Comments on this lens please

[Richard G]

Canon EF 400mm f5.6 L USM Lens - Any good as a prime lens? Does the lack of IS matter for using it as a bird photography lens?

Look forward to your comments.

Richard

[Roy C]

There are many Bird forum members who use this lens for bird photography (including me).
For bird forum reviews see here (http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/155/cat/14/limit/recent/date/1067115672)
This lens is also very highly rated on the Fred Miranda (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=42&sort=7&cat=2&page=2) review section (almost 100 user reviews)

The lens is easily hand held and the lack of IS is no problem provided you keep the shutter speed up. It is ideal for bird photography.

p.s. everything on my bird forum gallery and birds section of my website have been shot with the 400/5.6 you are welcome to take a gander.

[Ash1456]

An amazing lens for wildlife. It's minimum focusing distance is 3.5m so if a bird is very close you will have to take a few steps back, but this is great for BIF because it locks on extremely quick.I chose it over the 100-400 for 2 reasons..
1.lighter an easier to handle
2. Better with coverters
Hope this helps!
Ash

[AC/DC]

Yep, its an excellent bird lens. Most of the photos in the 2 links below were taken with one.

[hampers]

A gem of a lens, light enough to carry and fine for hand held - given the light. Works with taped pins on the Kenko 1.4TC. Not a problem having no IS - it would be considerably more expensive with IS I guess.

Phil

[JohnZ]

You will have to prise this lens from my cold dead fingers !

[Richard G]

Not a problem having no IS - it would be considerably more expensive with IS I guess.

Phil

Cheers for the comments all. The comment from Phil sums up the reason why I asked!! With IS a lens is nearly 5x more expensive. I still need to save up for this one, but it gives me something to aim for!!

Will have to stick with what I've got for now (450D & Tokina 80-400mm) & get some practice in with those.

Richard

[Roy C]

The comment from Phil sums up the reason why I asked!! With IS a lens is nearly 5x more expensive.


Richard
Not so, the Canon 100-400 with IS is only marginally more expensive than the 400/5.6 and the 300/4 with IS is actually cheaper. If you want to go to third party lens then the Sigma 150-500 with OS (sigma's version of IS) is also cheaper.
If they brought out a IS version of the 400/5.6 I reckon it would only be a few hundred pound more - maybe £1500

[RJL2005]

Yea it is 5x the price, that's because its also two stops faster and therefore about 4x heavier. The word is its a great piece of glass but you don't see many bird photographers using it. It's a bit of a brute IMHO!

[LeeDavis]

The 400mm is a cracking lens, worth every penny. With the IS its not too big of a deal with this lens as its light and good size to hand hold. also works well with the 1.4 converter. With other 3rd party lenses which I started with, you can tell the diffrence with the image quality, build quality i guess you get what you pay for. So if you can afford the 400 they get it. the 100-400 if you have considered this lens as it has IS, although a good all round lens does not seem to have the crisp images that the prime lens can produce.

good luck

[Fountain]

does IS rock on the 100-400?... I have it switched off lol .... but prefer it to the prime just because I can get those shots of flying that would be totally missed by leaving it at 400. its all about compromises but its a nice choice!........ another point is those close up pics in moderate light which would be too slow at 400 can be fine when zooming out.

[LeeDavis]

does IS rock on the 100-400?... I have it switched off lol .... but prefer it to the prime just because I can get those shots of flying that would be totally missed by leaving it at 400. its all about compromises but its a nice choice!........ another point is those close up pics in moderate light which would be too slow at 400 can be fine when zooming out.

As i said the 100-400 is a good all round lens, but not as good quality ( the image ) as the 400 prime lens. I have not come across a zoom lens that is sharp all the way from 100-400 etc. if its wildlife you are looking to take i would get the 400mm prime hands down. if you want the compromise of been able to zoom out if the subject become too close without taking 2-3 steps back then the 100-400.

[QUOTE=Fountain;1492101]does IS rock on the 100-400?... the IS is a good thing on a lens but its not a Miracle worker. I have found on the 100-400 lens which i own if you are shooting in low light I.E 40th of a sec @ 400mm hand held, the the IS does make a diffrence between a sharp image and blured one. In good light then no use what so ever so you mayswell not have it on.

