• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

I need some advice. (1 Viewer)

canonman77

Well-known member
United Kingdom
Hi guys, I need some advice. I am thinking about buying the CANON 400mm f5.6 for birding. I already own the 100-400mm & the Sigma 150-500mm both with their own IS, OS, but I have seen some cracking BIF shots & the fact that the 400mm f5.6 Is sharper. I was going to swap my 100-400mm for the 400mm but have decided to keep my 100-400mm & use both. Whats the 400mm f5.6 like for handheld BIF shots & whats It like without the IS. I have heard that Its not really needed as the AF Is fast enough. I would really appreciate your advice & would I be wasting money, because I have the 100-400mm with IS....

Thanks.
Sean....
 
I would be surprised if you noticed a significant difference between the two, and probably not enough to justify the spend. I have seen plenty of great images with the 100-400IS, and not sure what the 400 would offer over the two lenses you have. Even if it was a degree sharper would that be so much better?

Maybe save your money up for the 300 f2.8?
 
The 400 5.6 is great lens but I am with Marcus here - I doubt the expense is justifiable as the marginal improvement you (may) get in IQ comes with no additional reach. I'd the money for a 500 or 600 prime - you can pick up a second hand Sigma 500 at decent price (prob. double a new canon 400 5.6 though). Or save a lot longer for a Canon 500/600 prime!

Regards
Jon
 
I have never used 100-400 but have seen some good stuff with it, it is obviously a very nice lens. I have the 400mm f5.6 and personally I have no problems whatsoever hand holding this lens. For BIF it is reckoned by many to be one of the very best lenses due to the Lightness, mega quick AF and sharpness.

Just about every bird shot on my web site and all the stuff in my BF gallery has been shot with the 400mm 5.6 hand held, you are welcome to have a gander.

Here is a flight shot I took only yesterday - I had just a few seconds to aim and fire but the mega fast AF locked on right away. I am sure a lot of lenses would not have been quick enough for this shot. If you are looking for a lens especially for BIF the 456 is a good bet but seeing you already have 100-400 and 150-500 it seems a bit of an overkill to get yet another birding lens.

If you want the very best why not sell both the lenses you have and get the 500mm f4.
 

Attachments

  • GW1.jpg
    GW1.jpg
    186 KB · Views: 184
It looks to me with what you have you dont like to compromise to much in range but imo both are second best to a 400f5.6 for AF speed and IQ, but you do need at least 1/1000sec for bif shots to get a good keeper rate overall.
I dont think you would be dissapointed in the 400f5.6 and im sure if you got one one of your big zooms would go.
i did sell my 400f5.6 but only because i use my 500f4 99% of the time mostly on BIF too
Rob.
 
Here is a shot I have just processed that I took today - I think it shows the hand hold ability of the 400 f5.6 non IS .
 

Attachments

  • swallow2.jpg
    swallow2.jpg
    157.7 KB · Views: 165
hi guys, thanks for all your comments & i appreciate them. Im In a dilemma here arent I. I think I dropped a dogs ball buying the Sigma, but you live & learn. I will still probably end up getting the 400mm f5.6 anyway. They are brill shots Marcus, Roy I comented on your shot earlier today, what aperture did you use for that shot. This might sound backward but I will probably sell the Sigma & keep the 100-400 & get the 400mm prime. Ohhhh Im getting stressed here, you see I dont have the funds for the canon primes (500/600) or even the 400mm DO. I will end up getting the prime I know I will, but thats not a bad thing.. Thanks anyway peeps...

Sean, over & out
 
I hummed and hard about a 100-400, 150-500, 400. Boy am I glad I bought the 400 f5.6.
Nice group of Black-tailed Godwits Roy.
 
Why not get something else with the money that would fit in nicely with your current line-up, a really good macro lens? 300 f4? a 70-200 f4?

Seems silly to me to get a 400mm when you already have the zoom.
 
I would actually second Jaff's suggestion - I think with 2 good zoom lenses convering the range well you don't really have that pressure for the 400mm prime.
If I were you I would do one of two things
1) Follow Jaff's advice and go for something else in that similar price range
2) start to get serious (ok more serious) and hold off - keep saving and aim for one of the top range primes - then you really would notice the difference in quality - though its a lofty aim for most of us its one that I think is well worth the wait
 
How about selling the Sigma, 400D and the 17-85 and looking at a Sigma 300mm f2.8?

