• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Canon 400mm F5.6 1.4 ext versus 5 or 600mm? (1 Viewer)

Hi, I suppose like many I would love to be able to go into a shop and come out with a 500mm or 600mm L Lens but as an OAP I have no chance however I do have a 400mm F5.6 and a 1.4 MK II extender and yes I no F8 but for those who have the knowledge.
With the 400mm and 1.4 ext I get about 560mm at min F8 ( Think that is correct) now with a 600mm without ext I would have F4, yes also focus points and a little loss of focusing speed with the 400mm and 1.4 ext but what is the biggest downside? The loss of a little light, lose of about 40mm, focusing speed?
All on a FF camera.
Thankyou and hope not such a stupid question.
Russ.
 

MJN

Well-known member
Hi, I suppose like many I would love to be able to go into a shop and come out with a 500mm or 600mm L Lens but as an OAP I have no chance however I do have a 400mm F5.6 and a 1.4 MK II extender and yes I no F8 but for those who have the knowledge.
With the 400mm and 1.4 ext I get about 560mm at min F8 ( Think that is correct) now with a 600mm without ext I would have F4, yes also focus points and a little loss of focusing speed with the 400mm and 1.4 ext but what is the biggest downside? The loss of a little light, lose of about 40mm, focusing speed?
All on a FF camera.
Thankyou and hope not such a stupid question.
Russ.

Not a stupid question Russ.

I tried this combo for a short while. My preferred use for it was walkabout handheld shooting. Notwithstanding all the mentioned limitations it was the lack of IS that ruled it out for me. It may have fared better on a tripod.

On the other hand, I found a 100-400 mk2 and a 1.4X mk3 quite usable.

Best.
Mike.
 
Not a stupid question Russ.

I tried this combo for a short while. My preferred use for it was walkabout handheld shooting. Notwithstanding all the mentioned limitations it was the lack of IS that ruled it out for me. It may have fared better on a tripod.

On the other hand, I found a 100-400 mk2 and a 1.4X mk3 quite usable.

Best.
Mike.

Hi Mike, Thankyou for your reply.
You say that the 100-400 MK II and MK III extender are quite usable, I am looking at the Canon 5D MK IV, 100-400 MK II lens but I already have the MK II extender so jury is out on that one as I do not no how the MK II extender would work with that camra and lens choice. Have read some good reviews on the Sigma 150-600mm 'C' but I have for the most part always used Canon camera and lenses. Thankyou again, Russ.
 

MJN

Well-known member
Hi Mike, Thankyou for your reply.
You say that the 100-400 MK II and MK III extender are quite usable, I am looking at the Canon 5D MK IV, 100-400 MK II lens but I already have the MK II extender so jury is out on that one as I do not no how the MK II extender would work with that camra and lens choice. Have read some good reviews on the Sigma 150-600mm 'C' but I have for the most part always used Canon camera and lenses. Thankyou again, Russ.

Russ.

The camera/lens combination you quote is excellent, it really is. As far as I'm aware and I may stand corrected, the 1.4x mk2 and the 1.4x mk3 convertors are quite similar optically (that's certainly my experience). The difference is that the 1.4x mk3 is optimised for the mk2 lenses so that may also be a consideration for you. I can't comment on Sigma lenses.

Best.
Mike.
 

DMW

Well-known member
The 600mm f4 will give you the advantage of shallow depth of field at f4, nicely isolating the subject, which will be harder to achieve with the 400m + extender. It also has image stabilisation which the 400mm doesn't. The image quality of the 400mm takes a bit of a hit with an extender.
 

marcsantacurz

Well-known member
There is also the 400mm f/4 DO II. That lens supposedly takes 1.4 and 2 adapters well (up to 800mm f/8, though I have seem someone do crazy adapter stacks to 1100/11 or something like that). Not a zoom, of course. But neither is the 600 f/4.

I like to hike with the camera on a sling and maybe have a monopod. 2kg (in lens weight plus other gear) is getting towards the tops of what I'd want to carry. If I had the 600 f/4 at 3kg, I'm sure I'd find a way, but going beyond that is just too much.

  • Tammy/Sigma 150-600: $1200 at 2kg (4.4 lb)
  • 100-400 II: $2200 at 1.6 kb (3.6 lb) + 1.4x TC
  • 400mm f/4 DO II: $6900 at 1.2kg (4.6 lb) + 1.4x TC
  • 200-400 f/4 w/ extender: $11000 at 3.6 kg (8 lb)
  • 600mm f/4 IS III: $13000 at 3kg (6.7 lb)

The 400mm f/4 DO II is a nice option for price vs weight vs focal length options. It's about the same price (new) as a used 600mm f/4 II, but at much less weight (about 1/3 the weight, it's 4kg for the 600 mark II).

For me, the weight is a big factor. If I'm going to to spend $7k or more, I'd go for either the Canon III or Sony lenses, or the 400 DO II.

The 200-400 does not make much sense for me, unless you really want 1 lens and make it a zoom. it's a lot of weight for 600mm f/5.6. Used it's about $8k - $9k, but still just as heavy.

I use the Tammy 150-600 G2 on Nikon and it gives nice results in good light. I do not know how the 100-400 w/ 1.4x TC (f/8) compares. I know on Nikon, when you get up to f/8 you lose a lot of AF points compared to 6.3. Something to consider if you like to compose the focus point out of the center. I am not sure if this is an issue for Canon or your specific camera. I have stopped using the Tammy in favor of the Nikon 500 PF f/5.6, which is kind of the Nikon version of the 400mm f/4.

Marc
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top