EF 400mm f/5.6L USM image quality

CWaterston wrote:

Octopuss wrote:

I have since bought and promptly returned the Sigma 100-400mm too. Having to shoot at ISO 1600 all the time and IS that doesn't seem to do much (better than nothing for sure but I didn't get a single sharp enough photo out of it) doesn't cut it for me.

Right now I am buying 70-200 f/4 II from someone 2nd hand for almost too good to believe price. I figured 400mm wasn't enough for birds and animals further away anyway, and 70-200 is much more versatile for other purposes.

You're right. In most cases, 400 is too short for birds. Heck, 600 is often too short. Really depends on your location. But I've never gone birding with a 400 f/5.6. Too short, and the aperture is just uninteresting. Lack of IS seals the deal against this lens.

Use cases for that lens? I'm not sure. Shooting into the sky? Maybe outdoor sports, bright light. It's clearly a lens that wants to be handheld, but the lack of IS means you're not going to get a lot of keepers unless the lighting conditions are perfect. Even then, you'll probably be tempted to push the ISO to ensure that your shutter speed doesn't get too low.

i agree with some of your points but when i acquired my 400 f5.6 a few years back, i had enormous fun with it. of course there were times that i felt it wasn't long enough but i came out with ways get closer to the birds or animals. as far as lack of IS is concerned, i never had a problem with it, i worked on my handholding techniques and there was no issues. i have taken some very sharp photos using my 400 f5.6 and also using my TC 1.4xII, which works real nice. so, for someone who just start birding or shooting animals, a 400 f5.6 would perfect. as far as reach is concerned, many time i have found out that my canon 600mm f4.0 II plus TC 1.4 III was not enough, so everything is relative, IMO.

best.