Canon 400mm f/5.6 questions

[Jason Kinsey]

Does anyone have experience with this lens??? Would it be possible to maintain autofocus with the Canon 1.4 TC? I'm also thinking that I could probably shoot this on one of my Bogen heads and not have to rent a Wimberley-thoughts there? Thanks for any input y'all can provide.

[Ian Cassell]

I have this lens and love it with my 7D. It will not AF with a TC and a crop sensor camera. I usually shoot it handheld rather than on a pod, but others can weigh in here. I do use it with a pod when I put on a 1.4x or 2x TC and then I manually focus.

Here it is with the Sigma EX 2X TC and my 7D at 800mm

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?71925-A-Burrowing-Owl-morning&highlight=

[Kerry Perkins]

Jason,

With champagne tastes and a beer budget, this is my long lens. :cool: I have used it for two years on both the 50D and now the 7D. It is possible to get sharp images with the 1.4x if you are steady enough. I have even made decent BIF shots with this setup and manual focus. Here is a hand-held shot with the 50D and 1.4x II. I don't really recommend it, as a tripod will give much more consistent results, but it can be done.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=58311&d=1262755141

[Jason Kinsey]

Thanks for the input guys. I'm thinking of renting this lens with a 7D soon and maybe purchasing something like that in the near future. Nikon doesn't offer a "mid-range" prime, but this option looks like it will work well. Especially on a crop factor body.

[Doug Brown]

It's simply an excellent lens. The 400 f/5.6 is super sharp, has very fast AF, is extremely lightweight, and is quite usable wide open. I hand hold this lens exclusively. With a 1.4x it will AF on a pro body but not particularly well. Here's a 100% of an unprocessed RAW file from a 400 f/5.6 image I took this weekend. And my 400 is pretty beat up!

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Jason, all my bird photography is done with this lens. Strengths of this lens are AF speed, sharpness, colors, contrast, light weight, balance and build quality. And of course great price as Kerry mentioned.

Weaknesses would be lack of IS and high min. focussing distance.

I use 40D so it does not AF with TC. And since I dont use tripod a lot, MF is quite hard. I have tried 'taping the pins' trick but even with that, AF performance isn't very consistent. At times, it does a good job but hunts a lot in most real world situations. With TC, better to stop down at least to f/9...but the problem is at f/9, in many situations, you dont end up getting good shutter speed to hand-hold. Net net, I dont use it with TC much.

go for it...you won't regret it. On a 18Mp camera, it should be a great fit.

[Van Hilliard]

I don't use the lens with converters since I have both a 600 and 800 but at 400mm, it's probably the best flight lens out there. My usual combo is the 800, a Mark IV and the 400 in a belt pouch (ThinkTank). I rarely find I need anything else. When I use the 400, it is always handheld. Like Doug, I have used the 400 wide open with no regrets. When I went out on James Shadle's Hooptie Deux, the 400 was the most useful lens.
If I had no other lens, I would certainly try it with a TC. It hasn't been all that long ago (Nothing seems all that long ago anymore unless I really think about it.) that we all used manual focus.

[David Stephens]

I have nothing to add, just piling on to say that this is a wonderful, sharp lens, with ultra fast AF, but it doesn't AF well with any TC. It's very handy, light and compact.

[Charles Scheffold]

Just wanted to add - I sold this lens when I bought the 500/4, and then 6 months later I bought it again because I missed it so much! :)

thanks
Charles

[David Stephens]

Just wanted to add - I sold this lens when I bought the 500/4, and then 6 months later I bought it again because I missed it so much! :)



I held on to mine when I bought the 500/4 and then sold the 400/5.6 after a couple of months of not touching it. I don't miss it yet. I to carry the 500/4 on my 7D on a tripod and the 70-200/4 on my 5D MkII. I always have the 1.4x TC with me to put on either lens, depending on circumstances.

The trick for me in using the 500/4 for BIF was practice. It was tough at first, but the added reach really gives dramatically improved results over the 400/5.6 IF, big "IF", you can track the bird. It takes some work. I'm still not very good with the 1.4x TC on the 500mm, but I've been pleased with my efforts with the 500/4 for BIF. For me, the tripod is a given in almost all situations with the 500mm.

[Charles Scheffold]

I held on to mine when I bought the 500/4 and then sold the 400/5.6 after a couple of months of not touching it. I don't miss it yet. I to carry the 500/4 on my 7D on a tripod and the 70-200/4 on my 5D MkII. I always have the 1.4x TC with me to put on either lens, depending on circumstances.

The trick for me in using the 500/4 for BIF was practice. It was tough at first, but the added reach really gives dramatically improved results over the 400/5.6 IF, big "IF", you can track the bird. It takes some work. I'm still not very good with the 1.4x TC on the 500mm, but I've been pleased with my efforts with the 500/4 for BIF. For me, the tripod is a given in almost all situations with the 500mm.