[Stephen Fletcher]

So if you can afford the 400 they get it. the 100-400 if you have considered this lens as it has IS, although a good all round lens does not seem to have the crisp images that the prime lens can produce.
good luck

I dont know where you get your info from, but you are misinformed.

[HokkaidoStu]

As i said the 100-400 is a good all round lens, but not as good quality ( the image ) as the 400 prime lens.

One of the most oft quoted things on birding and photographic forums.

Is this actually true? Not actually having a go or anything but I hear this all the time and from the pics I see on the web there are lots of sharp ones from the 100-400 and also lots of crappy ones from the 400 prime. Are you only talking 100% crops?

For me the 100-400 has closer minimum focusing distance and the IS means keepers at 1/200 sec. If I did most of my birding from hides or with a tripod I would consider the 400, as it is it doesn't suit my needs.

[Carlton]

I've recently researched Canon lenses for birding with a budget of around £1k.
The choice was between the 100-400 zoom, the 400mm f/5.6 and the 300mm f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter.
I was put off buying the zoom by my local Canon dealer who said that he'd sold his own copy because of imperfect image quality and excessive dust collection.
The 400mm prime gives crisp images, as you can find on many review sites, but there is a limit to close focusing. The 300mm is a stop faster, which you lose with the 1.4x tc, but also gives excellent images and has a much closer focusing limit; this allows for tighter composition of smaller birds, insects etc. I went with this combination and picked up a perfect quality used lens on eBay for £700 and a new 1.4 tc from my local dealer for £200 (list price £300). I'm really happy with the combination but agree with owners of the other lenses that you'll probably be pleased with whatever choice you make. I now own 2 L series lenses - the other is the 24 - 105 mm f/4 - and the quality is so much better than anything I've had previously.
Enjoy your new lens.
Mike

[Carlton]

P.S. I forgot to mention Image Stabilisation with the 300mm. This does make a difference as you can see by composing a shot with it switched off, seeing through the lens view shake with each heartbeat, and watching the shake disappear when IS is switched on. For fast shots in good light it probably makes little difference but I think that it's a really useful feature of this lens in poorer light.
Mike

[LeeDavis]

I have used both lenses and the 100-400 is not as sharp at the 400mm Prime. I can tell you this, ask any good photographer which is the sharper lens .. a zoom or prime? a prime lens will win hands down.

[LeeDavis]

One of the most oft quoted things on birding and photographic forums.

Is this actually true? Not actually having a go or anything but I hear this all the time and from the pics I see on the web there are lots of sharp ones from the 100-400 and also lots of crappy ones from the 400 prime. Are you only talking 100% crops?

For me the 100-400 has closer minimum focusing distance and the IS means keepers at 1/200 sec. If I did most of my birding from hides or with a tripod I would consider the 400, as it is it doesn't suit my needs.

Evey one takes crap shots, with it a 400 a 100-400 or a 300mm 2.8 does not matter. a prime lens is made for that mm. A zoom lens is made to get the best out of the range within the lens. Hence not as sharp as a 400mm prime. Yes on a forum the images do look just as good as each other be it with a 100-400 or a 400mm prime but dont for get these images as not from the camera, these have been put through software to down size the image for the forum. I can g'tee if you take an image with to 400mm prime and the 100-400, the image from the prime will be the best.

I am not putting down the 100-400 as its a good lens, i own 1. its a good allround lens for out and about and would suite alot of photographers needs. but if the need is for wildlife photography the 400mm lens in the better of the 2.

[malgos]

Lee
Your message box is full please clear some space
Malcolm

[Stephen Fletcher]

I have used both lenses and the 100-400 is not as sharp at the 400mm Prime. I can tell you this, ask any good photographer which is the sharper lens .. a zoom or prime? a prime lens will win hands down.

