Reading mode: Light Dark

400 2.8 IS vs. 400 5.6L

Go to last post
G

genotypewriter

Senior Member
Messages
4,846
Reaction score
1
Location
Melbourne, AU
According to the test below... the 2.8 IS seems to be a bit softer in the corners. Or it could be just field curvature:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=278&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=327

Any thoughts on how the 2.8 IS compares to the 300 2.8 IS?

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter
It's about how you use your gear and not what gear you use,
It's not what you can afford to get but what you can afford to lose
 
genotypewriter said:
According to the test below... the 2.8 IS seems to be a bit softer in
the corners. Or it could be just field curvature:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=278&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=327

Any thoughts on how the 2.8 IS compares to the 300 2.8 IS?
Click to expand...
Pul-eeeze. The 400/2.8IS is probably one of the finest lenses of it's kind available. It is without flaws. Razor sharp wide open. Same pretty much goes for the 300/2.8IS. Basically, if you are considering either the 400/2.8 or 300/2.8 you can save yourself a lot of time and pretty much forget lens tests or reviews. There are no finer lenses available at any price - period.
 
It's a second grade lens to the 300 2.8L and the 600 f4L, both of which I own.

There's no way I'd pick it over the 400 f2.8L - unless I just didn't have the $$$ - In that case I'd buy the 300 F2.8L and a 1.4x Canon extender - and this would still be better than the 400 f5.6

Here's a 400 5.6 shot



Here's a 300 F2.8L shot for comparison



I'd expect the 400 to show the same qualities...
--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac Pro/iMac/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones
 
Despite the fanboy outcry above I do not think that there is any difference whatsoever to be seen between the 400 2.8 and 5.6 @ 5.6 - not even pixel peeping. As so often what you really pay for is the faster lens - also the 2.8 has IS which is very useful at this length.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=327&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3&LensComp=249&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=3

Not like the 300mm, where there is a slight advantage for the 300 2.8 over the 4.0 @ 4.0 - if pixel peeping.
genotypewriter said:
According to the test below... the 2.8 IS seems to be a bit softer in
the corners. Or it could be just field curvature:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=278&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=327

Any thoughts on how the 2.8 IS compares to the 300 2.8 IS?

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter
It's about how you use your gear and not what gear you use,
It's not what you can afford to get but what you can afford to lose
Click to expand...
 
No a fair comparisson. First shot is panned and you expect to see a blurred shot and the second you have probably pre-focused!
 
maiaibing said:
Despite the fanboy outcry above I do not think that there is any
difference whatsoever to be seen between the 400 2.8 and 5.6 @ 5.6 -
not even pixel peeping. As so often what you really pay for is the
faster lens - also the 2.8 has IS which is very useful at this length.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're right. Also if there's any slight (but testable) corner softness it wouldn't matter wide open because of the DOF.

I haven't tried the 400 2.8 IS yet, but if its IS is anything like the 300 2.8's IS then I'm going to wait until a MkII is released. But then again, since the heavy lens will be less handheld unlike the 300 2.8 IS, I guess the old IS is good enough.

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter
It's about how you use your gear and not what gear you use,
It's not what you can afford to get but what you can afford to lose
 
Actually, there's a number of review sites that show that a 400mm f5.6L is just as sharp as a 300mm f2.8L plus a 1.4x tc. A 300mm f2.8 plus a 1.4x tc is not the same as a 400mm f2.8...there's a stop difference and the 400mm will be sharper wide open with less vignetting ect.

The problem with the 400mm f2.8 is that it's an old design and that it's the heaviest lens in Canon's current line up, heavier than the 600L and 800L. It also sports a very early IS system.

The 400mm f5.6 L gets over looked because it lack IS and weather sealing, but it's a very sharp lens with no optical defects and what it does, it does very well.

Regards,

Gareth Cooper
--
http://www.GMCPhotographics.com (weddings)
http://www.pbase.com/gazzajagman (other stuff)

'Science is what we dream of, technology is what we are stuck with' Douglas Adams
 
GazzaJagman said:
Actually, there's a number of review sites that show that a 400mm
f5.6L is just as sharp as a 300mm f2.8L plus a 1.4x tc. A 300mm f2.8
plus a 1.4x tc is not the same as a 400mm f2.8...there's a stop
difference and the 400mm will be sharper wide open with less
vignetting ect.
Click to expand...
So firstly, I'm talking real world use, not lens chart testing.

