400mm f/5.6 - worth it?

[AC/DC]

Hi,
At the moment I have a Sigma 135-400 for my 400D, and it is a great lens, pretty sharp for ~£200. But I am starting to see limitations, and I would like perhaps a bit more detail in my pictures and for them to snap into focus a bit quicker.

My question then, regards whether or not I would see a marked and noticable improvement in my pictures and the ease of getting them if I were to splash out on an EF 400 f/5.6 L. It is a lot of money for me, and I need to be able to justify it, so could i please have some opinions on this? :t:

Thanks a lot,
Steve.
Ps. this is the sort of thing I am getting atm.

[postcardcv]

Personally (having had and used both lenses) I would say that you would notice a marked improvement in both focus speed and image quality if you made the change. To my eyes the images that I get out of the 400 f5.6 are on a par with those that I get from the 500 f4 IS. I honestly think that the 400 f5.6 is the best walkabout birding lens available. Here's my favourite shot that I've taken with the 400 f5.6 - http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/189232/ppuser/3294

[GYRob]

YES its very close to the 500 f4 just took this with my 400f5.6 L only bird around at the moment just a quick shot . ISO 400 full frame and crop
Rob

[GYRob]

Personally (having had and used both lenses) I would say that you would notice a marked improvement in both focus speed and image quality if you made the change. To my eyes the images that I get out of the 400 f5.6 are on a par with those that I get from the 500 f4 IS. I honestly think that the 400 f5.6 is the best walkabout birding lens available. Here's my favourite shot that I've taken with the 400 f5.6 - http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/189232/ppuser/3294
Man thats a great shot .
Rob.

[IanF]

Same for me - it's on a par with the big Canon primes but at a fraction of the cost and with the added benefit of hand holding and being light enough to carry about all day long.

For the quality it's well worth the money :t:

[Roy C]

Here is one that shows the detail you can get with this lens. I took this shot yesterday while playing about with manual exposure in my garden.
It was hand held

[AC/DC]

Thanks for your input and great images! It is pretty likely I am going to go for one, if not now, I will probably end up doing so in the future.

So, does anyone have one for sale or seen one 2ndhand at a good price?

Cheers.

[a.dancy]

The lens is excellent value brand new good luck with your search to buy one.

[chrisli]

It is one of the best super telephoto lens from Canon, sharp wide open and even when used with TC, I have also tried it with stacking two 1.4TC and the IQ is still accpetable. Cheapest and affodable among the telephoto lenses.

[postcardcv]

Thanks for your input and great images! It is pretty likely I am going to go for one, if not now, I will probably end up doing so in the future.

So, does anyone have one for sale or seen one 2ndhand at a good price?

Cheers.

I got mine last year from Ian Kerr, he imports lenses from the USA and his prices are excellent. He charged ~£640 for the 400 f5.6 which is a good deal cheaper than UK prices and not much more than you'd pay for a secondhand one.

[seggs]

i bought mine from a e-bay shop..last year for £710..imported model from the usa.
great portable lens!...
good luck in your search ac/dc

[Roy C]

I also bought mine from Ian Kerr (Kerso). Not sure of the current price but would guess around £630-£640. As Peter says he imports from the states but ships from Scotland so no extra duties or taxes to pay.

[mikeyb]

Hi,

Ian (Kerso) is £650 plus P+P for that lens right now but he told me it would be 10 days for stock to come in, a great price and having already bought a few lenses and a couple of flashes from Ian I can highly recommend him. All with full UK warranty.

You can email him on 2kerso@(missthisbit)gmail.com as it's best to confirm the price and stock update. I think he is in the U.S. just now so don't expect an early reply, he tends to sort through his mail at about 15:00hrs our time :t:

Mike.

[morrowm]

Hi,

Ian (Kerso) is £650 plus P+P for that lens right now but he told me it would be 10 days for stock to come in, a great price and having already bought a few lenses and a couple of flashes from Ian I can highly recommend him. All with full UK warranty.

