# Going native at 400mm



## mrsfotografie (Jul 24, 2014)

Maybe you can help.

I've been bending my mind over the 400mm focal length for quite some time but can't make up my mind. Too many options but none that really stand out. Here are some of my considerations, all for full frame use:

I'd like something better than my 100-400L that I can shoot hand held.

I don't require a zoom and use 400mm mostly for motorsports or animals in a zoo environment. 

A 400mm prime would be nice especially if I can use my 1.4x II to go to 560mm occasionally.

I don't want to break the bank or my back. I'd like to keep the weight of the lens under 2.5 kg if possible, investment below 5000 Euro's.

I previously owned the Sigma 150-500 OS, but couldn't live with the handling (focus ring in the wrong place) and the performance at the long end was only so-so. That lens also felt really heavy but looking at the figures I think the weight distribution was more to blame than the actual weight (front heavy). 

I know some of you use the new Tamron 150-600 and the resolution looks good at 400mm but it reminds me too much of the Sigma, and I no longer want any lenses that have a maximum aperture of f/6.3.

And..


The 400mm f/5.6 has no IS.

The 400mm f/2.8 I or II is too heavy and big for one. The cost is a killer too.

The 400DO has a mixed reputation. I know of a shop that has a used one, with one year warranty for €3999. The shop is not exactly around the corner but I'm actually really tempted by this one...

The 300mm f/2.8II is a stretch, and I'd have to use it with a 1.4x II or buy a 1.4x III making the stretch even longer.

The 300mm f/4 IS looks great but less so with a 1.4x

70-200 f/2.8II with a 2x TC? Maybe not.


What else am I missing? What would you recommend?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2014)

Tamron 150-600?


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 24, 2014)

I've heard good reports of the 400 DO in practical use - as opposed to the reviews......


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 24, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I've heard good reports of the 400 DO in practical use - as opposed to the reviews......


I would check that out, too, though I can say that the 400 f/5.6 is a great lens if you can get used to the lack of IS. Many of my best photos were taken during the 4 years I owned this lens. The 300 f/2.8 II IS + 1.4x III and 2xIII is what I upgraded to and other than the cost, size, and weight, I can recommend it without reservation. 

Also, your post scared me a bit as "going native" means going without clothes in American slang


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 24, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> The 300 f/2.8 II IS + 1.4x III and 2xIII is what I upgraded to and other than the cost, size, and weight, I can recommend it without reservation.



I can see that combination making sense, but I don't use such long focal lengths enough to justify the cost.



mackguyver said:


> Also, your post scared me a bit as "going native" means going without clothes in American slang



Catchy subject title, isn't it


----------



## Jeffrey (Jul 24, 2014)

I went to the combination of lens and extenders that MackGuyver uses and am very happy not only with the lighter weight, the choice of lengths with the extenders, but spending nearly half the cost of the 600mm lens. Sure the 600mm lens is superior at 600mm but not all that much imo. But if you suddenly need a 300mm lens you are out of luck unless you have a lens toting assistant along in the field to carry both lenses. 

The 300mm is the way to go until something better comes along.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jul 24, 2014)

Looking at your list I have owned/do own all of them (though mine were Mk1 versions) bar the 400 DO and the 400 F5.6 both of which I have used a fair bit.
The 400 F5.6 is probably the most popular choice due to it's combination of price, reach, quality and light weight. F5.6 can be limiting, depending on your camera, though this should rarely be a problem with your 5D3.
The 400 F2.8 (any version) is simply stunning - but big heavy and expensive. The pre IS versions are now pretty reasonable but even heavier!
400 DO - approach with caution! I have tried 3 examples. Two were simply stunning with excellent sharpness and detail (certainly better than my (then) 600 F4 L IS Mk1, the third was distinctly average and not worth the money. Try before you buy!
I have not been convinced by 70-200 F2.8 lenses with extenders - though others seem happy with them.
The 2 300mm lenses are my personal favorites. The F4 is light, cheap and gives excellent quality. The IS is a bit old and clunky but it works well for fairly static subjects. I didn't bother much with the 1.4 extender as on either a 1D4 or a 1DX this lens allows a lot of cropping before the image suffers too much. Unfortunately I couldn't justify keeping mine when I bought the F2.8 version!
The 300 F2.8 is the best option in my opinion. Yes it is fairly heavy, far from cheap and you will end up using extenders much of the time. However, as a bare lens it outperforms pretty much anything and works exceptionally well with extenders (especially the Mk3 versions). if the price is a bit scary then have a look at the Mk1 IS version as it gives up very little to the Mk2 and is cheaper. Having recently had quite a long play with the Mk2 version (4 days ago) I am not thinking of "upgrading" to the Mk2, it is better but it is barely noticeable and not worth the extra to me.