The 400 5.6 cannot keep up with the AI Servo AF tracking of the faster primes, such as the 300 2.8, 400 2.8 or even 600 4.

So it's harder to get an in-focus shot of a moving target.

Second - you're often shooting wide open in order to blur the background, and separate the subject from that background.

With the 400 starting at 5.6, it's that much harder to achieve that effect.

Clearly a 300 2.8 + 1.4x is not the same as a 400 2.8, however it IS a very useable and cost effective way to get the same reach. The Canon extenders are designed specifically for the fast primes, and the image quality is excellent with the 1.4x, and the 2x. The 2x leads to some contrast loss when used with the 600 f4, but that's about it.

Here's a 600 f4 shot with the 2x extender fitted:



Here's two 300 f2.8 shots with the 2x extender fitted:





So while the 400 5.6 is a great starting point, and good value for money - it's just not in the same league as the 400 2.8, or a 300 2.8 and extender in actual use.

Sure, the super-teles are big and heavy - but you get what you pay for.

And you get used to carrying them around!



--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac Pro/iMac/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones
 
GazzaJagman said:
The problem with the 400mm f2.8 is that it's an old design and that
it's the heaviest lens in Canon's current line up, heavier than the
600L and 800L. It also sports a very early IS system.
Click to expand...
The problem? Old design? Heavy? Early IS? Do you use the 400/2.8IS? I have about 150,000 images from mine this season and there is simply nothing else available that can even come close. The current lens is about as close to perfection as you are likely going to get - albeit at a price.
 
John-G said:
genotypewriter said:
John-G said:
There are no finer lenses available at any price - period.
Click to expand...
Wonder how good the recent Nikons are. Does anyone know?
Click to expand...
Well, since the Nikon lenses do not fit my Canon body I cannot
comment. I guess I should have said "No finer lenses for Canon
available...". :-)
Click to expand...
Considering the price of a 400 2.8 VR/IS, the cost of a D700 is near insignificant in the bigger picture lol

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter
It's about how you use your gear and not what gear you use,
It's not what you can afford to get but what you can afford to lose
 
maiaibing said:
Despite the fanboy outcry above I do not think that there is any
difference whatsoever to be seen between the 400 2.8 and 5.6 @ 5.6 -
not even pixel peeping. As so often what you really pay for is the
faster lens - also the 2.8 has IS which is very useful at this length.
Click to expand...
While I've only used the 400/2.8 I find it hard to beleive that the 400/5.6 wide-open would equal the 400/2.8 when stopped down to f5.6. As sharp as the 400/2.8 is wide open it gets crazy sharp as you stop down.

All these comparisons are moot anyway. 99.99% of it's users buy the 400/2.8 for sports. While the 400/5.6 may be mack-daddy for wildlife and BIF f5.6 just won't cut it for action when the light starts to fade. Two different lenses for two different purposes.
 
Have you used the 300 or 400 f2.8 for any extended time? The IS is just fine. I rented the 200 f2 this weekend. For testing I compared the 200 to my 300 f2.8 with the 1.4TC on the 200. AF speed were the same IQ on REAL subjects about the same. For me the longer end is more important for wildlife and Ill take the 300 and tcs when I cant take support and leave the 500 f4 at home. The 200's IS was no better than the 300's. If I was shooting indoor sports and had a 300 2.8IS Id sell it and get the 200.

I read the tests but base my decision on real use. I value a Reichman review (Luminous Landscape) more than any bench test.
 
Chris Dodkin said:
So firstly, I'm talking real world use, not lens chart testing.

The 400 5.6 cannot keep up with the AI Servo AF tracking of the
faster primes, such as the 300 2.8, 400 2.8 or even 600 4.

So it's harder to get an in-focus shot of a moving target.

Second - you're often shooting wide open in order to blur the
background, and separate the subject from that background.

