Printable View
Right now I have a 70-200 and 600.
I'm looking to add a 400.
I use to have a 100-400 and loved it. I had to sell it a
few years back.
I'm thinking that since most of my images with the 1-4
were shot at or near 400, it would be best to just get
400 F5.6.
There's no IS, but I figured that shouldn't be a problem
since I'm shooting at high shutter speeds anyway.
So right now I'm leaning toward the 400.
Agree? Disagree?
BTW, why did they make that lens non-IS?
Thanks
Doug
Sounds to me like you answered your own question:S3: The 400 5.6 is a great lens.
For what its worth, when I bought my 1-4 I had the same dilemma but what swayed me to the 1-4 was that I handhold 99.9% of the time so IS is handy for me. I also like the short minimum focussing distance of about 6 feet....and I photograph much more often at FLs of less than 400mm than I would have first thought...
I figure the non-IS thing is to keep the cost down for this lens? It is quite a bargain.
Thanks Daniel...Yeah, I pretty much know, but just needed to make
sure my logic sounded correct.
BTW, I guess I left it out in my original msg, but I'd be hand holding
this lens also.
Doug
I had both lenses. I sold my 400F5.6 IS is the deciding factor if you get a sharp copy of the zoom.
Hi Doug, I have owned several of each :). Wanna buy a pristine 400 f/5.6L IS from me?
I have grown accustomed to IS though I am sure I could still make some great fight images with my old "toy" lens. No need for a 100-400 if you own a 70-200.... I am asking $700 for the lens which is mint but has no tripod collar. I pay insured shipping. I'd be glad to sign the lens for you :).
BTW, the 400 f/5.6L lens was first manufactured before IS.
Heck, I'm still using my non IS 600 that I bought back in 2006.
I'd say I'm doing pretty good with that :)
I just sent you a msg about the 400.
Doug
Got it. Price is not a typo. I bought two of them cheap. And it is mint.
I went through this decision tree and landed on the 400/5.6. Maybe it's because I've never owned an IS lens, but I don't miss IS. By all reports of others, one factor is that the 400 weighs so little that IS isn't as big an issue. I find it very easy to handhold. I love the prime.
Doug, since you already have 70-200, I'd say go for the 400f5.6L. If you think lack of IS is something that you cant live with, you can always sell it for little loss.
as to 'why no IS on this lens?'( this was a thread on fredmiranda recently...you can check that for a lot of opinions)......If Canon updates this lens with better optics and latest IS( highly unlikely that they will keep everything same and just add IS) that will, most likely, mean a big price tag. Look at the price increases on all the lenses that got updates recenty. How much will it sell at a high price? Strong point of the lens is its price. Its all about volume.
Another important consideration....there is no competitor offering such a lens. 400f5.6L loses to 100-400IS and 300f4IS+1.4x. Am sure that does not bother Canon much :-)
I personally like the fact that we have all these good L options in that price range. Each has some pros and cons. You look at your needs and you pick one of the lenses.
KD. Not sure what you mean by the above....Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaustubh Deshpande
I hope they never add IS to the 400 f/5.6. There's really no reason to unless you typically shoot at slow shutter speeds. The reason why I hope they don't add IS is because of the weight. Adding IS will add weight to the lens and this lens is very sharp and very light. It's nice to carry this lens with a 7D while on a hike.
A few years back, I hiked up a mountain in Big Bend to photograph the Colima Warbler. I actually considered bringing along my 600mm with tripod, but elected to go just with the 400mm f/5.6. It worked out great and made for a rather pleasant 10-mile hike. Having heavier equipment with me would have been brutal.
Light and sharp! I can't imagine ever selling mine.
Alan
www.iwishicouldfly.com
Artie, I said 'there is no competitor offering such a lens. 400f5.6L loses to 100-400IS and 300f4IS+1.4x. Am sure that does not bother Canon much :-)'Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Morris
What I meant was '400f5.6 loses sales to 100-400 and 300f4'...should have been more specific. You see lot of people saying 'I went with 100-400 because it has IS or I went with 300 because it focuses closer'. You rarely see someone moving to Nikon or use a third party lens because 400f5.6 does not have IS.
I shoot with 400 5.6 handheld. I am quite skinny and don't boast of a very steady pair of hands but the ultralight lens helps me get decently sharp images even at 1/150. I had a used 100-400 earlier. Sold it as it had grown soft with age. My logic for buying the 400 prime to replace the zoom was "since I shoot only birds and all the time at 400, might as well go for the prime".
I think they didn't add IS to keep it light and affordable.
I also think that IS is not really necessary for such a light lens. Among its pros is its lightening fast focusing. Shooting BIF is a dream with this lens.
Among its major cons is the incredibly long minimum focusing distance. I often find that a major hindrance.
I keep thinking I should get an extension tube to overcome the long-MFD issue, but haven't gotten around to it.
FWIW, it is my understanding that Canon will produce a new 1-4 f/4-5.6 later this year & they will discontinue manufacturing the 400 f/5.6. The 1-4 will have the latest IS.
This is interesting news (I hadn't heard it), but I would miss the lightweight of the 400 prime.
That's still only considered a rumor at this point.
Yup. That's a new one on me too. But heck, I never know anything :).
I could have lot's of wishes if they actually did, since the price would probably skyrocket anyway. For example, make it an f/4 instead of a 5.6 so I could use my 1.4X with AF.
Ian, What you are describing is the 400 DO on steroids. And that already cost like 6-7+K. And a straight L IS 400 f/4 would be heavier than the DO and cost LOTs more. Be careful what you wish for.
Yeah, Artie, I know .... Sigh ....
Amazing how adding one stop jacks the price up so high ...
Yes, but think about it: for each stop, the diameter of the lens has to double, so the mass (using equal components) goes up by more than the square of the diameterQuote:
Originally Posted by Ian Cassell
(the lens elements get thicker, so closer to the cube of the diameter). And the optical glass gets more difficult to make so costs go up even more. And the longer the focal length, the more accurate the glass must be ground and polished.
Roger
Yeah, and in the case of the Nikon 80-400 versus the 500 f4, they actually make the glass sharp:c3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Clark
Hey Artie, I'd like to buy your lens if you are sellin... Tried to pm you but couldn't. Thanks, ann
Roger, I think instead of diameter you meant to say surface area has to double for each additional stop. Since the light comes in through the surface area, double the surface area equals double the light (1 stop).Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Clark
If they redo the 100-400 with new IS I would think it would be similar price (or a little higher) to the 70-200L IS II. Both lenses should have about the same amount of glass since the 70-200 can go to 400 f5.6 with an extender.
Appearently the new 100-400 has been rumored since 2003, so was the 400 f5.6 L with IS, according to some experts on NSN.
I owned a 400 f5.6 L and sold it as romor had it that the IS version was imminent. It was in 2007.
I bought it again in 2011 and still have it. Meantime I had and still have the 300 f4.0 L IS, 70-200 f4.0L IS, 300 f2.8 L IS 500 f4.0 L IS.
I have a love and hate relationship with the 400 f5.6 L.
I lovet it for its sharpness, speed of focusing, resolution, colour rendition and lightness.
I hate it for the lack of IS, and the long MFD.
Love is still stronger. I just took it for a stroll and shot some nice singin RWBB hand held and it came out nice.
I also think it would be wise to stay away from the speculations. Been hearing about those(as Karl mentioned) for a long time.
