Canon 400mm 5.6L

George

George

Chasseur Haggis extraordinaire
Messages
3,461
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone got any clues when this will be replaced?

It has to be the only non IS prime tele in the range, introduced I believe in 1993!!
 
It may not be in line to be replaced.

There's a reason for it being non-IS, in my opinion. It's designed to be very light, very quick to focus, and stupidly sharp. It does all those three things to perfection. IS might compromise it.

Some people think the 300mm f/4 IS plus a 1.4x TC makes a good alternative - it's about the same size and weight, the combination is 420mm f/5.6, and it has IS. That is a very good setup, to be sure. But if you try the 400mm f/5.6 you'll be amazed how much better it is.
 
StewartR said:
It may not be in line to be replaced.

There's a reason for it being non-IS, in my opinion. It's designed to be very light, very quick to focus, and stupidly sharp. It does all those three things to perfection. IS might compromise it.

Some people think the 300mm f/4 IS plus a 1.4x TC makes a good alternative - it's about the same size and weight, the combination is 420mm f/5.6, and it has IS. That is a very good setup, to be sure. But if you try the 400mm f/5.6 you'll be amazed how much better it is.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with Stewart...the 400/5.6 gives better IQ than the 300/4 IS and the logic says that it is the IS that degrades it.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I'd agree with Stewart...the 400/5.6 gives better IQ than the 300/4 IS and the logic says that it is the IS that degrades it.

Bob
Click to expand...

Not something I had really thought about, so I just checked the price on the 400 /5.6...Hmm not bad (y)
but I will also ask the obvious, Bob / Stewart
Why does / what makes/ "IS" degrade the IQ?
Ta
 
Folks,

I have just recently got the 300 f4 & 1.4TC and have used it with IS on and off. Focus speed is noticeably slower with IS on but IQ seem the same to me in the limited testing I have done so far (mainly birds).

I have got sharp, clear images at 420mm at s/s of 1/60th which seemed OK to me - I think that is about on par with my 100-400.

HTH

Best regards

Rob
 
sportysnaps said:
more glass in the light path
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The 400mm f/5.6 has only 7 elements in 6 groups, which is very few by modern standards. By comparison the 300mm f/4 IS has 15 elements in 11 groups, and Canon's other big telephotos have 17 elements in 13 groups.
 
IS is definately a benefit when you struggling with hand holding but an IS lens is a slight negative if the IS isn't needed for the shot.

Duller days and the 300/4 gets an outing but the 400/5.6 is the one with the sun tan.

Bob
 
StewartR said:
Absolutely. The 400mm f/5.6 has only 7 elements in 6 groups, which is very few by modern standards. By comparison the 300mm f/4 IS has 15 elements in 11 groups, and Canon's other big telephotos have 17 elements in 13 groups.
Click to expand...

Canon Bob said:
IS is definately a benefit when you struggling with hand holding but an IS lens is a slight negative if the IS isn't needed for the shot.

Duller days and the 300/4 gets an outing but the 400/5.6 is the one with the sun tan.

Bob
Click to expand...

Thanks Guys (y)
 
Mmmm...interesting points there, guys. Hadn't thought of the IS actually reducing IQ, but I suppose it makes sense. So how does IQ shape up between the old 35/350 non IS and the 28/300 withIS?..anyone used both?
 
George said:
Mmmm...interesting points there, guys. Hadn't thought of the IS actually reducing IQ, but I suppose it makes sense. So how does IQ shape up between the old 35/350 non IS and the 28/300 withIS?..anyone used both?
Click to expand...

I tried one and thought that there was no "real world" improvement....not worth the change for me. The AF of the 28-300 was noticeably faster and the IS would be a benefit if hand-holding at the longer end was to be the norm. I also thought that the extra 7mm on the wide end was pretty useless due to barrel distortion.

Bob
 
That's what I wondered about, Bob, you've got the 35-350, haven't you? I find I'm not realy using mine much, as I;ve now got the 24-105 and a 100-400, and I suspect the 1Ds mk3 might show up the defects in a 10x zoom. I'll try some tests soon.