You can email him on 2kerso@(missthisbit)gmail.com as it's best to confirm the price and stock update. I think he is in the U.S. just now so don't expect an early reply, he tends to sort through his mail at about 15:00hrs our time :t:

Mike.
I've just bought a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS from Ian (Kerso) and the price and service was excellent.

[Tav94]

Get one a great lens,shot of the Tree Pipit taken with the 400 and a Kenco 1.5 hand held.
Chris Buckland.

www.freewebs.com/tav94

[gmax]

Get one a great lens,shot of the Tree Pipit taken with the 400 and a Kenco 1.5 hand held.
Chris Buckland.

www.freewebs.com/tav94 (http://www.freewebs.com/tav94)

Good shot Chris :t:

[condyk]

It's a truly great lens and I've had two excellent copies both as good. I even got some great shots a week or two back with the 2.0x at 800mm ;-)

[Mike Rudkin]

Traded my Canon 400 in against Sigma 150-500 yesterday.Only take 2 handheld shots without OS so far but am happy.Will post when I sort out how to lol. Mike

[condyk]

Be very interested in seeing those OS shots

[wings]

The 400mm/5.6L lens gives the biggest bang for the buck (or shall I say, quid) It is my prime birding lens. It would have been nice to have IS though, and if Canon made one and added $300-$400 to the price, I'd say it is an unbeatable price/performance combination.

However, I find that all my shots have to be taken with a sturdy tripod.

[gymell]

Yes, absolutely. Also you can use extension tubes with it for great closeup shots. Here's a shot in my backyard last summer of a hummingbird in flight, using the 400 and an extension tube. I don't think this shot would have been successful with a slower-focusing lens. http://www.pbase.com/gymell/image/84715946

[gmax]

Yes, absolutely. Also you can use extension tubes with it for great closeup shots. Here's a shot in my backyard last summer of a hummingbird in flight, using the 400 and an extension tube. I don't think this shot would have been successful with a slower-focusing lens. http://www.pbase.com/gymell/image/84715946

Very good shot Liz, and I appreciate your mentioning the cloneout applied to the shot ;)
I've never used an ext tube with this lens: what size was it and what's the average light loss?
Thank you,
Max

[gymell]

Very good shot Liz, and I appreciate your mentioning the cloneout applied to the shot ;)
I've never used an ext tube with this lens: what size was it and what's the average light loss?
Thank you,
Max

Max - I don't tend to do a lot of cloning in my photos, so I try to mention it if I do. There is not light loss with an extension tube in the same sense as with a teleconverter. Obviously there must be some light loss because the overall tube has been lengthened, but autofocus is not lost. I don't know exactly how much that would be, since it isn't defined in terms of stops of light. What you do lose is the ability to focus to infinity. So if you're doing some up close work at the feeders, and that elusive ivory-billed woodpeckers lands in the back of your yard, you're out of luck. ;

I believe for that shot I used the Canon 25mm extension tube - they don't report in the EXIF unfortunately so I have to rely on memory. I also have the Canon 12mm tube. They can be stacked together, with or without a teleconverter. Here's a shot with the 25mm tube and teleconverter - taken with the 500 f/4. http://www.pbase.com/gymell/image/84715946 . It's an uncropped shot.

[AC/DC]

Thanks again for all your advice. I got one from kerso this week.
The first thing that suprised me was build quality - it's built like a tank!
When I first depressed the shutter, I thought there was something wrong with the AF - I was waiting for something to happen, as I was so used to my very loud sigma - until I realised it was so much quicker and quieter than my sigma that it had managed to focus before i even realised anything was happening!
Even when I took it out today, it managed the terns very well.
I didnt really get close enough to anything today to see how much detail I could get, though the attached greenfinch looks promising.

[Tav94]

Good luck with the new lens .
Chris Buckland
www.freewebs.com/tav94

[JohnZ]

You will not regret this purchase and judging by your shot of the Greenfinch you seem to have got to grips with it already.

