Canon EF 400 mm f/5.6L USM lens - a couple of questions

[wilfredsdad]

Hello you Canon folks
I am thinking of deserting the Olympus camp and coming over to join you (looking at either a 450d or maybe a 500d). One of the principal attractions being the sensible range of fixed focal length telephoto lenses which seem to be available for Canon (none such available for Olympus regrettably). I am particularly attracted by the EF 400 mm f/5.6L USM (mainly because I could actually just about afford one!). It seems quite a few of you use this lens so I would be very pleased to have your views on it, particularly with regard to:
1)Image stabilisation - er - it doesn't seem to have it! However, my experience so far suggests that in order to avoid motion blur you have to use pretty fast speeds (and I always shoot from a tripod) so that camera shake isn't too much of an issue anyway . . . . . sensible? rubbish?
2)Is using a teleconverter absolutely out of the question with this lens or are Canon just covering their a. . . . 's when they say you can't? Does it kind of work? or really work? or really not work? Can it be made to work with some kind of clever skullduggery?
3)Focusing speed and accuracy - how is it? Let's assume reasonable light conditions and the bird is not half a mile away hiding in the middle of a bush.
I would really appreciate your experienced comments - dumping my Olympus stuff is going to hurt (I really believed in it you know?) - and selling the house and going to live in a tent to buy the lens and camera is a big sacrifice - but you have to do what you have to do don't you? kindest regards, Peter

[macshark]

1) With good technique, it is possible to use this lens at shutter speeds around 1/400s with pretty sharp results. Managing the shift due to the shutter release was the biggest problem for me. With some practice, it is possible to get decent results even at 1/250 kind of shutter speed. Here are some examples:

Brush rabbit at 1/250s, f/6.3 (http://www.pbase.com/macshark/image/111404179)

Song Sparrow at 1/200s, f/6.3 (http://www.pbase.com/macshark/image/112059937)

Chestnut backed chickadee at 1/250s, f/5.6 (http://www.pbase.com/macshark/image/110758088)

Wild Turkey at 1/200s, f/7.1 (http://www.pbase.com/macshark/image/110523467)

On a lucky day, you may get a usable shot even at lower shutter speeds:

American Robin at 1/160s, f/5.6 (http://www.pbase.com/macshark/image/110703919)

Jack Rabbit at 1/60s, f/8.0 (http://www.pbase.com/macshark/image/113803773)

All of the above images are hand-held, however, I do prefer to use a tripod with this lens whenever possible (and practical). You are always taking a chance when using a slow-shutter speed with a hand-held telephoto. Especially with wild birds, often you get only one chance for a decent shot.

2) With the newer cameras like the 40D and 50D, AF performance with a 400 f/5.6L + 1.4x TC is not very promising. The center AF point simply did not work for me, but I was able to get a few decent shots using one of the lateral AF points. Given that Canon has increased the linear pixel density by 1.4x from 30D to 50D, you basically get a 1.4x TC for free (i.e. with no f/stop penalty), so getting a good support system for the camera and cropping may be an option. However, I have used both 1.4x and 2.0x TCs successfully with the 400 f/5.6L (live view MF) for birds that were very very far (more than a hundred meters) for identification purposes.

3) The AF speed of this lens is really good. It can keep up with moving subjects like birds in flight pretty well. If you can position to the AF sensor accurately, it will lock dead fast on stationary subjects. You would most likely be limited by the AF system on your DSLR.

[Roy C]

The 400/5.6 is a cracking lens that is easily hand holdable providing you get a fastish shutter speed - the speed at which you can get sharp hand held shots will vary from person to person but in general anyone should be able to get consistent sharp shots at around 1/640 or better. If you use a tripod then the lack of IS would become irrelevant IMO (a monopod is also useful).

I use the lens a lot with a 1.4tc on the 40D but when I use this combo I do so on a tripod. With good support IQ with a 1.4tc is superb. I use my own methods for shooting with a taped tc and they work for me but AF is not going to be anywhere as good as with the bare lens - as long as you know the limitations of shooting with a taped tc then it is well usable.

The focussing speed with the bare lens is very very fast, like has already been said AF will be limited by the AF system of your camera.

Have you read the reviews on bird forum here (http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/155/cat/14/limit/recent/date/1067115672)

[Scuzz]

Excellent lens, worth the money.

Image quality throughout is spot on even at F5.6.
Auto Focus is like lightening compared to other lenses.
It's light enough to carry distances.
Very rarely use anything else for flight shots, due to the focus speed and accuracy.

The only down side, is that against the 100-400mm, you don't have the flexability of the zoom factor, which you may need, depending on the areas that you intend visiting.

i.e. such as the Farnes etc, the 100-400 is an advantage, as it's the only lens you would need, due to the birds been so close, that is unless you wanted some realy wide angle shots.

Hope this helps.

[hampers]

I also use this lens, its excellent. Also use taped pins and 1.4tc as Roy says Af is slower and needs good light. Find lens is so good can crop in very well. Its light and compact, however I use it on a tripod, or bean bag, 99% of time. Only time hand held is bif.