With the 400 starting at 5.6, it's that much harder to achieve that
effect.
Click to expand...
Sure you're right Crhris, yet the 400 f/5.6 can focus very well in Ai Servo if light is OK and background blur is good if the subject is not too far.
In this gallery of water skiing championship :
http://jaumier.smugmug.com/gallery/6728599_etT8k#429711309_Zesbi

I shot most of the photos with water up to my knees; I begun with 300 f/2.8 (10 first photos) and it was too difficult in the water on monopod, so I took 400 f/5.6. Still some good shots. And focus is easier to achieve at f/5.6...

Of course, I would happiliy trade my 400 f/5.6 for 400 f/2.8, but then I would buy 400 f/5.6 again because 400 f/2.8 can't be used anytime anywhere ;-)
 
hhski said:
Have you used the 300 or 400 f2.8 for any extended time? The IS is
just fine. I rented the 200 f2 this weekend. For testing I compared
the 200 to my 300 f2.8 with the 1.4TC on the 200. AF speed were the
same IQ on REAL subjects about the same. For me the longer end is
more important for wildlife and Ill take the 300 and tcs when I cant
take support and leave the 500 f4 at home. The 200's IS was no better
than the 300's. If I was shooting indoor sports and had a 300 2.8IS
Id sell it and get the 200.
I read the tests but base my decision on real use. I value a Reichman
review (Luminous Landscape) more than any bench test.
Click to expand...
As I said in another reply, no... I haven't used the 400 2.8 IS. Also I said that the slightly older IS won't be such an issue because the lens is likely to be always on a monopod or a tripod because of its weight... unlike the 300 2.8 IS which is used mostly handheld (at least that's how I would use it).

Are you talking about the 200's IS with the TC on? If not I absolutely disagree that the 300 2.8 IS's IS is as effective as the 200 f2's IS. Keeping the wider FOV aside, there's still at least 1 stop of improvement in the f2 IS in usage. I don't want to get in to this argument because I'm not considering the 300 and the 400 2.8 IS's not used handheld much as I said.

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter
It's about how you use your gear and not what gear you use,
It's not what you can afford to get but what you can afford to lose
 
genotypewriter said:
I haven't tried the 400 2.8 IS yet, but if its IS is anything like
the 300 2.8's IS then I'm going to wait until a MkII is released. But
then again, since the heavy lens will be less handheld unlike the 300
2.8 IS, I guess the old IS is good enough.
Click to expand...
Don't wait, unless you can handhold a 16 pound rig (400/2.8 + 1D-class body...) I can't do it for any length of time (one pass of Blue Angels perhaps) so it always resides on a monopod which makes IS rather superflous. Chances are that any update to the 400/2.8 will be lighter but not significantly: Canon can make the metal parts lighter but it'll still need many monster pieces of glass inside.
 
I’ve owned both the 400mm f/5.6L and 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and used both quite a bit for actual photo taking and must say I find some of the replies to this thread to be rather silly.

Yes the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM is a excellent piece of equipment but it is not without flaws. I do believe that there is some slight softness in the corners but I do not believe this has any significant impact on this lens’ ability to produce excellent results.

As far as AF speed goes I do not think the f/2.8 has any advantage over the f/5.6 in terms of AF speed. I do believe the f/2.8 can offer superior accuracy with the newest AF systems that have enhanced AF with f/2.8 or faster lenses.

The optical design for a 400mm f/2.8 IS lens is much more complicated than it is for a 400mm f/5.6 non-IS lens so I am not at all surprised that the f/5.6 lens would be sharper across the frame wide open than the f/2.8 lens.

These two lenses are obviously very different tools with different advantages and disadvantages and both lenses are fantastic optically.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
AF-s f2.8 300 VR + TC-20e III or TC-17eII ?
2
Replies
24
Views
937
Blufftonian
Blufftonian
GinoSVK
RF 200-800mm, optical fail? (The-digital-picture)
Replies
10
Views
1K
John Crowe
John Crowe
J A C S
The 24-105/2.8 on TDP
Replies
1
Views
1K
zero214
zero214
C
MTF Charts vs. Sharpness in the field
Replies
14
Views
3K
SNJops
SNJops
TBLF
What lens for low light bokeh monster, pinch hit semi macro?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Ralf B
Ralf B

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