[AC/DC]

Thanks very much. A 75% crop of the original greenfinch shot reveals quite a bit of detail. Also quite suprised by how the 400D holds up quite nicely at this level of cropping.

[Roy C]

Thanks very much. A 75% crop of the original greenfinch shot reveals quite a bit of detail. Also quite suprised by how the 400D holds up quite nicely at this level of cropping.
The 400mm f5.6 is a great lens. Here is a couple I took last week at 100% crop, it was with a 40D but I reckon it is more to do with the lens than the camera (these shot were both hand held). If you are just using for web images this lens gives you an awful lot of cropability (almost akin to more reach when compared to a lesser lens :t: )

[postcardcv]

yeah, the lens gives great detail which will leave you room to crop where needed, it is extremey sharp. Here's a shot from earlier this year, first one is uncropped just resized, the second is a 100% crop from the same shot. The only processing done on these shots is converting from the RAW and either resizing or cropping, no sharpening applied. ISO400, f6.3, 1/320th.

[gmax]

Wow Roy and Pete, great detail in both shots .. anybody would be quite pleased with such a result!

[GYRob]

YES its very close to the 500 f4 just took this with my 400f5.6 L only bird around at the moment just a quick shot . ISO 400 full frame and crop
Rob

Heres another one taken today 40d 400f5.6 1/320 f8 iso800 hand held but resting against door aprox 100% crop
Rob.

[Nikon Kid]

What can I say, I want one, I want it now, But I need to sell something to cover it.
I just sold my Cinema Seats on ebay to cover part of the costs of 450d looks like the
projector and screen DVD player Sky+ Sound Surround System and Speakers are next

great pics Thanks AC/DC for thread

IS THIS the same lens "Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM"

[arco13]

I love it! The only thing I wish it had environmental sealing. But thats no big deal I guess. I would recommend bringing getting a mono-pod along with it though. It helps in the lower light and cloudy days.

[666taz]

Hi Nikon Kid it is not the 100-400mm this is the 400mm prime hope this helps.

[Roy C]

IS THIS the same lens "Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM"

No, this is the 400mm f5.6 prime.

[AC/DC]

Nikon kid,

The lens I have is the prime 400mm - i.e it doesnt zoom, and is fixed at 400mm.
I chose it over the 100-400 mainly because it was cheaper, had a bit faster AF and tends to be reviewed as sharper, which some people think is because there is more variation in quality between each copy of the lens.
Anyway, the prime is also often viewed as the best bird in flight lens, which was another reason I got it.

Hope that clarifies it.

As an update, im really liking the lens at the moment, the pictures are getting better and better. I can agree with arco's comment about a monopod, thankfully i already had a manfrotto 681B, which is a very tough piece of kit. Im starting to upload a few more pics into my gallery, and hopefully will take a few more snaps today.
Steve.

[Nikon Kid]

Can Ian Kerr still get the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM cheaper
than the £782 on ebay I think I would like the versatility of the Zoom at
this point in DSLR career

[seggs]

Well in the 9 months or so ive had the 400mm 5.6 Canon lens, still combined with the 350D camera body its been a great investment!. Some of my results from upgrading from a 75-300mm are evident to see on various threads.
Now i am looking into Marco imagnes, Butterflies mainly..This is maybe where the 400mm prime, compared to the 100-400mm becomes a different issue?

[websurfer]

Nikon kid,

The lens I have is the prime 400mm - i.e it doesnt zoom, and is fixed at 400mm.
I chose it over the 100-400 mainly because it was cheaper, had a bit faster AF and tends to be reviewed as sharper, which some people think is because there is more variation in quality between each copy of the lens.
Anyway, the prime is also often viewed as the best bird in flight lens, which was another reason I got it.

Hope that clarifies it.

As an update, im really liking the lens at the moment, the pictures are getting better and better. I can agree with arco's comment about a monopod, thankfully i already had a manfrotto 681B, which is a very tough piece of kit. Im starting to upload a few more pics into my gallery, and hopefully will take a few more snaps today.
Steve.

