Best 400mm lens for handheld shots? (1 Viewer)

Hi guys, I regularly go on walks and have never used, nor really have the desire to lug a heavy tripod around with me , especially to the places I end up !
Could some kind soul please recommend me a decent well balanced lens , and one that will work with a Kenko 1.4 300 DG - thanks alot !


Another question is, are there any Sigma lenses out there where the front barrel does not move when focusing. So basically an internal focusing mechanism. Or would a lens cap solve this problem ?

I found that when using a cheap Canon lens , the rotating front end made it very difficult to get used to when gripping the lens for certain shots , and was not what I was used to .

thanks again and sorry if these questions seem stupid. I'm new to SLR photography

This was a problem for me as well. There are some threads on this subject. However, after asking lots of questions I decided that any 400mm lense was going to be too heavy for walks (although some claim to do it). In the end I purchased the Olympus 550 and put a 1.7 TC on-this give me about 820mm and is very light and easy to use. For my DSLR I purchased the 100-400 but I won't go walking with it unless it's for a specific purpose and in my ruckscak.
If you look in the "my final Oly 550" thread you can see some shots.

For me it's a toss up between the Canon 400mm f5,6 and the Canon 100-400mm IS f4,5-f5,6.

Both are compact enough to carry in my camera shoulder bag - though the 100-400mm is a better fit. Both are light enough to carry several miles in this way - 2-3 miles no problem at all - with or without a tripod. The 100-400 is more versatile due to it's range and IS - but you can't go far wrong with either.

Thanks guys - the Canon 400mm f5/6 is something I'm getting more tempted with by the day...

The Olympus is a fantastic little point and shoot too- I still have my old Oly c750 and it's brilliant for Macro shots

From what has been said I assume you are using a Canon body...

I'd agree with Ian that the 100-400 IS and the 400 f5.6 are both excellent lenses (though the performance with a 1.4x tc can be very variable). Are these lenses the sort of budget you had in mind? If so you could also look at the Sigma 80-400 OS. All of these lenses are internal focusing, so you can hold the lens while shooting. Personally I use the 100-400 IS as my walk about lens, it is very versatile and the IS is a big plus when not using a tripod.

Thankyou ! I wasn't aware of the Sigma OS - that also looks like a tasty lens . My budget was under what I'd have to pay for the Canon lenses , but I guess I could always start saving

Hi, I have a Canon 400mm f5.6 prime and find I can walk with this slung around my neck for several hours with no problems at all ( and I am a senior citizen weaklingo ). The 100-400 mm is a little heavier but also should not be a problem. Both these worked to some degree with a taped converter.
Whichever one you go for I would highly recommend replacing the Canon camera strap with a Op/Tech neoprene strap.

thanks Roy

Sorry guys, one more question - is the only difference in the 2 Canon 400mm lenses is that one has Image Stabilization ?

No.

One (the 100-400mm) is a zoom, the other's a prime.

The 100-400mm is an "L" lens; it's heavier (though not "heavy"); it has a significantly shorter focussing distance; it has a focus limiter switch; image quality is excellent; it works very well with a TC (in my experience anyway, on a 30D with pins taped); and as you say, it has IS.

It's a very versatile lens.

The prime is probably faster focussing, though the focus limiter on the zoom makes up for that to a large extent, at the expense of close focus; and it might have a slight sharpness advantage - in test conditions at any rate. But it's essentially impossible to tell good "Real World" shots from the two lenses apart in IQ terms.

The prime is cheaper too.

FWIW, I use my 100-400mm handheld always, and almost always with a 1.4x TC on - so I'm shooting at 560mm most of the time (and I wander about for hours at a stretch).

I think that I do alright really...

Keith's advice is good. I have the 100-400, and recommend it, but if I dropped it down a mineshaft or something I'd probably replace it with the 400/5.6 prime. Reasons? The prime is generally regarded as a fraction sharper - I don't have a 400/5.6 to compare my 100-400 with but the 500/4 is certainly noticably better, and primes always have less glass which means better pictures - it's lighter, it's a bit cheaper, and it's a true 400mm, where the 100-400 is actually about 380mm at the long end.

Against that, it doesn't have IS (not such an issue for me as I use the 500 where the light is questionable), doesn't focus as close (this can matter with very small birds) and while most people use the short end infrequently, it's very handy sometimes to have the ability to shoot at 100mm or 270mm - saves me owning a 70-200.

I'm sure that either one would do you just fine.

Keith Reeder said:

No.

One (the 100-400mm) is a zoom, the other's a prime.

The 100-400mm is an "L" lens; it's heavier (though not "heavy"); it has a significantly shorter focussing distance; it has a focus limiter switch; image quality is excellent; it works very well with a TC (in my experience anyway, on a 30D with pins taped); and as you say, it has IS.

It's a very versatile lens.

The prime is probably faster focussing, though the focus limiter on the zoom makes up for that to a large extent, at the expense of close focus; and it might have a slight sharpness advantage - in test conditions at any rate. But it's essentially impossible to tell good "Real World" shots from the two lenses apart in IQ terms.

The prime is cheaper too.

FWIW, I use my 100-400mm handheld always, and almost always with a 1.4x TC on - so I'm shooting at 560mm most of the time (and I wander about for hours at a stretch).

Click to expand...

Here we go again...

The prime is an L series lens, has a focus limiter switch, has great close focus (with the addition of extension tubes) and is perfectly balanced for hand-holding. The excellent hand-holding is because it doesn't have all those big and heavy IS motors...and it is cheaper than the 100-400 which has an awkward zoom control. If I want a shorter focal length I use a different lens.