Hope some of the above helps.


----------



## jthomson (Jul 24, 2014)

The 400mm f5.6L with the 1.4x converter will work fine on your 5D3 assuming you upgrade to the firmware that lets it focus at f8.
I used the combination for several months before upgrading to a 500mm f4L.

I have had the Tamron 150-600mm since march and unless I am going out specifically for birds, I'll take it for the zoom. 

I had the Sigma 150-500mm as well and I agree that it was a dog at 500mm.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 24, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard good reports of the 400 DO in practical use - as opposed to the reviews......
> ...



I have gone through the 400mm L, a great little lens, the 100-400lL, a very useful lens, the 300/2.8 II plus extenders, the Tamron 150-600mm and a Sigma 400 tele macro. The 300/2.8 II is my go to lens followed by the Tammy. The 300 with extenders is so user friendly and sharp and contrasty. However, I think the Tammy is at least as good as the 100-400 where it overlaps and the 600 is quite good. So, take your choice as you should be happy with both.


----------



## Omni Images (Jul 25, 2014)

I too am going through this same issue now.
I shoot a lot of landscapes using both digital and a Linhof 617s. But I do shoot sports, I am a surfer so shoot surf both from the beach and water with an Aquatech housing.
I am now finding I am shooting a lot of wildlife, mostly birds and I am wanting a longer lens than the 70-200 2.8Lis I have.
I don't have the money for the F2.8 options, so they are out of the question.
The 400 F2.8II and the 600 F4II are my dream lenses ... but dream on I must.
Reality leaves me with the 300F4 or the 400F5.6 both such old lenses I'm reluctant to buy them.
Or, there is the 100-400F5.6 which I am loath to get, I don't really need the zoom. I may... consider the rumoured new II version of the 100-400 when it comes out, but I really don't want such a big lens, and I'm not a fan of the push pull zoom either.
I am currently using a 70-200 2.8L IS It's great, but I want to go longer.
I have a 2xIII but am finding the image quality no great, and now preferring to just shoot at 200 and crop, I'm getting equal image results doing that compared to using the 2XIII

Canon just needs to step up and do two new versions of the much highly regarded 300F4 and the 400F5.6
I don't know which one to go for as both have good and bad points.
If they could merge some of the qualities of each into new versions, they would be killer.
The 300F4 is standing out to me, but the reach over the 70-200 I have is not a big jump, but having said that, the good qualities are tempting ... firstly the short min focus 1.5m .... you spend ages stalking your prey getting closer and closer, then to find your lens won't focus down .... Arhhhh ... It has, all be it a 1st gen IS and clunky from what I have read. F4 is passable ... the light weight and quick focus etc is great ... so good lens, just not quiet the reach I am looking for.
The 400 F5.6 about the min reach extension I am looking for ... but F5.6 on the verge of just too slow.
The min 3m focus distance ... not great .... the lack of IS .. now days, not on... The weight and brilliant image quality is a winner.
But for my money now, both lenses are just too old ... they both need a revamp Canon !!!!
The 100-400 zoom will not replace them. !

I'd buy both lenses tomorrow if they were to re-build them with today's technology.
I go for a 400mm .. perhaps if they can do a F4.5 ? .. I have the old FD 400F4.5
Image Stabilization .... and a closer focusing distance.

PLEASE CANON !
Make it so...


----------



## scottkinfw (Jul 25, 2014)

I totally agree.

My 400 5.6 lens when calibrated with AFMA to my 5D III is awesome. It is an old lens, but it is relatively small, light, and it also travels well. Not that expensive either. Don't rule it out for lack of is. I love my new 300 2.8 II also, but for your restrictions, do consider the 400 5.6.

If you are unsure, try to rent one before you buy, or see if one of your buddies can loan you one.

sek



mackguyver said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard good reports of the 400 DO in practical use - as opposed to the reviews......
> ...


----------



## steven kessel (Jul 25, 2014)

I have the 400DO. Forget about the negative reviews, this is a truly fine lens. It's relatively light and razor sharp and I've produced hundreds of good images with it. I recommend it without hesitation.


----------



## dswtan (Jul 25, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> What else am I missing?


Something we are all "missing" is the rather over-anticipated but perhaps more likely than ever 100-400L update that could come later this year -- unless you really need something immediately. I appreciate you are veering towards a prime, but Canon's L zooms are such high quality these days...


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 25, 2014)

Honestly if you have the 100-400L I would not upgrade right now, at this point we're nearly just a month away from what may be the biggest Canon press event in years.