What a great shot of this "Little ringed plover" in your gallery.

[AC/DC]

Thanks very much websurfer.

Yesterday, the usable f/5.6 and sharpness of this lens really payed of, as I managed some up close shots of 2 black winged stilts that had decided to visit very close to home! I even managed a full frame wing stretch shot!
See my gallery for details.

Steve:t:

[JohnZ]

seggs, Taken with my 400mm f5.6 prime lens. Have to rely an awful lot on the AF though.

[Roy C]

Here is another taken with the 400mm f5.6 prime - hand held.

[Joe Ray]

It really is an excellent lens. My 40D and 400mm f5.6 arrived on Saturday. Totally new to this, but even for a novice like me it's great to use.

[AC/DC]

They're looking very good Joe, great start.

[Roy C]

It really is an excellent lens. My 40D and 400mm f5.6 arrived on Saturday. Totally new to this, but even for a novice like me it's great to use.
Nice start Joe.

[Joe Ray]

Thanks guys. These were my first images with a DSLR, so I'm hoping there's plenty of room for improvement.

Joe

[seggs]

Hi John and Roy
No doubt the 400mm is great for small creatures also, as your cracking photo,s show.
The macro thing is a new field to me this year with the len,s and i struggle at time with the 3 metre or so min. focal distance, especially with butterflies....more practice needed i guess.

[AC/DC]

steve, you can buy extension tubes to lower the minimum focussing distance. It loses you a little bit of light (nowhere near as much as a converter), and means you wont be able to focus to infinity while its attached. If you take a look in you lens manual, it staes the different extension tubes and the difference they make, although 3rd party ones (kenko etc.) will do the same job for less.

[Roy C]

As has been said, extension tubes will reduce the min focus distance - from memory 65mm of tubes gives a min focus distance of around 2 1/4 metres.
For real macro work nothing beats a true macro lens.

[Joe Ray]

Hi John and Roy
No doubt the 400mm is great for small creatures also, as your cracking photo,s show.
The macro thing is a new field to me this year with the len,s and i struggle at time with the 3 metre or so min. focal distance, especially with butterflies....more practice needed i guess.
Just out of interest, anyone know the minimum focus distance of the 100-400mm zoom? Take a couple of paces back and I think you can still get acceptable macro shots with the 400mm.

[AC/DC]

I think its 1.8 metres.

[Roy C]

As much as I like my 400 5.6 there is no way that it can be used as a macro lens (same goes for the 100-400 and 300 f4). A true macro lens should be capable of 1:1 or at least 1:2 and this lens comes no were near that. Although the 400 can be used for close-ups with some of cropping there are far better lenses out there.
I have not got the best of gear by any stretch of the imagination but for macro work I much prefer my 100mm f2.8 and for flowers and butterfly's ect I prefer the 70-200 f4.

[Roy C]

I think its 1.8 metres.
I reckon you will need a lot more than 65mm of tubes to get the min focus distance down to 1.8 mtres.

[seggs]

steve, you can buy extension tubes to lower the minimum focussing distance. It loses you a little bit of light (nowhere near as much as a converter), and means you wont be able to focus to infinity while its attached. If you take a look in you lens manual, it staes the different extension tubes and the difference they make, although 3rd party ones (kenko etc.) will do the same job for less.
Thanks AC/DC and Roy
Ive been looking into these lately. Seems a great way of converting the lens to macro needs instead of buying a different lens.:t:
...................
Hi Joe
Ive tried doing this on loads of occasions, ended up with my head in Hawthorn bushs, stepped into ditches and nearly fell over a few times!:-O Trying to get the subject in focal distance.
Its still the best move i made buying it and i never go out birding with out the set up, as you are frightened to miss a opportunity!;)

[Nikon Kid]