I take your comment as a personal slur. I have no idea whatsoever of your circumstances or experience, but let me just explain something. I am a professional photographer, making a nice living from photography, enough to be able to live in Spain. I have been a photographer since the age of 7, starting with black and white on a Leica M3, developing my own film and prints in my grandads darkroom. That now makes it 47 years photographing, not just with easy auto-digital as the many "credit card photographers" use these days, claiming to be "experts" and not knowing what an f stop or depth of field means. I have used many many lenses in my time, ranging fom 8mm fish eye, to 1200mm primes, so i think i can actually quote on the sharpness of one lens against another. There are many opinions on the internet as to which lens is sharper than another, most of which appear to come from heresay and not actual experience with the said lenses, and most of which is complete rubbish. Any lens in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing will provide pin sharp images, buying expensive equipment does not make you a good photographer. I know many professional photographers who have used both the 100-400 and the 400/5.6, and i can tell you now, they will all say the IQ is exactly the same. There can be circumstances whereby the 100-400 IS can cause smeary images, but that is down to operator error, and not equipment failings, the IS needs time to settle for instance, as it does in any IS lens. If you cannot get sharp images from a particular lens, i would look to your technique, and not blame the equipment, as is the easy option. I have seen people with a 1D and 600 f4 who couldnt get a sharp image if their life depended on it, and will then say their lens is not calibrated to the camera, because they have read somewhere on the internet that this needs to be done. I have no vested interest in anyones opinions regarding one manufacturers equipment against anothers, merely in the facts. I never say i am always right, but i have a lot of experience in all fields of photography, and distortion of the facts gets pretty annoying. Another example is the Sigma 300-800, i know a professional photographer who uses one of these as it is sharper than the Sigma 800 prime, but i suppose your statement that zooms are always sharper than primes means he is also wrong too ?

[LeeDavis]

I know how lenses works thanks. The facts are true i have worked with canon in my prev job. And as is said I have not disregarded the 100-400 as a option just stating what I have found by me and other PRO-photographers. The man wanted comments not an argument on the lenses and wanted to know what we think. not on what we think of each other and who is the better photographer as your msg pointed and that you never say your right? think you just did. I think your last MSG was having a personal pop at me, but im not going to lower my self to that level. You should keep your personal commets to yourself, and just talk about the lenses in general

[HokkaidoStu]

I can g'tee if you take an image with to 400mm prime and the 100-400, the image from the prime will be the best.



At 400mm on a tripod in good light I've no doubt the prime would be better.

But not if it's closer than the MFD for the prime or if you don't have a tripod and it's too dark to handhold a lens at 400mm with no IS.

Horses for courses I guess.

[LeeDavis]

At 400mm on a tripod in good light I've no doubt the prime would be better.

But not if it's closer than the MFD for the prime or if you don't have a tripod and it's too dark to handhold a lens at 400mm with no IS.

Horses for courses I guess.

Yes the 100-400 is a good compromise. You will get a closer focus on the 100-400 and the IS but the IS can't do magic it will give you and extra 2 stops at a push so yeah horses really all dependant on what the photographer needs .

[AC/DC]

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/100_400is

That's a good read. A very, very good photographer with experience of more than one 100-400.

As for the whole zoom vs prime, I went for the prime because it was a little cheaper and a tad better for birds in flight.

[Jaff]

New thread. Same tired old 'debate'.

This thread may be of interest to you Richard, not to mention countless others if you can find them, usually at least one per page. 8-P
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=135425

[tjsimonsen]

if its wildlife you are looking to take i would get the 400mm prime hands down.

Nope. If birding is your only application then the prime is probably the better choice. If it's wildlife, the zoom wins hands down. You can't take several steps backwards if you are on a boat, or in a hide or a car. And even when you can take steps backwards, it might not be a good idea (you could for instance scare the subject off). The much closer focus distance of the zoom (not to mention the floating element) also makes it an excellent butterfly and dragonfly lens.

The prime seems to be the better lens for pure birding. For all other applications I'd say the zoom wins.

Thomas

[tjsimonsen]

ask any good photographer which is the sharper lens .. a zoom or prime? a prime lens will win hands down.

Such as Romy Ocon? Who claims that his copy of the zoom is every bit as sharp as prime?
Admittedly I have not used the prime. But I have had no problems getting pro-quality prints (if done by a pro printer) in 12''*18'' of pictures I took with the zoom. The prime might be sharper than that, but I don't need that.

Thomas

[Nikon Kid]

Canon EF 400mm f5.6 L USM Lens - Any good as a prime lens? Does the lack of IS matter for using it as a bird photography lens?

Look forward to your comments.

Richard

Richard, Buy Buy Buy what else is there to say..............

