Canon 400mm f/5.6L. My impressions

Hello,

I bought a second-hand copy in mint condition for my nature trip to South Africa. Even though this lens may be growing old and grey, I think it's a very capable lens.

I've found that 400mm is more than enough for mamals in game drives. In fact, you can get really close to them, sheltered by your vehicle. A 300mm lens would have sufficed.

What I really missed was both IS and speed. Most of my unacceptable pictures were basically blurred. I have found that I can only shoot condidently at 1/650s when this lens is mounted on my 1DMkIII. Conditions permiting, I could sometimes lean on a window for stability and use slower shutter speeds.

I was so concerned about reach that I ruled out the 300mm f/4 IS lens. It'd have been a better choice for big mammals. One stop faster and IS would have provided me with more keepers.

Sharpeness is really good, but I am not impressed. I guess that owing a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, and a Canon 135mm f/2L has somehow spoiled me.

I have learnt the hard way I will end up selling this lens, and I wouldn't like to make any more mistakes, because they cost money. I could easily sell it and get the 300mm f/4 IS sibbling, but I'm considering waiting for the 300mm f/2.8L mkI version.

If you have already gone through this, I would appreciate it if you shared what you eventually did.

In a nutshell. The 400mm lens is a great lens provided that that you have plenty of lighting, the possibility of using it on a tripod, or/and a great holding technique.

Thanks for reading

A new 100-400L next year is just a rumour, not worth waiting for something.

Interested to read your findings, and I know where you are coming from. However, for the money the 400mm 5.6, given good light conditions/and or tripod/ stability/good handholding technique--is great value for money and has given me some excellent results, but also a huge number of wasted blurry shots - guess the one that works out well makes up for that though.

I can see for larger beasts (I mainly shoot birds - and little ones at that) you may well have been better with the 300 - I just hope you got some good shots out of your trip.

I considered the 300mm F4 IS long and hard and decided I had to go the 400 route. However, when light is low I use a Canon 200mm 2.8L with a 1.4 extender - that helps a little light wise and I sort of think it gives me - minus the IS - the same as the 300 would.

I would love a faster longer lens, but aside from the money aspect - weight is a huge issue for me and I simply don't think I could cope with anything heavier.

Any chance they will ever make a 600mm 2.8 with IS that weighs next to nothing - come on you scientists - work on it please.
Jayboo

I've had no problems with camera shake when using a monopod, and am able to track subjects much faster than wild game.

Kevin

The 400L f/5.6 is a great entry-level telephoto lens but yes it's lack of IS means you do need to pay close attention to keeping it steady as well as fast shutter speeds. I could imagine you found it too long on your safari. While I have not had the chance to shoot big game, I did find the lens often too long with my 5DmkII while shooting albatross on a cruise. Normally, I use this lens on my 50D for birds and usually want more reach.

A canon rep let it slip at a show in Europe.

"A new 100-400 is on it's way according to a mis-timed remark at yesterday's Canon event in London. Can't say who said it, but they should know..."

Joaquin_peme wrote:

I wouldn't like to make any more mistakes, because they cost money.

Just post a query here before a purchase. You'll get tons of great advice.

The 400, great as it is, certainly wasn't a good match for you.

I could easily sell it and get the 300mm f/4 IS sibbling, but I'm considering waiting for the 300mm f/2.8L mkI version.

Well, you gotta tell us first what you want to shoot with it. That's the most important element. Then what type of shot you're after...

R2

Yes, I had a very sharp 400mm f/5.6, but it required a lot of careful support and a fast shutter to realize its capabilities. I also have a 100-400mmL. I have been able to get usable 400mm images handheld at 1/25 sec, and regularly use it at 1/125 sec.

So, while it is not as sharp as the 400mm 5.6 in absolute terms, in the field, handheld, where light availability is a issue, it works much better. I was actually surprised to find that the older IS works so well.

Just one of dozens of shots showing performance of this lens wide open.

It's a particularly sharp lens. What are you using it on?

f5.6, 1/1250 ISO 400 1DS2

This is one of my sharpest lenses. I will always use it as an ISO which permits a shutter speed which I know will work. I willingly use it wide open.