Ignoring the possibilities of the near future, and considering the mentioned uses, I think the 300f2.8L would be best. Anything else is such a slim upgrade I can't see it being worthwhile.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 25, 2014)

I've heard rumours that the 400mm f/5.6L IS is on the near horizon... one of my contacts in canon even suggested September... I guess it isn't long to wait to find out.

Also the 100-400 II is apparently round the corner... I'd wait for photokina then make a choice!


----------



## NancyP (Jul 25, 2014)

Well, I LOVE my 400 f/5.6L, even without the IS. Are you shooting with a monopod? That takes care of the IS issue for shots down to 1/100 (with good technique). I shoot in burst mode or 2 sec delay if wanting to get a single sharp photo. Actually, with good technique, I can occasionally get a tack sharp shot at 1/100 without monopod. Generally I shoot freehand at 1/500 and up for birds in flight or nervous birds hopping about from perch to perch.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 25, 2014)

NancyP said:


> Well, I LOVE my 400 f/5.6L, even without the IS. Are you shooting with a monopod? That takes care of the IS issue for shots down to 1/100 (with good technique). I shoot in burst mode or 2 sec delay if wanting to get a single sharp photo. Actually, with good technique, I can occasionally get a tack sharp shot at 1/100 without monopod. Generally I shoot freehand at 1/500 and up for birds in flight or nervous birds hopping about from perch to perch.


I never had an issue getting sharp photos with my 400 f/5.6, and I think it is the single best value in Canon's entire lineup. It's 90% as sharp as the $12k 400 f/2.8 IS II for 1/12th the price. Plus it's the only 400mm lens you can easily fit in a backpack, at least for the EF mount. I genuinely miss that aspect of the lens. The build quality is excellent as well and it's partially weather sealed.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 26, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I LOVE my 400 f/5.6L, even without the IS. Are you shooting with a monopod? That takes care of the IS issue for shots down to 1/100 (with good technique). I shoot in burst mode or 2 sec delay if wanting to get a single sharp photo. Actually, with good technique, I can occasionally get a tack sharp shot at 1/100 without monopod. Generally I shoot freehand at 1/500 and up for birds in flight or nervous birds hopping about from perch to perch.
> ...



Are you sure about this? ;D 

I do alot indoor shooting with fast shutter speed(1/1000 or faster). In my case, f5.6 won't do any goods.

You and I paid much more for 2.8 version, however, our lenses work well with x1.4 & x2 TC. Your 300 could become decent 400ish and 600. My 400 could decent become 500ish & 800. Kinda like owning 3 lenses for the price of one


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 26, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...


Obviously I didn't mention the trivial little issue of the aperture in stopping action or delivering shallow DOF. Like two stops really makes any difference  ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 26, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



4stop IS doesn't help much either ;D


----------



## DominoDude (Jul 26, 2014)

A nice dilemma to have.
I would recommend my 400/5,6L any day. Mine has been to hell and back, and it still makes me happy. It's a tad lighter than the 70-200/2,8L that you have, and it balances nicely. If you nail the focus, the lens will bring you crispy shots already at f/5,6.

Good luck deciding which one to pick!


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 27, 2014)

Looks like the 70-200 2.8 mkII with 2.0 Mk III converter hasn't been recommended here. Can anyone comment on the image quality here between the above combo compared to the 400 5.6L? This was a lens I was also considering so this thread caught my attention. This would be for a crop camera.


----------



## Omni Images (Jul 27, 2014)

Hey wsmith96,
I wouldn't recommend that combo with the 70-200 and 2x
I have the 1st version 70-200F2.8L IS and the 2xIII extender.
The focusing is painfully slow. A lot of times it just goes blurry and searching for focus and I've missed the shot.
Much worse in shadow. I find I have to keep hitting the button to get it to re-focus till it hits the sweet spot.
From what I have read the 400F5.6 prime would focus better/faster, and have a much better image quality.
I find I am getting about the same image quality with the 2x on than if I just crop to the same from the 200 straight up.
So I have all but stopped using the 2x
I am wanting a longer lens, but really don;t want to buy such an old lens ..... I think that 400 F5.6 is about the oldest if not the oldest lens now in Canon's line up.
So I have buying it on hold as I want to wait for a new generation 400 F5.6 to come out .. sounding like perhaps September, but I'm not holding my breath ... still no firm news about a new one yet.
Only news about a new 100-400 but I don't want such a massive lens....
Give me the sleek and light 400 F5.6 prime lens over some heavy fat monster any day.
Of course I'd love the 2.8 but it's price is way out of reach to many.
These days with such good ISO handling bodies now an F5.6 would have a wider usage.
I do have the old FD 400 F4.5. For surfing shots, and using film back in the day, if was cloudy .. forget it.

