "going native" means going without clothes in American slang

I have gone through the 400mm L, a great little lens, the 100-400lL, a very useful lens, the 300/2.8 II plus extenders, the Tamron 150-600mm and a Sigma 400 tele macro. The 300/2.8 II is my go to lens followed by the Tammy. The 300 with extenders is so user friendly and sharp and contrasty. However, I think the Tammy is at least as good as the 100-400 where it overlaps and the 600 is quite good. So, take your choice as you should be happy with both.

 

[Omni Images]

I too am going through this same issue now.
I shoot a lot of landscapes using both digital and a Linhof 617s. But I do shoot sports, I am a surfer so shoot surf both from the beach and water with an Aquatech housing.
I am now finding I am shooting a lot of wildlife, mostly birds and I am wanting a longer lens than the 70-200 2.8Lis I have.
I don't have the money for the F2.8 options, so they are out of the question.
The 400 F2.8II and the 600 F4II are my dream lenses ... but dream on I must.
Reality leaves me with the 300F4 or the 400F5.6 both such old lenses I'm reluctant to buy them.
Or, there is the 100-400F5.6 which I am loath to get, I don't really need the zoom. I may... consider the rumoured new II version of the 100-400 when it comes out, but I really don't want such a big lens, and I'm not a fan of the push pull zoom either.
I am currently using a 70-200 2.8L IS It's great, but I want to go longer.
I have a 2xIII but am finding the image quality no great, and now preferring to just shoot at 200 and crop, I'm getting equal image results doing that compared to using the 2XIII

Canon just needs to step up and do two new versions of the much highly regarded 300F4 and the 400F5.6
I don't know which one to go for as both have good and bad points.
If they could merge some of the qualities of each into new versions, they would be killer.
The 300F4 is standing out to me, but the reach over the 70-200 I have is not a big jump, but having said that, the good qualities are tempting ... firstly the short min focus 1.5m .... you spend ages stalking your prey getting closer and closer, then to find your lens won't focus down .... Arhhhh ... It has, all be it a 1st gen IS and clunky from what I have read. F4 is passable ... the light weight and quick focus etc is great ... so good lens, just not quiet the reach I am looking for.
The 400 F5.6 about the min reach extension I am looking for ... but F5.6 on the verge of just too slow.
The min 3m focus distance ... not great .... the lack of IS .. now days, not on... The weight and brilliant image quality is a winner.
But for my money now, both lenses are just too old ... they both need a revamp Canon !!!!
The 100-400 zoom will not replace them. !

I'd buy both lenses tomorrow if they were to re-build them with today's technology.
I go for a 400mm .. perhaps if they can do a F4.5 ? .. I have the old FD 400F4.5
Image Stabilization .... and a closer focusing distance.

PLEASE CANON !
Make it so...

 

[scottkinfw]

I totally agree.

My 400 5.6 lens when calibrated with AFMA to my 5D III is awesome. It is an old lens, but it is relatively small, light, and it also travels well. Not that expensive either. Don't rule it out for lack of is. I love my new 300 2.8 II also, but for your restrictions, do consider the 400 5.6.

If you are unsure, try to rent one before you buy, or see if one of your buddies can loan you one.

sek

I've heard good reports of the 400 DO in practical use - as opposed to the reviews......

I would check that out, too, though I can say that the 400 f/5.6 is a great lens if you can get used to the lack of IS. Many of my best photos were taken during the 4 years I owned this lens. The 300 f/2.8 II IS + 1.4x III and 2xIII is what I upgraded to and other than the cost, size, and weight, I can recommend it without reservation.

Also, your post scared me a bit as "going native" means going without clothes in American slang

 

[steven kessel]

I have the 400DO. Forget about the negative reviews, this is a truly fine lens. It's relatively light and razor sharp and I've produced hundreds of good images with it. I recommend it without hesitation.

 

[dswtan]

What else am I missing?

Something we are all "missing" is the rather over-anticipated but perhaps more likely than ever 100-400L update that could come later this year -- unless you really need something immediately. I appreciate you are veering towards a prime, but Canon's L zooms are such high quality these days...

 

[9VIII]

Honestly if you have the 100-400L I would not upgrade right now, at this point we're nearly just a month away from what may be the biggest Canon press event in years.

Ignoring the possibilities of the near future, and considering the mentioned uses, I think the 300f2.8L would be best. Anything else is such a slim upgrade I can't see it being worthwhile.

 

[adhocphotographer]

I've heard rumours that the 400mm f/5.6L IS is on the near horizon... one of my contacts in canon even suggested September... I guess it isn't long to wait to find out.

Also the 100-400 II is apparently round the corner... I'd wait for photokina then make a choice!

