Reading mode: Light Dark

400 f/5.6 L questions

Go to last post
S

Seaclam

Veteran Member
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I'm considering getting this lens as a smaller package to my 300 f2.8(which I also use with the 1.4 TC. I have already heard how sharp this lens is wide open, as I would expect, but my main concern is how is the weight and can one get decent handheld shots from it considering it has no IS. I'm also considering getting the 300 f/4, which I did have many years ago and sold for the 300 f/2.8. I know, I know.....I should have kept it. The small 300 f/4 is very sharp in it's own right, and practically just as great with the 1.4 TC on it, but how does it compare(1.4 TC mounted) with the 400mm f/5.6? I'm very much a stickler for sharpness and have moved away from zooms in recent years. Just out of curiosity, how's the 400 f/5.6 with a 1.4 TC? I don't plan on using that focal length and if I need 500mm, I think I would go for the supertele. I just would like to have a more inconspicous, small, lighter 300-400mm alternative to the huge 300 2.8. I went that route with my 70-200 f/2.8, which is stupid heavy for what it is, and bought the small 200L, which is so light and easy to use. So much sharper than the zoom too. Thanks.

--

The only true wisdom I have to impart is to say.....get out there and shoot! Anything else is subject to interpretation.
 
I have the 400f5.6 and the 300f2.8is. The 400 is a great little lens but to be honest I rarely use it preferring instead to use the 300 with the 1.4 if I need the extra reach given the faster AF and IS. Even with the TC my 300 images look sharper than the 400mm.

AF on the 400 with the 1.4x is fairly slow on a 1d series but acceptable unless shooting rapidly approaching bif.

I do find the 400f5.6 excellent for travelling when I can't be bothered to haul my 300 or 500 with me.
 
Based on my experience with the lenses in question I would suggest that the 400mm f/5.6L is sharper wide open than the 300mm f/4L IS USM wide open and very close when the 300 is stopped down to f/5.6. When you add a 1.4x TC to the 300 the 400 is easily sharper when both are wide open.

I do find it fairly easy to get good sharp shots with the 400 hand-held.

Though the 400 does well optically with a 1.4x TC I don’t use a TC on this lens because I find the AF to be fairly unpredictable when I use one with my 40D or 50D cameras (with taped pins).

I hope this helps,

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
 
I shot most of the wildlife (birds) photos in my gallery with this particular lens. I almost exclusively shot it both wide open and handheld. It is sharp and light (that's relative, of course). On a 1-series body it's noticeably better at AF than with the xxD bodies but even on xxD cameras it's good enough for bif.

With the 1-series and using a tc, it was good but still a bit difficult to do challenging bif shots. Static was fine and the IQ suffered very little.

In my opinion, there's a considerable IQ difference between it and the 300/f2.8. I don't own the 300/f2.8 but have used it extensively along with the 500/f4. Though the 400/f5.6 is a great lens, it's not in the same league as the 300/f2.8, 500/f4 or even the 600/f4. But then again, if you're walking around in the field all day long, the 400/f5.6 would be my choice. (And the price differential is considerable).

Bottom line, you won't be disappointed in the 400/f5.6. It's quite capable of producing magnificent shots.
--
~ Kevin ~

Visit my newly created gallery: http://www.NatureImagesByKevin.com

You can find me also at:
http://www.Pixel-Shooter.com
 
To try and answer your questions; I find that my copy of the 300 f4 plus converter is not far off my 400 5.6 in sharpness but lacks the speed and contrast but would have no problem using that combination. The 400 with the 1.4 converter on is also very good though personally, not quite as good as the 300 converter pairing. Lastly, hand holding the 400 has never been a problem for me.

I shoot mostly wildlife with it and have never used it with a tripod and rarely with a monopod. I use hand holding techniques or make the most of being able to rest against anything to offset lack of an IS. The best thing about the 400 apart from the sharpness and general quality, is that I can carry it around while I’m out walking, all day because of its lightness and portability.
 
I did a lot of comparisons between the 300mm f/2.8L IS USM and the 400mm f/5.6L USM and what I found (on a 20D body) was that the difference in sharpness and contrast between the two lenses was fairly small (with the 300mm f/2.8 being better). When I add the 1.4x II TC to the 300 the difference between the two lenses is very small and I really have to look to see it.