So wait till the new generation 400 F5.6L comes out ... surly Canon you have a new one in the works ! if you don't get onto it ! we are all waiting for a new version.


----------



## scottburgess (Jul 27, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> A 400mm prime would be nice especially if I can use my 1.4x II to go to 560mm occasionally.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Suggest you wait until mid-September if you can. A 400mm lens or newer 100-400mm zoom are likely releases for this fall.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 27, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > A 400mm prime would be nice especially if I can use my 1.4x II to go to 560mm occasionally.
> ...






scottburgess said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > What else am I missing? What would you recommend?
> ...



Yes, that seems to be the consensus here. I _can_ wait because since I already have the 100-400, it's a luxury problem to say the least. 

Thank you all for responding. I'm happy to say that reading this thread has relieved me from some of my GAS for now and I will indeed wait to see what's up. Besides that, a new 100-400 would be nice to have for travel. We'll have to wait and see but I surely hope something good is announced this year.

By all means please continue the discussions, I think the 400mm focal length is one of the most challenging from an equipment point of view, because gear-wise there are so many ways to get there but none of them are entirely satisfactory.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 27, 2014)

Thanks for the insight Omni. I'll hold off on the teleconverter.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 27, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> Thanks for the insight Omni. I'll hold off on the teleconverter.



Don't be too quick to discount the tele converters.

They can be pretty good these days. Try one with the lenses you're thinking of buying. They can add a lot of versatility. But they depend on the camera and the lens combination. Like anything photographic there is a trade off to make your mind up about. 

I'm very please with my converters. They get used with my 300 a lot and my 70 - 200 a bit.

Here is a shot taken with the 70-200 and x2 converter. If it was slow focusing I would never have got this shot, it was there for less than 1/2 sec.


----------



## Omni Images (Jul 28, 2014)

Ok, maybe I was a bit quick to condemn the converters.
I think the first thing you need to decide on or have clear in your mind is what the end result would be used for.
What do you want to use the images for. ?
I want my images to be able to be printed at full size on my Epson A3+ 4900 ... so I have a much more critical eye on each image than if I just wanted to post it around on social media or look at it on a computer screen.
My printer prints at 360ppi .. and computer screen is at 72.
So what I have been saying is the converters for me are borderline good enough for what I want my images to be used for.
I do know that an image taken on say the prime 400 F5.6 would be twice as good, you would get better/faster focusing and it's lighter .. over using the 70-200 2.8 + 2X still at F5.6.... for us here in Aust the cost of the converter is around $530 .. the cost of the 400 F5.6 is about $1600 .... so for an extra grand I think your money is best spent on the lens. It's a lesson I have learnt.
The issue now I am harping on about is that lens is just too old .. I am in some sort of limbo just now, wanting that lens NOW ! ... but thinking there should be a new version out any day now.
So for a quick cheap fix .. go the converter, they have their place and can save the day, no doubt .. but for me I need or want a better image quality to print big .. it shows up... the better choice would have been to save my money and get the prime straight up.
So I say go native ...


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 28, 2014)

Nice capture Skulker. I understand the effects of auto focus speed using teleconverters. I just purchased a 1.4 Mk III and I own at 70-200 Mk II 2.8. I've been photographing wildlife in my neighborhood lately and the 70-200 just is a little too short. I do have a non-L 70-300, but my copy is pretty fuzzy past 200mm. I'm not opposed to purchasing a 400mm lens, but if using a teleconverter will produce acceptable pictures I'd like to go that route for now. I have a lot of other home related projects at the moment so funds for "toys" are becoming scarce. 

I guess I need to rent one and see how I like the results.

Thanks again for your advice.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 28, 2014)

You are right, the 400 5.6L is an old lens, but from what I've seen, it still produces fantastic results. It's just about a month away from Photokina. Perhaps you should use the teleconverter until then to see if a new 100-400 will be announced.


----------



## lexptr (Aug 11, 2014)

Wow, never looked at 400m f/4 DO, but after reading this thread got interested and that's what I found:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=338&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

There are samples of 3 copies of 400mm f/4 DO and all are worse than the 400mm f/5.6! It's less visible on the center, but obvious on corners. Even when it is stopped down to f/5.6. So seems like DO version has 2 advantages: wider max aperture and IS. May be a better sealing too. Other than that – the f/5.6 is better. Very surprising to me.