I was out to-day and got talking to a pro, well he must be a pro sells his pics.
I was out in the Heron hide at Rutland Water, and he came in puffing and Banting.
He had I think a 300-800 lens, and a hand held sigma 50 -500. I said I was going
for the 100-400 but he said, be sure to try the 50-500 Sigma before you make your
mind up. I tried it and I thought it was heavy, it was on a 40d he said the 100-400
was not that much lighter, when I checked the weights it was a about 1lb lighter.
Anyway I did get some shots of the Ospreys on the nest and in the air with a 300,
but not very good, got nice shot of Blackbird and Blackhdgull flying, and a few others
But what do you think of the 50-500 Sigma can it match the 100.400 ?

heres the pics would I have nailed them better with a 400 or 500

[JohnZ]

seggs, Although I took the piccie with my 400mm it is by no means a macro lens. In fact it probably could not be farther from it !
Perhaps a little look on eBay ? May be lucky and find something.

[Martin Thomas]

<snip>

But what do you think of the 50-500 Sigma can it match the 100.400 ?

<snip>

I wonder if you might also consider the new Sigma 150-500?

The 50-150 APO (often known as the Bigma) is an older lens with no image stabilisation etc and approximately 100% price difference between the f2.8 and the f4-6.3 models.

There's a good thread on the new 150-500 lens here (http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=115552&page=2) and an early review here (http://www.birdingworld.co.uk/Sigma%20Photos.htm). A couple of second hand ones have been sold here and on Ebay for between £550 and £600.

Try here (http://www.dslrgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2726#post2726) for a directory of review sites.

[Nikon Kid]

I went out to-day looked at the 150-500 Sigma, had a talk, now made my decision its going to be the Canon Prime 400. I have still got the 70-300 Canon for dragonfly's Butterflies etc and close in birds. Now to find it at the best possible price,

And of cause raise a bit of the folding stuff, selling me Nikon scope anyway.

[AC/DC]

I reckon you will need a lot more than 65mm of tubes to get the min focus distance down to 1.8 mtres.
Roy, joe was asking the minimum focussing distance of the zoom.

Taken from canon uk website:


Features


Lens construction: 17 elements in 14 groups
Diagonal angle of view: 24°-6°-10°
Focus adjustment: Rear focusing system with USM
Closest focusing distance: 1.8m / 6ft
Zoom system: Linear extension type
Filter size: 77mm

[Roy C]

Roy, joe was asking the minimum focussing distance of the zoom.

Ah I see, there was no quotes around your post so I assumed you were responding to my post (esp as you had brought up about the tubes in the first place).

[Joe Ray]

OK thanks for the info. I'm still glad I've chosen the prime, it seems to be a fantastic lens.
Joe

[Bhoggy]

I was out to-day and got talking to a pro, well he must be a pro sells his pics.
I was out in the Heron hide at Rutland Water, and he came in puffing and Banting.
He had I think a 300-800 lens, and a hand held sigma 50 -500.

Just out of interest, was this "pro" short and fat with a scruffy beard, wearing a camouflage jacket and hat and carrying a blue folder with samples of his photos?

Just out of interest.

Paul

wanted to ask people's opinion on the Canon 300mm f4 too. I can't make my mind up between this and the 400mm f5.6. The advantages of the 300mm are the closer focusing and the IS compared with the 400's extra reach, but the 400 has neither of the above.

I already have the Sigma 500mm f7.2 that mike from ebbw uses to such great effect, but have been offered the opportunity to set up a feeding station in a local nature reserve. As such, I'll be able to get closer to the birds, but will the 300mm have the reach I need? I've seen that the 1.4x canon extender will work with the 300mm giving AF, but not the 400mm; this would give me a 420mm f5.6 lens but would the IQ be much worse?

Or the Sigma 100-300mm f4 lol

Difficult decision as it is a choice of one of these lenses and nothing else until my 6 numbers come up on the lottery.

[Nikon Kid]

Hi Bhoggy

Not him but the Wolfman Villayat Wolf Sunkmanitu LRPS nice geezer