400f/4 on APS-C?

[Erik Hedlin]

I'm sure the "canon 300 f4 IS v.s 400 f5.6" has been discussed here before (as it has everywhere else) but I haven't been able to find an answer to a particular question I have. I'd love to get the extra 100mm with autofocus not being dragged down by a TC, but I'm worried about the lack of IS on the 400. I've heard people say that if you're going for flight shots, shutter speeds will be high enough that IS isn't even needed, but what about on a cropped sensor? Shooting at 640mm without IS seems daunting, especially if it's handheld.

So for the 2,000th time, does anyone have experience shooting the 400mm on a cropped sensor? Was it ok?

[Evan Cain]

For the past 3 years I have had no problem shooting the 400 f/5.6L on a crop sensor, hand held. It is an incredibly easy lens to handhold (for a lens lacking IS), and you stop thinking about the lack of IS after a week of shooting. I have successfully taken sharp photos at 1/80, however, those were in tests that I have done in the house to see how low I could go with a static subject. With moving birds, I have got as low as 1/160 with acceptable results, the most extreme example of that was a shot of a Rufous Hummingbird that I posted recently.

One thing that you must learn if using this lens is proper long lens holding technique. If you can't learn that, you may be frustrated with the results of this wonderful lens.

[John Chardine]

Hi Erik- "Shooting at 640mm without IS seems daunting, especially if it's handheld."

A 400mm lens will give you a field of view on a 1.6 crop sensor camera equivalent to 640mm lens on a full-frame camera. Your question suggests that you think this is real focal length- it isn't. The crop sensor does not magically magnify the image. What you should be concerned about is pixels on subject which is determined by pixel size/density. Your comparison is between a 300 and 400mm lens, not between a 480 and 640mm lens.

I owned the 400/5.6 lens and it's excellent. I did not miss IS, although the lack of it limits your options in low-light situations.

[Erik Hedlin]

That's really good news, thanks Evan!

John,
I assumed (and maybe incorrectly) that the cropped frame, although not longer in focal length, would contribute to greater camera shake when handheld. You're right though, up until this point I was definitely simplifying the problem by assuming I was shooting at 640.

[John Chardine]

Hi Erik- Resolving camera shake is a function of pixels on subject. The field of view of the 400mm lens on a crop body will increase the difficulty of acquiring the moving subject in the frame and any camera shake will be more visible in the viewfinder. Lack of IS will exacerbate this last issue.

[Erik Hedlin]

Thanks John! I think I'll probably end up going with the 400

[Nancy Phillips]

You won't be sorry. The IQ is great, the AF is snappy, the light weight and excellent balance on APS-C bodies is great, I don't miss IS, although I have never shot a super-telephoto with IS, only the standard lenses. I take my 60D plus 400mm f/5.6L on long hikes, carrying also a monopod on a belt holster in case I run into a situation requiring patient waiting.

The one thing that is fabulous about the 300mm f/4L is the 0.33x magnification, which is highly useful for butterfly and dragonfly photographers. Plus, you can boost that 0.33x to 0.5x with a 1.4x TC and still have some sort of AF, maybe not the quickest. The 400mm f/5.6L has a measly maximum magnification of 0.12x. It has no AF with anything added to it to increase reach or magnification.

[Erik Hedlin]

Thanks for the input Nancy. I figure I'll usually have a monopod handy and could therefore make do without IS. The close focusing isn't AS big of an issue since I don't really ever find myself taking pictures of small things. I suppose if it came down to it, I could always throw on an extension tube. I think I'll probably go with the 400 5.6