----------



## ppritchett (Aug 11, 2014)

I don't have a full frame shot handy at this moment but here is a shot of some Turkey's taken in late June in upstate NY. Canon 1DX, 400f4DO with 1.4x III (560mm, ISO 4000, f5.6, 1/1250). This was a hurried handheld shot after jumping out of the car to get the shot. I did have to add in more contrast than usual due to the DO but I've been happy with the outcome of the pictures I've taken so far.


----------



## nc0b (Aug 11, 2014)

I initially bought both the 1.4 III TC and the 2X III TC to go with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and 70-200mm f/4 IS. The 1.4X TC definitely gets more usage, but the 2X has hardly been used since I threw in the towel and bought the 400mm f/5.6. BIF with a 6D and the 400/5.6 has worked out well for me. Sometimes I use a 60D if I am shooting small birds. 

My problem with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2X TC III was static shots were fine until a raptor took off and I would lose focus in the sky and I would have no image at all. I could never reacquire focus unless I focused on a tree or the ground. By then the subject was long gone. Focus speed is certainly slow with the 2X TC compared to the f/2.8 zoom alone, which is very fast. Of course it depends on where the lens was initially focused in the first place how fast it reacquires focus. 

The 400mm f/5.6, however, has been great in normal daylight and keeping the speed up around 1/1000. Hindsight I would not have bought the 2X III TC for the lenses I have. From a purely image quality standpoint, I have no complaints about the 2X TC, at least the center portion of the image with the 2.8 zoom. If I shoot the same static shot 5 times with the 2X TC on the 70-200 2.8 IS II, and refocus on each shot, and then shoot the same subject 5 times with the 400mm f/5.6, I get more focus variation from shot to shot than between the lenses. This is with a subject about 20 feet away, and resting the lens on a bean bag.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 11, 2014)

When in a pinch the 70-200mm F2.8 MKII with 2x converter work pretty well. I only have the V2 converter, its easier than carrying two lenses and the IQ is pretty good IMO close to the 100-400mm at 400 but the AF is slower... but with the 5DMKIII I missed very few shots, also the 4 stop IS works great with the 2x.

Couple of recent examples, all commercial. As you can see, they are very sharp, and two of the below are very quick and the combo had no trouble. 



BMW CSL 1973, Batmobile, Colin Turkington, Jet Super Touring Car Trophy, Silverstone Classic 2014 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



Puffin in flight, Cliffside, Inner Farne, Farne Islands by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



Eider Duck chick, Sehouses Harbour, Farne Islands by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Although like the above image Bokeh can be a little distracting. The problem is I want to pull the trigger on a 400mm but the one I want doesn't exist atm and I think the 400mm F2.8s are overkill, too big and heavy and definitely too expensive, although the isolation of 2.8 would be great.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 12, 2014)

tomscott said:


> When in a pinch the 70-200mm F2.8 MKII with 2x converter work pretty well. I only have the V2 converter, its easier than carrying two lenses and the IQ is pretty good IMO close to the 100-400mm at 400 but the AF is slower... but with the 5DMKIII I missed very few shots, also the 4 stop IS works great with the 2x.
> 
> Couple of recent examples, all commercial. As you can see, they are very sharp, and two of the below are very quick and the combo had no trouble.
> 
> ...



What are your shutter speed and aperture for this shot? EDIT: ƒ/5.6 400.0 mm 1/250, I checked on your flickr page.


I've recently rediscovered my 100-400L given good light (from behind, it looses performance when shooting against the light). This is a quick an dirty crop, at f/7.1, 1/1000s. I'm waiting to see if the 100-400L II will be announced because the versatility of a zoom is kinda nice to have at the race track (I thought differently until I shot this event).


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 12, 2014)

tomscott said:


> When in a pinch the 70-200mm F2.8 MKII with 2x converter work pretty well. I only have the V2 converter, its easier than carrying two lenses and the IQ is pretty good IMO close to the 100-400mm at 400 but the AF is slower... but with the 5DMKIII I missed very few shots, also the 4 stop IS works great with the 2x.


I think that combo works quite well, but I find it pretty unbalanced in terms of weight.


tomscott said:


> Although like the above image Bokeh can be a little distracting. The problem is I want to pull the trigger on a 400mm but the one I want doesn't exist atm and I think the 400mm F2.8s are overkill, too big and heavy and definitely too expensive, although the isolation of 2.8 would be great.


I gave up waiting for the 400 f/5.6 IS...and ended up with the 300 f/2.8 IS II (and both converters, which I already had). It's quite expensive and a beast compared to the 400 f/5.6, but gives excellent results and is much smaller and lighter than the 400 f/2.8 IS II, but I'd love to have 800mm...and f/2.8 at 400mm sometimes...

As for the


----------