I think one of the things that make the output from the 300 look better is the way the lens renders the OOF areas. The nice smooth backgrounds really make the images look sharper when you look at the entire image.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
 
That could be...the oof background. Also for me, I like to do bird "portraits" and really liked the effects of being able to use f4 and even f2.8 on the 300.

Don't get me wrong, the 400 is fantastic, but I much prefered having access to the 300 and even the 500. :)
--
~ Kevin ~

Visit my newly created gallery: http://www.NatureImagesByKevin.com

You can find me also at:
http://www.Pixel-Shooter.com
 
Yes, I agree that the output from the 300 does look better in many circumstances. My only point was really that when I looked at my lenses at 100% and started comparing fine detail the two were very similar in quality. When I look at the big picture I often prefer what I get from the 300.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
 
Can't disagree with you there! I'm guilty of pixel peeping at 100% to check for sharpness. Rarely was I disappointed in any of the lenses mentioned. But there always something "different" with the big guns compared to the 400/5.6. :)
--
~ Kevin ~

Visit my newly created gallery: http://www.NatureImagesByKevin.com

You can find me also at:
http://www.Pixel-Shooter.com
 
Thanks to all. I'm still on the fence, still weighing if I need the IS the 300 f/4 offers and then adding the 1.4 TC when I need the extra boost OR just go for the 400 f/5.6. The 300 would be more versatile, so I have to take a good long look at the two lenses. Either way, they are both lightweight, reasonably compact and sharp.

--

The only true wisdom I have to impart is to say.....get out there and shoot! Anything else is subject to interpretation.
 
I doubt I'll say anything that hasn't been said already, but I had the 400 f/5.6L,

and it was optically the best lens I had. It focuses FAST when bare and is very sharp.

I also used it with 1.4x on a 20d (taped pins) and AF was very slow, but still somewhat usable (albeit annoying). Also I needed to use hi ISO much of the time to get the shutter speed up about 1/X (think warbler hunting in fairly thick forest). I won't lie, I could have used IS, and I wasn't 100% happy with the optical performance with the 1.4x, so I guess i really DID want the 400DO or 500/4 :)
for the cost though it's a stellar performer.

-D

--
Dustin aka Cooperii

EOS-20D
EFs 10-22
EF50 1.8 MKII
EF24-105 F/4L
 
I have been using the venerable (and discontinued but often available) Sigma HSM 400mm F/5.6 Macro because of its excellent showing in Photozone tests in which the resolution figure far exceeded the Canon 400mm F/5.6.

It seems wicked sharp to me from F/7.1 onward. The OOF backgrounds could be smoother. Although I own a Canon 5D, I'm currently using this Sigma with a Sony A100 body because of the stabilization and crop factor. I've done no comparisons and haven't noted much discussion of this lens among Canon users of lenses in this range...any thoughts?

I would love to find something similarly affordable for my much-loved 5D, although I'm aware of the stabilization/magnification deficit I'd be facing. gp
 
IMHO, there is either something wrong with Photozone's procedure for the EF 400 f/5.6L test (possibly due to the min focusing distance) or they had a bad copy of this lens.
 
macshark said:
IMHO, there is either something wrong with Photozone's procedure for
the EF 400 f/5.6L test (possibly due to the min focusing distance) or
they had a bad copy of this lens.
Click to expand...
IIRC, they shoot at about 40x the effective focal length, as a result of fitting the frame to a specific test chart. That would be about 26m or 84 feet. So perhaps they had a bad copy (all bad copies may not show strong decentring, I suppose).
 
http://home.earthlink.net/~ladlueck3/sharp560.htm

I once checked my shots, and had better than 70% keepers at 560mm, f8, handheld at 1/320 second exposure. I'm 50, drink lot's of caffeine, and have a desk job... Read up on handgun/rifle target shooting to learn the technique.

If you have an xxD, or xxxD, you won't get good, fast AF with a TC, even the ones that lie about aperture. With a 1Dx, you will.

It's a -great- lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top