George
 
I have the prime 400 and have just ordered 2 x extender off Kerso, I think I'm ready for anything???? Although the speed, accurate, sharp nature of the 400 means, I love it, and the price wasnt bad for such a supersize. Some may disagree but we all like the kit we carry for ourselves
 
I have the 400L and I love it. Very fast AF and sharp, too.
 
I'm reading this thread with great interest as I think I'm somewhere about ready to get a 400 f5.6

Does anyone know if the Sigma ex dg 1.4x TC will work on the 400?
I know i'm going to lose AF if I use that set up on the 5D.....but the option is nice to have.

Has anyone got any images from the 400 to the bokeh?
 
digitalfailure said:
Does anyone know if the Sigma ex dg 1.4x TC will work on the 400?
Click to expand...

DF

I did some tests last year...Sigma v Kenko v Canon 1.4x T/C's. The Canon and Kenko came out very similar but the Sigma gave a different colourcast to the images. I tested on a 300/4 and not the 400/5.6 but I think the lens coating doesn't work too well with the Sigma's coating...it was a Sigma PRO300 1.4x.

Bob
 
Bob, I have the DG EX, not sure if it's any different coatings wise to the Pro300 :shrug:
 
digitalfailure said:
Bob, I have the DG EX, not sure if it's any different coatings wise to the Pro300 :shrug:
Click to expand...

I tried a Sigma 2x DG (not EX) and found similar results. I think the Sigma T/C coating is matched to Sigma lens coatings.

Bob
 
If I was to buy it, the TC really would be a last resort as i'd be reduced to MF.

I want something that will handle zoo's, birdies and airshows

If I could find one that comes with a talent setting, i'll be even happier :D
 
:nono: I usually do get a wiggle on through spring and summer.....i'm very much a warmth lover :D
 
Hmmm...these threads really aren't helping! I've been umming and ahhing for a while now over my next glass purchase, and was undecided between the 400 f5.6 and the 300 f4. Finally, at our speedway Press & practise day I got a chance to play with a mates 100-400, just to gauge the difference in the focal lengths really, and decided that the 300mm was the way to go. NOW you tell me that the 400 is sharper, just when I've worked out it won't totally do what I need? For goodness sake guys!! :bang::bat:;)
 
As I said, really guys there is no absolute answer, one lens may have pros and so forth.
Again I say, whatever gives you the best shots, IQ is no good if you miss the image!! This is photography, not a lens competition!!.......but of course everyone wants the best....sorry but I feel that the versatility of zooms give them the edge, but I accept that in absolute terms, IQ may suffer slightly, but how much?????.....:help:
 
George said:
As I said, really guys there is no absolute answer, one lens may have pros and so forth.
Again I say, whatever gives you the best shots, IQ is no good if you miss the image!! This is photography, not a lens competition!!.......but of course everyone wants the best....sorry but I feel that the versatility of zooms give them the edge, but I accept that in absolute terms, IQ may suffer slightly, but how much?????.....:help:
Click to expand...
I see it this way George.....
If I use a zoom and end up thinking it would have been better with a prime....then I've got an image that I'm disappointed with.
If I use the prime and can't get the shot...then it's just like any other time that you don't have the right lens (we all need a super sharp 10-1200 zoom).
The real bonus comes if a person is satisfied with the IQ that a zoom provides and is happy to let the zoom do the thinking. I see the fast jet shots on here and they're great because the tog or the situation is normally the limitation for the shot...zoom or prime would not have any perceivable effect on the IQ. If the action is static or slow then the quality of lens becomes the limiting factor (assuming a proficient tog is behind it).
To decide whether it's to be prime or zoom, you need to decide whether your personal satisfaction is derived from the end result or the technical aspects you put into the shot...very much in the way people strive to limit the amount of PP afterwards.

Bob
 
Yes, Bob, and to an extent I agree with you, but say for a wildlife shot which you'll never get again, I'd prefer an acceptable shot with good composition than a perfect shot of..........well, nothing!!
So, yes, for static shots when you can compose etc, ok the prime is king, but for moving stuff then give me a zoom!!!!and if you can afford both, then great!!

George
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top