400mm f/5.6 L

[crunch]

**I'm hoping inkisita will answer, cuz I know she has one **

How does this lens perform? For example, compared to the 100-400mm?

I was looking at the 100-400mm, but now I'm shifting my focus to the 70-200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4, and 400mm f/5.6. (Yes, I know that's a lot of glass... but I'm looking forward to it!) Either way, I get 400mm @ f/5.6, but I get much faster in the lower focal lengths.

This setup will primarily be for wildlife. Although the 70-200 should help at the (admittedly few) weddings that I do. The 300 would be optional for now.

My biggest concern is lack of IS on the 400. Is it really an issue though? I'd prefer better IQ vs the 100-400 than the IS offered on same. Also, any idea how the 1.4x extender affects IQ? I know it won't autofocus. I'd rather go the 400 + 1.4 route before I get the 500 or 600.

Thanks!

[crazzy88ss]

Yea you'll need a tripod or monopod for sure. I was shooting a 300mm f2.8 the other day, and the VR helped a HUGE amount even though I was getting shutter speeds of 1/4000.

[Sime]

All I can say is that I love my 100-400... I'd really love am 80-200 2.8 IS (For shooting music, indoors with rough lighting) but the 100-400 is a very nice lens.

[inkista]

Ok, I'm here. [grin]

The prime is a specialized lens, and it does less than the 100-400L, so if you'd prefer more function, go for the 100-400L. I bought the 400 because I was interested in bird-in-flight shots and with birds in flight, a 400mm is the minimum you need--I'm still cropping a lot of the time; so a zoom isn't as useful. I found with my EF 75-300 III, that I was at the 300 end of the zoom about 95% of the time. The prime is a little smaller and lighter. Two things that made the prime ok for me: 1) I live in Southern California and have lots and lots of sunlight most of the year round to work with and 2) Birds in flight are fast enough that my shutter speed generally has to be above 1/500s anyway to freeze the action (remember, IS can't freeze subject action, only camera shake).


iso 400. f/13. 1/640s. Note how there's still motion blur on the wing.

OTOH, I've also found that with a monopod, I can easily get IS-type handholding speeds out of the lens:


iso 400, f/7.1, 1/60s.

At the time that I bought it, it was also generally reported that the prime was sharper than the 100-400 at the 400 end, and that it took extenders better. However, I think I've seen recent samples from the 100-400 that make me think the performance is pretty much on a par at the 400 end.

I use a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter on my 400 prime; it doesn't report to the camera at all, and my XT can still autofocus with it, it occasionally hunts or chatters, but it will autofocus. It's easier not to use it, though, and it definitely affects the sharpness even of my prime


iso 800, f/5.6, 1/2500s. (+1.4x tc)

If I had to do it all over again, I'd probably have saved up the extra $500 and gone with the 100-400L, if I'd known then what a pain the prime would be to use at the zoo. OTOH, I seem to mostly be shooting at the zoo with my 135L these days. And my 400 is still worth every penny.


iso 400, f/5.6, 1/640s

All images, except for the perched kites are straight-from-camera JPEGs with cropping on the moon and the kites. I'm lazy and don't often post-process. I think I may have run some sharpening on the perched kites, given how severe the cropping was on that shot.

[rediguana]

I've got the 400f5.6 as well, and it is a very nice lens. I have used it both handheld for birds in flight and other wildlife shots, as well as on a monopod - and haven't ever felt that disappointed about it not having IS. In fact I think I enjoy it being a little bit lighter that makes it easier to hand hold.

I was thinking about the 100-400, that in hindsight would have been a great travel lens, but I think I'll wait until they hopefully produce a II version

In terms of getting sharp images handheld - I always make sure to bang off a few extra shots, I can always delete the blurry ones later, and I have enough sharp ones left over that I don't need to worry about IS.

Just going back quickly through my photos with the lens, it has mostly been used for birds, wildlife, landscapes and astrophotography.

[crunch]

Thanks all for the replies.

I'll definately use my monopod. I do so now with the 75-300, and it helps quite a lot.

The 'versatality' of the 100-400 to me is outweighed by the low-light capabilities of the 70-200. Maybe I should just get the two zooms? Will run the same price (less actually) than the 3 lenses I suggested above. Save some cash towards the 5DII

I think the next step is to borrow or rent the 400 and the 100-400 AT THE SAME TIME and test both in the field!

Thanks again!

[inkista]

Renting both sounds like a great plan. And don't worry about dithering between the 400 and 100-400--everyone does--it's a really tough decision between the two. And nearly everybody seems happy with either one, and a bunch of folks get BOTH (must be nice to be that rich).

And yeah, the 70-200 f/2.8L is another beast altogether.

[rediguana]

I can recommend the combination of 70-200 and 400. If you add a 1.4x TC to the mix you've got quite a range of options between these two lenses. It's just not the best for travelling as it adds quite a bit of bulk and weight with two lenses.

If you have the opportunity to try them out, go for it!

[dpsteak]

Also the 400 L has a large minimum focusing distance over the 100-400L which helps make AF quicker.

[rediguana]

Originally Posted by dpsteak

Also the 400 L has a large minimum focusing distance over the 100-400L which helps make AF quicker.

As well as an additional switch that allows you to move the MFD from 3.5 to 8.5m (going from memory here). This makes the focusing faster again for distant subjects.