[Richard G]

New thread. Same tired old 'debate'.

This thread may be of interest to you Richard, not to mention countless others if you can find them, usually at least one per page. 8-P
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=135425

Bit unneccessary, Jaff. This was a genuine request for information. TBH I wish I'd never bothered. I've been slagged off for not searching through the forums, and we have others slinging mud left, right & centre over issues which had nothing to do with the original request.

Think I'll crawl back into the corner now & keep quiet ;)

Richard

[Jaff]

Bit unneccessary, Jaff. This was a genuine request for information. TBH I wish I'd never bothered. I've been slagged off for not searching through the forums, and we have others slinging mud left, right & centre over issues which had nothing to do with the original request.

Think I'll crawl back into the corner now & keep quiet ;)

Richard

Sorry Richard, it wasn't a personal jibe against you. My apologies. I was more referring to what you so beautifully described as the 'mud-slinging'. :-O

In truth, yes, if you had read through the Canon threads you'd have found a wealth of answers to what the 400mm prime can produce as well as the other lenses mentioned and avoided all this. Perhaps a sticky thread at the top reminding people to try searching for the info they seek before starting a new thread would be an idea.

I'm just tired of the 'which lens is the best' saga, bottom line is whatever telephoto lens you get, so long as it's an L-grade, will produce results that will blow you away. The one point that I read which I think you should take notice of is that the 100-400mm does seem to attract dust. There's all kinds already on the inside of my outermost piece of glass but nothing internally (at least as far as I can tell!) but it hasn't affected the IQ in the slightest.

Happy hunting anyway. :t:
Adam

[AC/DC]

Such as Romy Ocon? Who claims that his copy of the zoom is every bit as sharp as prime?
Admittedly I have not used the prime. But I have had no problems getting pro-quality prints (if done by a pro printer) in 12''*18'' of pictures I took with the zoom. The prime might be sharper than that, but I don't need that.

Thomas
Yeah, but he also claims that it is rare to find such a copy ;)

[postcardcv]

Bit unneccessary, Jaff. This was a genuine request for information. TBH I wish I'd never bothered. I've been slagged off for not searching through the forums, and we have others slinging mud left, right & centre over issues which had nothing to do with the original request.


I'm sure that he wasn't having a go, but this lens does come up a bit and the arguments tend to happen every time.

In my opinion the 400 f5.6 is a stunning lens, super fast AF and stunning IQ (as good as any lens I've used), I got my best ever barn owl shot with one - http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/189232/ppuser/3294 I only parted with mine because I needed to free up cash, but I will buy another in the future.

As for the 100-400 (I know you didn't ask about it, but as it's been bought up), it is also an outstanding lens. The AF is a bit slower but it is equally capable of producing good results, I have used a number and never come across one of the much talked of soft copies. Here's a (probably the best) barn owl shot taken by a pro (who clearly thinks the lens is good enough), it's probably the most popular shot ever in the BF gallery - http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=40296

[avan]

Both lens are at a very good level of quality, wich one are the better? the answer depend of what you need to do and wich compromise you want to make. The 400mm generaly are a bit sharper wide open and have a faster AF than the zoom or the 300mm +TC1.4, but it's only f5.6, and the minimum distance are at 11 feet vs 3.5-5 feet for the option. With the 400mm generaly you need a tripod, lens with IS give you more autonomy, but a tripod give you reel stability in low light and a more easy way to chase small bird like warbler also. I personaly don't have a sure hand, so tripod are better, reel or not, I believe in sharper prime, I also like a faster AF, also find that the bird are never too close to my taste, I do mostly bird and use the excellent 70-200mm f4 IS for mammal or walk around wildlife, so for myself, I choose the 400mm prime. At the finality, only you know what you want. For sure you can't regret any choice between those options

[JohnZ]

avan, I never use a tripod when using the 400mm f5.6. This is probably because I would not know how to use a tripod !

[avan]

I use the term GENERALY, because I know some people use it handhold, but it's not my case, except for BIF.

[Richard G]

Blimey!! Never did I think a simple request for information cause so much aggro ;)

Thanks for your comments re the lens. This is the one I'll be going for, but will need to do some serious saving until I can afford one.

Richard

[Nikon Kid]

Blimey!! Never did I think a simple request for information cause so much aggro ;)

Thanks for your comments re the lens. This is the one I'll be going for, but will need to do some serious saving until I can afford one.

Richard

Which lens you don't say ? Ever since I came on BF the saga goes on 400mm v 100-400mm I will say no more, or the wrath of God will strike me :-O

Going back to tripod I used my 400mm with the tripod for the first time last week with 1.4 kenko and liveview taking shots of dragonfly's I really enjoyed it back out this afternoon doing the same

[JohnZ]

My apologies avan.

[Epsomsalt]

Hi Richard,

I started my Bird photography about 2 years ago and bought my 400 F/5.6L shortly thereafter - it is, as most would agree an excellent piece of kit for bird photography. All my gallery and website photographs have been taken with this lens, most with an EOS 400D and more recently with the EOS 50D.

I am now looking to exchange my 400 prime for the 100-400 zoom (heresy I hear some people shout!) My decision is nothing at all to do with any dissatisfaction with the 400 prime it is simply because the 100-400 zoom will give me more flexibility. It has a closer minimum focus distance (and I have missed some butterfly shots recently because the min focus distance on the prime is 3.5metres and by the time I had backed away the butterfly had gone!) and of course I can use any focal length between 100 and 400 as opposed to the sole option with the prime.

I am expecting to see a bit of a fall off in IQ at 400mm with the lens wide open at F5.6 with the zoom but who knows I may be pleasantly surprised. In summary I doubt you would be disappointed with any 'L' series lens so go for whichever best meets your photographic needs. The only thing I would caution you against is going for a cheaper option - save up until you can afford 'L' glass - you will not regret it whichever lens you buy.

Enjoy you photography!
Cheers,

Chris

[Stephen Fletcher]

There was nothing personal in my comment, i merely replied to your comment of "ask any photographer who knows what he is talking about", implying that i dont.

[Zeugma]

I'm sure that he wasn't having a go, but this lens does come up a bit and the arguments tend to happen every time.

In my opinion the 400 f5.6 is a stunning lens, super fast AF and stunning IQ (as good as any lens I've used), I got my best ever barn owl shot with one - http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/189232/ppuser/3294 I only parted with mine because I needed to free up cash, but I will buy another in the future.

As for the 100-400 (I know you didn't ask about it, but as it's been bought up), it is also an outstanding lens. The AF is a bit slower but it is equally capable of producing good results, I have used a number and never come across one of the much talked of soft copies. Here's a (probably the best) barn owl shot taken by a pro (who clearly thinks the lens is good enough), it's probably the most popular shot ever in the BF gallery - http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=40296

To digress a little and lighten the mood a little - o.k. a lot...
This...
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=138359
was taken with a 200mm Nikon lens, jammy toad!

[paul goode]

To digress a little and lighten the mood a little - o.k. a lot...
This...
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=138359
was taken with a 200mm Nikon lens, jammy toad!

Its a captive bird flying at a falconry display though, not really the same challenge as photographing a wild Barn Owl.

[Carlton]

I would recommend the 300mm f/4 with a 1.4 tc in preference to the 400mm - altho' I only own the former and have never used the 400 mm.
Why? Because of the closer focal distance and IS. The closer distance allows reasonable shots of small objects, dragonflies etc, or frame-filling portraits of larger birds if you're lucky enough to get close. I'll attach some uncropped images of plumage detail from a couple of metres to show what I mean.
IS improves the sharpness of my images without having to use a tripod - and it would be hard to wander around my local woods and moors with a tripod hanging from my neck. I would suggest looking through a lens with and without the IS switched on and seeing the difference it makes - movement due to breathing and heart beats stop dead. Finally, altho' the combination bought new ( and I bought mine for less ) is more expensive than the 400 mm, it also gives me the option of a 300 mm prime lens as well as a 420 mm equivalent.
You will see that most of us who have opinions about these lenses will justify them but are generally happy with our choice. The more expert photographers might give more technical reasons while the less expert, such as I, will provide simpler ones. Whatever lens you finally go with, the L series lenses give beautiful, clear results.
Mike

[Carlton]

P.S. The plumage detail is cropped slightly for neatness but hasn't been blown up, which is what I meant to say.