tarjei99
Senior Member
Announced this summer. Expected delivery in December.
But due to production problems(?) not available before March next year.
But due to production problems(?) not available before March next year.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon 400mm f/5.6L. My impressions
- Thread starter Joaquin_peme
- Start date
Looks like some good sensor dust above her head?
f5.6, 1/1250 ISO 400 1DS2
That's interesting ;-)
Can you provide me with a link to the photo store or to any details about the lens?
This lens is expected perhaps some time next year. However, in contrast to the 300/2.8II and 400/2.8II it has not been officially announced and I don't know of any specifications. Amazing that it can already be ordered in Sweden.
Hi
There are not so much info yet, but can be ordered.
Some examples
http://www.cyberphoto.se/info.php?article=128681
http://www.scandinavianphoto.se/product/item.aspx?iid=11208118
Best regards from Sweden
Omar Brännström
--
http://sydnet.net/omar
Thanks for the links.
I did some further searches and it appears that Canon has not announced the "lens" but "development of the lens". I couldn't find any specifications. It will be interesting whether they could achieve a similar weight reduction with the 500/4II as with the 400/2.8II.
Did your store give you any info on price or availability (the 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 have already been delayed)?
Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee
Veteran Member
It does look like it, BUT at 400mm f5.6? Very odd. I'll check the sensor and follow up!
Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee
Veteran Member
Nothing on sensor on checking except TINY spots I wouldn't bother with. I'm pretty sure that you couldn't see any with 400mm lens in situ. I've no idea what it is, though, unless out of focus insects??
Mike K
Veteran Member
Did you ever consider other types of mounts? I had a friend who went on a Safari and found a Bush hawk shoulder mount essential to stabilize his long lens.
http://www.bushhawk.com/CatalogueRetrieve.aspx?CatalogueID=39258
It worked well for him in situations where even a monopod would be difficult.
Mike K
http://www.bushhawk.com/CatalogueRetrieve.aspx?CatalogueID=39258
It worked well for him in situations where even a monopod would be difficult.
Mike K
Hi
No info yet at all, sorry, I also want to know the weight, price and when it will come.
Omar
--
http://sydnet.net/omar
Did you shoot any other frames at the same occasion? Insects would be expected to have moved, dust spots would be expected at precisely the same location in the frame
Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee
Veteran Member
You're right. It was dust, I checked other frames. It's not there now and I haven't cleaned it since!! It got an acute attack of gravity, I imagine!
I have one & it is OK for most things I use it for. Low light? forget it unless yoru subject is not moving. In good light it is a fantastic lens for birds on a crop camera. small birds move very quickly so high shutter speed is required. 600 or faster is recommended. The light weight & fast focus make it a super walk around bird lens especially with a Monopod. For big game it is good too if you do not get too close.
I really want a 500 though. One stop better aperture & IS make it much more appealing for small birds.
--
Warren
I really want a 500 though. One stop better aperture & IS make it much more appealing for small birds.
--
Warren
40d_dane
Senior Member
I bought my 400mm a little more than a year ago as an upgrade to my old 300mm f4 L (non-IS) + 1.4 TC. IQ wise the 400mm didn't disappoint at all (but unfortunately my 300mm isn't top notch). Yes you do need to support the 400mm properly but good technique does help a lot. I have sharp captures with the lens a 1/80 hand held. Naturally keeper rate isn't great at 1/80 - actually it's quite low. At 1/250 I get an acceptable keeper rate with this lens. 4-stop IS would have been great though. One of the most important things regarding lens support is that you should support the front of the lens with your left hand. I think that this is a point that quite a few miss. I've even seen a book on nature photography showing a "stable" stance with the photographer supporting the lens quite close to the camera body.
About half a year ago I bought a used 500mm f4 L IS. Yes it's a better lens than the 400mm. But for most uses the 400mm will give you similar IQ if the 400mm has sufficient reach and you can arrange your shoot with sufficient distance between you subject and the background. The big advantage of the 500mm is that it's one stop faster, the more shallow DOF makes it easier to isolate your subject, and the reach - especially with TC added. The disadvantage of the 500mm is the price, weight of the lens, and that the significantly shallower DOF makes it harder to find you subject (with the 400mm finding your subject is a 2-D thing in most cases; with the 500mm it's almost always a 3-D thing) and for the camera to focus from significantly defocused. Basically you can point the 500mm lens in the right direction and entirely miss your subject because of significant defocus.
If I think I can get the image I want with my 400mm I will take it. If not I will bring my 500mm.
About half a year ago I bought a used 500mm f4 L IS. Yes it's a better lens than the 400mm. But for most uses the 400mm will give you similar IQ if the 400mm has sufficient reach and you can arrange your shoot with sufficient distance between you subject and the background. The big advantage of the 500mm is that it's one stop faster, the more shallow DOF makes it easier to isolate your subject, and the reach - especially with TC added. The disadvantage of the 500mm is the price, weight of the lens, and that the significantly shallower DOF makes it harder to find you subject (with the 400mm finding your subject is a 2-D thing in most cases; with the 500mm it's almost always a 3-D thing) and for the camera to focus from significantly defocused. Basically you can point the 500mm lens in the right direction and entirely miss your subject because of significant defocus.
If I think I can get the image I want with my 400mm I will take it. If not I will bring my 500mm.
HarryLally
Senior Member
Thanks for that very useful input. I have the 400 f5.6 which I bought for birding. Alas I've found it much too short, excellent though the IQ is, and have seriously considered getting the 500 f4. However, the weight has put me off - I find even the 300 f4L too heavy for prolonged hand-holding, so would find the weight of the 500 too much. Maybe I'll persevere with the 400 or just give up on birding.
Michael
Michael
40d_dane
Senior Member
My advice wold be to persevere with the 400 ... but I'm addicted to birding ! Two things worthy for consideration are the use of a hide and study of your subject. Both will bring you better results and greater satisfaction as a birder... but again, I'm addicted ;-)
Take a look at http://www.javiermilla.es/camuflaje/Index.htm#sin_camuflaje for inspiration (use google translate if you don't read Spanish).
ScottieC
Leading Member
Hi
I had the 500mm f/4 IS on a tripod + markII and 400mm DO f/4 + markII hanging from my shoulder, I got to stationary and it was heavy.
So I bought the 400mm 5.6 to use handheld and to walk further to explore.
I do not use a hide but sometimes I use the car as a blind.
So just practice with the 400 5.6 and learn were the birds are.
You can se here that 400mm 5.6 works great for birds.
http://www.pbase.com/omar_brannstrom/mark_iv_test_shoots&page=all
Best regards from Sweden
Omar Brännström
--
http://sydnet.net/omar
Dr. Leonard
Senior Member
The 500 is not only heavy but also quite expensive. I'm sticking with my 100-400 and generally get good results provided I can get close enough. This is really the secret to those who are focal point limited. You have to research birding areas to find those that allow one to get close enough to fill the frame. My experience is that this is not easy. I've explored many areas here in Michigan and also in Florida and only a few places suffice. So explore, have patience and enjoy birding with your 400.
There is a fine line between a non sequitur and merely changing the subject.
idler
Active member
I came to the same conclusion with BIF and general wildlife.The 400mm is very sharp, has good reach and has IQ which more than satisfies me. For low light - Barn owls at dusk - the 200mm f2.8 prime is a good alternative. Weight at my age is the main reason and all within a reasonable budget. IS and larger aperture would add to the weight (and cost). Carrying a scope and tripod as well is quite enough!
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum