The Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM lens

Sam_swfc123 · #1 (**permalink**) 18-11-2010, 06:37 PM

Hello,

I am considering buying the Canon 400mm f/5.6 lens but am in two minds because i don't if i will need IS or not? I currently have the Sigma 150-500mm lens for canon(which is a cracking lens, but better out there).

My main style of photography is going in the woods and fields looking for birds and on the streets looking for birds and also visiting some of the RSPb reserves in the hide, so i would mainly be walking.

I have noticed with my Sigma that i only use it at 500mm most of the time so the Canon 100-400mm would be a little pointless, because i would only use the 400mm, but would have IS. There is also the Canon 300mm IS L USM lens with a 1.4 converter which is in my options as well, but i have heard that the IQ is not as good as the Zoom and Prime.

If i bought the 100-400mm i would sell my sigma to help pay for the 100-400. But if i bought the 400mm prime i might sell my sigma as well for the 300mm but i also may keep it and just have the 400mm and my sigma. Need a bit of help of that one?

In the future i hope to get the 500mm or 600mm but being as i am only 16 and have a little paper round that is a long way off.

That would be a good line up though, the 300mm, 400mm, and 500/600mm.

Anyway my question is shall i get the 400mm prime (without the IS) and maybe regret it or get the 300mm as well and then i will have a IS lens or buy the 100-400mm

Sorry for the long rant, i am just very confused at what to get, any help will be very grateful. ( if confused just ask for the question a bit clearer)

Regards,
Sam Winslow

wizzo · #2 (**permalink**) 18-11-2010, 07:17 PM

Hi Sam! Well I've had a good look at the 100-400mm and it feels like a really nice lens. I also know other birders who get cracking results with the lens. Personally, I'd be more inclined toward the 400mm prime. I'd not worry too much about the lack of I.S. Just work on technique and get the settings right, ISO, shutter speed etc and you won't go too far wrong. Top wildlife photographers never had I.S to worry about a few years ago, and just look what they produced. I'm not anti-image stabalisation (every little helps) but I think some of this modern technology can make us lazy. Mind you, I'm a dinosour really. It took me ages to accept auto-focus and digital. after all - messing about with settings is half the fun for me. It's a fact, that you will get sharper images with a prime lens. However, as I always say, without good technique, you can have the best equipement that money can buy, and you'll produce nothing worth looking at. Hope this helps Sam and doesn't confuse the issue - Wizzo

Sam_swfc123 · #3 (**permalink**) 18-11-2010, 07:25 PM

Thank for the comment back, very helpful.

I have a Canon EOS 1D Mark II, with this body would the Canon 400mm 5.6 autofocus with a 1.4 converter?

More comments please........

Regards,
Sam Winslow.

squishy · #4 (**permalink**) 18-11-2010, 09:42 PM

only on the centre point, but yes, it would AF on a 1D series (but no others). Bare in mind it would become an f/8 though. But IQ is supposedly still good with the 1.4x, even though AF speed will take a hit.

Simple solution:

Try using your 150-500 without turning the OS on at all for a few trips out. If you struggle with camera shake too much (baring in mind the 400 is lighter), maybe a lens without IS isn't the best option. You might have to up the ISO a little higher than usual when handholding.

Ollie · #5 (**permalink**) 18-11-2010, 09:47 PM

Hi Sam.

I wouldn't worry too much about the lack of IS on the Canon 400mm f5.6L lens. It's a pretty light lens for a 400mm and is reasonably easy to hand hold, although I use a monopod with mine unless it's in flight images then I hand hold it. In my opinion it has the edge on the Canon 100-400mm in terms of image quality at least. The drawback if you call it a drawback is the closest focussing range which is 3.5 metres but I have never found this a problem The 400mm f5.6L is a cracking lens and the image quality is second to none.

As for it auto focussing on your Canon EOS 1D Mark II with a 1.4 converter I'm not 100% sure but I don't think it will. Mine would never auto focus with my 40D or 7D bodies.

johnf3f · #6 (**permalink**) 18-11-2010, 11:19 PM

I think your 1D2 should af with either the 1.4 or the 2x converters. I cannot be certain but my 1 series + 600 F4IS will af with both 1.4 & 2x converters stacked wich gives the same F stop as the 400 f5.6 with the 2x converter, so a 1.4 should be fine. I read that all 1 series cameras will af a F8. I cannot comment personally on the 400 F5.6 but I read that it is the best (lightweight) birding lens going at anywhere near a sensible price.
Personally I use the 300 f4IS and 600F4IS and don't use my converters often as I normally get better results by cropping. However I am using 16MP rather than 8.5MP so if you want to print fairly large (say A3) then have a good look at the 400 F5.6 rather than the 300 (which I love) as it will get you that bit closer. Don't be afraid of experimenting with converters as although your camera doesn't have many pixels, by the latest standards, but they are damn good ones - I have seen many (and taken a couple) excellent images taken with the 1D2, it's just that you can't crop quite as much as the later models.
As regards IS - it's great but you can live without it, get a decent monopod for walkabout and any reasonable tripod/head will support the 400.
Now was there anything else?

squishy · #7 (**permalink**) 19-11-2010, 09:23 AM

AF ability is to do with maximum aperture. Most canon bodies will AF with lenses down to f/5.6 (some TC's don't report the aperture change and so will trick the body into AFing with slower lenses though (can also be done with taping pins)). However, 1D series cameras can AF with the centre point down to f/8 (and a 400mm f/5.6 x1.4 becomes a 560mm f/8). It wouldn't with a 2x though, as it would then become a 800mm f/11.

Sam_swfc123 · #8 (**permalink**) 19-11-2010, 04:59 PM

Hi.
Thank for all your helpful replies back.

So what lens do you think I should get?

Regards,
Sam Winslow

Geoff F · #9 (**permalink**) 19-11-2010, 07:34 PM

Just one additional fact to consider. The Canon 400 mm has a rather long minimum focus distance. I think it is around 11 feet.

That is what put me off this lens and decided me on the Sigma 150-500. But if you are definitely only working outside this range it doesn't matter.

I often find that I am thinking about a bird shot when a butterfly lands about 6 ft away and I want to shoot that as well.

Sam_swfc123 · #10 (**permalink**) 19-11-2010, 08:06 PM

I get your point Geoff. But with my Sigma 150-500mm i am always shooting at 500mm. Thank you for your advice though, every bit of advice is very helpful.

If i was to get the Canon 400mm f/5.6 does anyone think i should sell my Sigma 150-500mm? I feel i may not use it that much.

Regards,
Sam Winslow.