Your point is well taken, however, I guess it depends on the situation. I tend to take long hikes and the 500/4 is difficult to manage for that type of activity. My feeling is that the tripod is just about required when using the 500/4 and that gets cumbersome to drag around for many miles.

Instead, I put the 400/5.6 on my 7D and hang it around my neck while I'm walking. It's a great lens and image quality is very good. Are there times when I wish I had the 500/4 or the 800/5.6 with me? Yes, but my back thanks me :)

Once I get the 70-200/2.8 IS II then maybe I'll only need that and the 1.4x TC for hiking... not sure yet.

Charles

[David Stephens]

...Once I get the 70-200/2.8 IS II then maybe I'll only need that and the 1.4x TC for hiking... not sure yet.


Yes, different ways to skin a cat, all valid.

The 70-200/2.8 IS II with the 1.4x AND the 2xTC is also a very tempting proposition to me. Early reports are excellent. That lens would cover a lot of ground. However, carrying it AND the 500/4 is indeed a daunting proposition. As an only-lens, then it'd be incredibly flexible.

I've added that to my 2011 "To Do" list as something I'll need to try, via rental, before buying.

[John Ling]

Hi Doug-
Do you think that 500mm/f4 will do better job in all aspects than 400mm/f5.6? I am thinking to get one after getting back from NM, Thx.


It's simply an excellent lens. The 400 f/5.6 is super sharp, has very fast AF, is extremely lightweight, and is quite usable wide open. I hand hold this lens exclusively. With a 1.4x it will AF on a pro body but not particularly well. Here's a 100% of an unprocessed RAW file from a 400 f/5.6 image I took this weekend. And my 400 is pretty beat up!

[Charles Scheffold]

Hi Doug-
Do you think that 500mm/f4 will do better job in all aspects than 400mm/f5.6? I am thinking to get one after getting back from NM, Thx.

It's like comparing apples and oranges - the OP wanted to know about the 400/5.6, so comparing to the 500/4 isn't completely fair. The 400/5.6 is designed to be a lightweight, fairly compact telephoto lens at a price point that is affordable. The 500/4 is bigger, heavier, and 5x more expensive.

It all depends on context - I use my 400/5.6 for casual hikes up large hills/mountains. Would not want to drag my 500/4, tripod, gimbal, etc. on those hikes just in case I see something :)

Charles

[John Ling]

Would 500mm/f4 deliver better IQ? I dont have 500mm/f4, so I have to have some sort of idea before action. Let's just focus on IQ. I know it is not fair.



It's like comparing apples and oranges - the OP wanted to know about the 400/5.6, so comparing to the 500/4 isn't completely fair. The 400/5.6 is designed to be a lightweight, fairly compact telephoto lens at a price point that is affordable. The 500/4 is bigger, heavier, and 5x more expensive.

It all depends on context - I use my 400/5.6 for casual hikes up large hills/mountains. Would not want to drag my 500/4, tripod, gimbal, etc. on those hikes just in case I see something :)

Charles

[David Stephens]

Do you think that 500mm/f4 will do better job in all aspects than 400mm/f5.6? I am thinking to get one after getting back from NM, Thx.

When I moved from the 400/5.6 to the 500/4.0 I noted an improvement in color accuracy, contrast and sharpness. I most often mounted the 400/5.6 on my tripod and the 500/4 even more so, so the sharpness does come from the lens, not technique.

They're both wonderful lenses, but in two different leagues. It's harder to track a BIF with the 500/4 and the 500/4 weights considerably more and costs WAY more. I think that my copy of the 400/5.6 was a good one, but I just saw little reason to go back to it after I got the 500/4 and started seeing the images.

[David Stephens]

Would 500mm/f4 deliver better IQ? I dont have 500mm/f4, so I have to have some sort of idea before action. Let's just focus on IQ. I know it is not fair.

In my case, the IQ of my 500/4 is superior to my 400/5.6 when both are used on a tripod in the field. Color accuracy, contrast and sharpness all seem superior to me based on anecdotal evidence. I did no "scientific" testing. I merely took pictures and decided which I prefered.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

John, one thing you have to understand is that when you shoot with f/5.6 with both lenses, the 500 will defnitely give you better sharpness as it is stopped down whereas the 400 is wide-open.

[Charles Scheffold]

From my experience, I do not believe the 500/4 offers a dramatic improvement over the 400/5.6 in terms of raw IQ. The 500/4 does have noticeably less CA in harsh conditions due to the fact that it has 1 fluorite lens element. But then we are comparing a $1200 lens with a $6000 lens... so I don't know what your tolerance is for CA.

There are of course other factors that affect IQ besides just the lens itself, which I think have been clearly pointed out above.

Charles