That would be a lens worth having.
 
start to get serious (ok more serious) and hold off - keep saving and aim for one of the top range primes - then you really would notice the difference in quality - though its a lofty aim for most of us its one that I think is well worth the wait

Sean I was that man! :-O

I bought both the 100-400--400 5.6, but mainly use my 400 prime for BIF only because it focuses slightly quicker & is lighter in weight. IQ is a close call though, so I agree with Overread's post above, and keep the dosh for a big prime at a later date.
 
This is one taken of a Juvenile Reed bunting with the 400 5.6 on a 30D body earlier this year.
 

Attachments

  • Reed_Bunting_Juvenile.jpg
    Reed_Bunting_Juvenile.jpg
    152.9 KB · Views: 133
Last edited:
the fact that the 400mm f5.6 Is sharper
Really?

Don't believe all you read on the Interweb!

;)

I'd be saving up for a proper upgrade if I were you, Sean - the f/5.6 prime won't give you much (if anything at all) over the 100-400mm - and with the zoom, you've got IS and versatility.
 

Attachments

  • mandrill%202.jpg
    mandrill%202.jpg
    236.4 KB · Views: 106
  • horse%202.jpg
    horse%202.jpg
    261.8 KB · Views: 101
  • mandarin%203f.jpg
    mandarin%203f.jpg
    199.5 KB · Views: 114
  • stonechat%201f.jpg
    stonechat%201f.jpg
    169.2 KB · Views: 111
  • reed bunting 3f.jpg
    reed bunting 3f.jpg
    155.2 KB · Views: 92
Last edited:
Keith, I have had no sharpness issues with the 100-400 either. I know of some who have a 'softer' lens (or think they might have), but assuming you are not claiming this, then there are no problems with this lens. I could send you hundreds or even thousands of sharp shots - with the IS on and off - handheld or on a monopod, flight or static.
 
two points to add:

1) the Canon 100-400mm does have production issues - they are not as bad as they were when it first came out, but I have spoken to enough people online who have had bad copies of this lens - problem is that most people can't tell a good from a bad - they just assume the quality they get is the best there is. So that is why you do get a lot of variety on responses for quality for this lens - it is correctable if you send if off for repair if you are worried.

2) Its impossible to tell quality of a lens from anything less than a full sized shot - a 1000 pixel shot can be made to look very sharp with very simple editing - I know I have taken full sized soft shots from my sigma 70-300mm and made them look very (acceptably) sharp at 1000 pixels. Its easy to do and not dishonest - its just that you have to accept that quality cannot be shown by webshots. Full sized shots (processed or unprocessed) and 100% crops are the best way forward - and further testing should be in universal testing methods - with a shot like a bird photographer skill and lighting conditions and range and so many other things can affect the shot before the lens in question - so read some of the review sites.

I am not saying that looking at photos online won't give you some idea, just that its not the best way to judge the overall quality of a lens
 
Last edited:
two points to add:

1) the Canon 100-400mm does have production issues - they are not as bad as they were when it first came out, but I have spoken to enough people online who have had bad copies of this lens - problem is that most people can't tell a good from a bad - they just assume the quality they get is the best there is. So that is why you do get a lot of variety on responces for quality for this lens - it is correcable if you send if off for repair if you are worried.

2) Its impossible to tell quality of a lens from anything less than a full sized shot - a 1000 pixel shot can be made to look very sharp with very simple editing - I know I have taken fullsized soft shots from my sigma 70-300mm and made them look very (acceptably) sharp at 1000 pixels. Its easy to do and not dishonest - its just that you have to accept that quality cannot be shown by webshots. Fullsized shots (processed or unprocessed) and 100% crops are the best way forward - and further testing should be in universal testing methods - with a shot like a bird photographer skill and lighting conditions and range and so many other things can affect the shot before the lens in question - so read some of the reivew sites.

I am not saying that looking at photos online won't give you some idea, just that its not the best way to judge the overall quality of a lens

I agree - these are excellent points.
 
HI, Ive changed my mind about the 400mm f5.6, Im going to save up & have a look at either the Canon 300mm f2.8 or the Sigma 300mm f2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter or the Sigma 500mm f4.5, Can someone give me some pointers on either of the three mentioned lenses....Thankyou for helping me to decide...

Sean.....
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top