FWIW, I use the 400/5.6 handheld (nearly) always - it is my favourite lens for birds in flight and I never use a teleconvertor on it - mainly because I have never felt the need.

In reality there is so little difference in image quality between the two lenses that you will go cross-eyed looking at barcode images trying to seperate them...

There are plenty of examples of images with the 400/5.6 bolted to a 20D and 1D2N in my gallery, if you can be bothered to scan through all the other stuff taken with different lenses.

Of course the above is my own personal opinion designed to wind Keith up but maybe provide a little balance too

Keith Reeder said:

No.

One (the 100-400mm) is a zoom, the other's a prime.

The 100-400mm is an "L" lens; it's heavier (though not "heavy"); it has a significantly shorter focussing distance; it has a focus limiter switch; image quality is excellent; it works very well with a TC (in my experience anyway, on a 30D with pins taped); and as you say, it has IS.

It's a very versatile lens.

The prime is probably faster focussing, though the focus limiter on the zoom makes up for that to a large extent, at the expense of close focus; and it might have a slight sharpness advantage - in test conditions at any rate. But it's essentially impossible to tell good "Real World" shots from the two lenses apart in IQ terms.

The prime is cheaper too.

FWIW, I use my 100-400mm handheld always, and almost always with a 1.4x TC on - so I'm shooting at 560mm most of the time (and I wander about for hours at a stretch).

I think that I do alright really...

Click to expand...

Keith forgot to mention that the 400mm f5.6 is also a 'L' lens and also has a focus limiter (to be fair perhaps he did not know this

It should be pointed out that using a taped converter with the 100-400 is not necessarily the plain sailing that one it is sometimes lead to believe.
Today I have read on a different site of users of this lens and the taped converter having the following problems:

1) AF only works if the focus limiter is in the short position

2) AF only works in one shot mode (does not work in A1Servo mode)

3) IS does not work properly with a taped (or untaped) converter on the 400D

4) AF does not work very good with a Canon Converter.

Now I am not saying that everyone has these problems but people should be aware that with certain combinations problems can occur.

Roy C said:

3) IS does not work properly with a taped (or untaped) converter on the 400D

Click to expand...

I have a 100-400 and a 400D and have found this to be a problem. Without taping pins I have to use manual focus, but the IS works perfectly, however when I tape the pins the lens will auto focus perfectly but the IS goes silly (the image jumps around)... I know other 400D users who have had the same problem and some who find it works fine with a 1.4x tc!

I think that if you plan to use it handheld then the IS on the zoom gives it the edge. That said I've only used the 400 f5.6 prime on a couple of occassions... perhaps I should buy one just so I can give a fair and accurate comparison, I wonder if my wife would go for it?

Roy C said:

Keith forgot to mention that the 400mm f5.6 is also a 'L' lens and also has a focus limiter (to be fair perhaps he did not know this

Click to expand...

You're right - I didn't know!



I actually thought that the prime was "none of the above".

Yes, they're both 'L' series.

I'm fortunate to have both. I had intended on selling one or the other but I've never been able to decide which to get rid of. The both have their strong points and I've always said the optics are very sharp on both.

Of late I've mostly been using the 400mm f5,6 as it's slightly lighter to carry about and slightly faster to autofocus on birds in flight. If it had IS and a closer minimum focus I'd possibly sell the zoom as for me those are it's only weaknesses.

Having said that the zoom is so versatile. Apart from a short range zoom, I don't need to carry another lens when I've got the 100-400mm with me. By adding an extension tube it makes for a decent macro lens as well.

Some excellent advice there - thanks a million guys.

I will stick my bit in now. I have not used a 400 prime canon lens but I did use the old sigma 400 macro which was not a bad lens. However the hit rate for sharp pictures hand held was very low particularly under the clouds of Manchester. I did not want to take loads of pics that I would have to bin. The 100-400 was for me the only option for a walk about lens.

If you can shoot often in good light and/or use other props to stabilise your lens then of course your hit rate will increase. If you go out to work and want to shoot in the evening for instance, the hit rate will go down. The point I am making is that the conditions in which you are likely to photograph birds should be the main factor which governs your decision when buying a lens IMHO.

I have managed to get acceptably sharp shots of birds using the 100-400 hand held (not propped against a wall) at 1/15th sec. Hit rate low but still possible.

When purchasing the 100- 400 I never expected that I would use the 100 end on the zoom but I have and you can rest assured those opportunities will present themselves and you won't have time to change a lense even if you had one.

You will find yourself in situations where you may wish to take landscape shots and shots with people in and again the 100-400 does the job very well.

The 400 prime is a superb lens from what I have seen. It is probably the best lens there is for flight shots. It is wonderfully light and that in itself brings about a kind of versatility. It probably works better on the crop due to its extra sharpness though this is minimal and I mean minimal. If one has to crop to such an extent to get a perceived benefit in sharpness then one has to question whether the picture was worth taking to begin with.

Finally converters. You need very good light...that is my experience. I use sigmas. I do not like using converters. Even when I know my focus is bang on I am never pleased with the results (except in the case of one picture I once took). However that may be because sigma converters are just not up to the job (or I am not!). The new Kenko converters are producing brilliant results from what I can see on the web and the forum but in truth I would like to see how the pictures convert to print. I imagine Keith's will do rather well...I hope so at any rate.

The choice is yours. Both are good lenses. It is just that they they provide optimum benefits in different situations.

Good luck with your choice.

a.dancy said:

I imagine Keith's will do rather well...I hope so at any rate.

Click to expand...

They do!

They are, in fact, bloody gobsmacking - way better than they look online.




I've actually even sold one or two.