Phil

[Vectis Birder]

Hello you Canon folks
I am thinking of deserting the Olympus camp and coming over to join you (looking at either a 450d or maybe a 500d). One of the principal attractions being the sensible range of fixed focal length telephoto lenses which seem to be available for Canon (none such available for Olympus regrettably). I am particularly attracted by the EF 400 mm f/5.6L USM (mainly because I could actually just about afford one!). It seems quite a few of you use this lens so I would be very pleased to have your views on it, particularly with regard to:
1)Image stabilisation - er - it doesn't seem to have it! However, my experience so far suggests that in order to avoid motion blur you have to use pretty fast speeds (and I always shoot from a tripod) so that camera shake isn't too much of an issue anyway . . . . . sensible? rubbish?
2)Is using a teleconverter absolutely out of the question with this lens or are Canon just covering their a. . . . 's when they say you can't? Does it kind of work? or really work? or really not work? Can it be made to work with some kind of clever skullduggery?
3)Focusing speed and accuracy - how is it? Let's assume reasonable light conditions and the bird is not half a mile away hiding in the middle of a bush.
I would really appreciate your experienced comments - dumping my Olympus stuff is going to hurt (I really believed in it you know?) - and selling the house and going to live in a tent to buy the lens and camera is a big sacrifice - but you have to do what you have to do don't you? kindest regards, Peter

Hi Peter,

I am one of the many happy people who have this lens. Firstly - and this is just my opinion - the lack of IS is not a handicap with this lens. It's light enough to be handheld. If you always use a tripod then it's not an issue.

You can use a teleconverter with the lens, no problem. It won't AF on the XXXD or XXD models, but you can get round that by taping the pins.
As for the focussing - very fast and very accurate.

If you go for this lens you will not regret it. It's worth every penny of the price tag. I got rid of my Nikon gear and switched to Canon because of this lens!

[Keith Reeder]

If you go for this lens you will not regret it.
Or maybe you will... (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/788412)

Note that the OP in that thread is far from the only one.

[AC/DC]

But Keith, the OP in this thread has stated he will use a tripod. That's the first I've heard of handholding issues with this lens! I've always thought of it as a very good handler - it isn't too chunky and is well balanced on most canon DSLR's, so you can get a good hold on it and move it about easily.

Peter, I think everything that needs to be said about this lens has been - but I would recommend trying to get a 40d over a 450/500d - you'll likely appreciate the faster fps rate and improved AF.

[JohnZ]

"You will have to prise this lens from my cold dead fingers" I believe that this can/should be attributed to somebody on potn ?
It is also 150 grams lighter than the 100-400mm, don`t know what that is in ounces, and is a first class lens. As Roy has already said you do need a fastish shutter speed to get the best from it.
All of a sudden I fear a backlash from Keith who has the 100-400mm zoom lens !
Everybody knows that a zoom lens can never be as sharp as a prime lens due to the intricate construction of same......HaHa. Even Romy Ocon had to have a few goes at getting a sharp zoom lens.

[AC/DC]

Everybody take cover...

[JohnZ]

No need AC/DC, I hope that Keith does realise that I am joking ? Nice pics on your website AC/DC.

[Vectis Birder]

Or maybe you will... (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/788412)

Note that the OP in that thread is far from the only one.

But the OP stated he always uses a tripod, so that should be a non-issue. Mind you if he went for the 100-400mm he probably wouldn't regret that either. ;)

[Nikon Kid]

I just know he will make the right decision :t:

[tjsimonsen]

As long as you don't need IS, close focus capabilities, or zoom you can't go wrong with the 400/5.6.

Thomas

[JohnZ]

Breaking News, That fine fellow Andy Murray has just lost at Wimbledon. Could not have happened to a nicer bloke......HaHaHaHaHa.
Sorry if this is off topic.
tj, Just sold my IS lens as it was driving me crazy. The amount of times I was ready to take a quick shot and the IS was not ready are uncountable, if that is a word. It was a 300mm f4 IS and I used it with a 1.5x TC.

[Roy C]

To be fair, people with a very poor technique or those with some physical disability could struggle with the lens - If you cannot get sharp shots at 1/640 sec or faster then you must fall into one of these two categories. And if you cannot get sharp shots using a tripod then you may just as well give up bird photography altogether ;)

The alternative to the 400/5.6 in terms of cost and focal length is the 100-400 and it would not be difficult finding hundreds, if not thousands of post on various forums where user have reported softness at the long end but cherry picking post from various forums like this is not very helpful IMO and can be downright misleading.

[JohnZ]

The lack of image stabilisation is not really a problem. I recently sold a 300mm f4 IS lens due to it never being ready when I was ! If I wanted to take a quick shot it could have taken much too long for the IS to wind itself up before I could take the pic.
As far as TC`s are concerned I have used one on my 400mm f5.6 and to be honest it did tend to hunt a bit. This was a Kenko 1.5x TC. Folks like RoyC have used both 1.4x and even 2x with little ill effect.
The focussing is like lightning as is the accuracy of focus.
Just my 2p`s worth.
I have attached a pic of the necessary modification should you choose to use a Canon, or possibly a Kenko, TC.

[wilfredsdad]

Hello again Canon people
Just to say thank you (THANK YOU!) for all the good advice - have decided to go for it (funds permitting). All the info you supplied was most helpful and encouraging - my wife is particularly appreciative and says life here in the tent is not too bad - a little crowded with dog, cat, pony, five kids, but you know . . . . it's gonna be worth it for some lovely bird pics, kind regards Pete
sorry, what's that darling? . . . . it's leaking there now! oh s. . .t!