 

[NancyP]

Well, I LOVE my 400 f/5.6L, even without the IS. Are you shooting with a monopod? That takes care of the IS issue for shots down to 1/100 (with good technique). I shoot in burst mode or 2 sec delay if wanting to get a single sharp photo. Actually, with good technique, I can occasionally get a tack sharp shot at 1/100 without monopod. Generally I shoot freehand at 1/500 and up for birds in flight or nervous birds hopping about from perch to perch.

 

[mackguyver]

Well, I LOVE my 400 f/5.6L, even without the IS. Are you shooting with a monopod? That takes care of the IS issue for shots down to 1/100 (with good technique). I shoot in burst mode or 2 sec delay if wanting to get a single sharp photo. Actually, with good technique, I can occasionally get a tack sharp shot at 1/100 without monopod. Generally I shoot freehand at 1/500 and up for birds in flight or nervous birds hopping about from perch to perch.

I never had an issue getting sharp photos with my 400 f/5.6, and I think it is the single best value in Canon's entire lineup. It's 90% as sharp as the $12k 400 f/2.8 IS II for 1/12th the price. Plus it's the only 400mm lens you can easily fit in a backpack, at least for the EF mount. I genuinely miss that aspect of the lens. The build quality is excellent as well and it's partially weather sealed.

 

[Dylan777]

Well, I LOVE my 400 f/5.6L, even without the IS. Are you shooting with a monopod? That takes care of the IS issue for shots down to 1/100 (with good technique). I shoot in burst mode or 2 sec delay if wanting to get a single sharp photo. Actually, with good technique, I can occasionally get a tack sharp shot at 1/100 without monopod. Generally I shoot freehand at 1/500 and up for birds in flight or nervous birds hopping about from perch to perch.

I never had an issue getting sharp photos with my 400 f/5.6, and I think it is the single best value in Canon's entire lineup. It's 90% as sharp as the $12k 400 f/2.8 IS II for 1/12th the price. Plus it's the only 400mm lens you can easily fit in a backpack, at least for the EF mount. I genuinely miss that aspect of the lens. The build quality is excellent as well and it's partially weather sealed.

Are you sure about this? ;D

I do alot indoor shooting with fast shutter speed(1/1000 or faster). In my case, f5.6 won't do any goods.

You and I paid much more for 2.8 version, however, our lenses work well with x1.4 & x2 TC. Your 300 could become decent 400ish and 600. My 400 could decent become 500ish & 800. Kinda like owning 3 lenses for the price of one

 

[mackguyver]

Well, I LOVE my 400 f/5.6L, even without the IS. Are you shooting with a monopod? That takes care of the IS issue for shots down to 1/100 (with good technique). I shoot in burst mode or 2 sec delay if wanting to get a single sharp photo. Actually, with good technique, I can occasionally get a tack sharp shot at 1/100 without monopod. Generally I shoot freehand at 1/500 and up for birds in flight or nervous birds hopping about from perch to perch.

I never had an issue getting sharp photos with my 400 f/5.6, and I think it is the single best value in Canon's entire lineup. It's 90% as sharp as the $12k 400 f/2.8 IS II for 1/12th the price. Plus it's the only 400mm lens you can easily fit in a backpack, at least for the EF mount. I genuinely miss that aspect of the lens. The build quality is excellent as well and it's partially weather sealed.

Are you sure about this? ;D

I do alot indoor shooting with fast shutter speed(1/1000 or faster). In my case, f5.6 won't do any goods.

Obviously I didn't mention the trivial little issue of the aperture in stopping action or delivering shallow DOF. Like two stops really makes any difference ;D

 

[Dylan777]

Well, I LOVE my 400 f/5.6L, even without the IS. Are you shooting with a monopod? That takes care of the IS issue for shots down to 1/100 (with good technique). I shoot in burst mode or 2 sec delay if wanting to get a single sharp photo. Actually, with good technique, I can occasionally get a tack sharp shot at 1/100 without monopod. Generally I shoot freehand at 1/500 and up for birds in flight or nervous birds hopping about from perch to perch.

I never had an issue getting sharp photos with my 400 f/5.6, and I think it is the single best value in Canon's entire lineup. It's 90% as sharp as the $12k 400 f/2.8 IS II for 1/12th the price. Plus it's the only 400mm lens you can easily fit in a backpack, at least for the EF mount. I genuinely miss that aspect of the lens. The build quality is excellent as well and it's partially weather sealed.

Are you sure about this? ;D

I do alot indoor shooting with fast shutter speed(1/1000 or faster). In my case, f5.6 won't do any goods.

Obviously I didn't mention the trivial little issue of the aperture in stopping action or delivering shallow DOF. Like two stops really makes any difference ;D

4stop IS doesn't help much either ;D