# Canon 400mm f/5.6 L



## Jemlnlx (Dec 10, 2013)

Looking into a super telephoto. I have my 70-200 F/4 IS which is great. I have rented to 100-400mm L which is found to be great, just not as sharp as I would like it to be at 400. I figure the 400L with a monopod should make for some good birding shots...Any experience?

And yes, I saw a few past postings but they are all over a year old...


----------



## dolina (Dec 10, 2013)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2849.0.html


----------



## mwh1964 (Dec 10, 2013)

Go with what you found great the 100-400 zoom. There is no difference in f stop compared to the prime, you get more flexibility, IS and thus better resell price once you would opt for a big white. I went for the 70-300 L which is a far more modern lens and will give you 480mm on a crop. Also I find the 70-200 L plus 2xextender a very useful option but of course also more expensive. Good luck choosing.


----------



## Lenscracker (Dec 10, 2013)

I have this 400mm lens, but I seldom use it. It is very sharp. The numbers on it are right up there with the $10, 000 lenses. The problem I have with it is the lack of IS. Most of the time I will opt for my 300mm f4 L IS lens because I can hold it still enough to get a sharp picture. I use the IS even while on a tripod.
The 400 5.6 L lens is extremely difficult for me to use even with a tripod. I would not attempt to use this lens with a monopod. I am sure others can do it, and I even read where people use it handheld for BIF, but I can't do it. I have four very good tripods that I choose from depending on the situation, but this lens needs sandbagged onto Gibralter.


----------



## Duckman (Dec 10, 2013)

Jemlnlx said:


> Looking into a super telephoto. I have my 70-200 F/4 IS which is great. I have rented to 100-400mm L which is found to be great, just not as sharp as I would like it to be at 400. I figure the 400L with a monopod should make for some good birding shots...Any experience?
> 
> And yes, I saw a few past postings but they are all over a year old...



I have it and I think it's worth the money... I always found the autofocus snappy and accurate on my 7D and 5Diii. It's surprisingly light and I handheld shooting is no problem at all(with sufficient shutter speeds ) and on a mono pod would be even more forgiving. IS at these focal lengths is key, but not necessary. If you want quality reach on the "cheap"... I think it's a really good option.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 10, 2013)

I have seen this lens referred to as the best choice, bar none, for handheld shots of birds in flight.
This lens was the primary reason I have a Canon system and not Nikon, essentially there is nothing like it. You will not find more reach for the money (at least not something with comparable AF, the Sigma 400f5.6 Macro is a better lens otherwise).

When I was doing my pre-purchase research the best information I could find indicates that the 400f5.6 prime is slightly sharper (especially in the corners), and probably focuses a little faster than the 100-400. It is definitely an improvement, but not a world of difference like getting a big white would be. If you like the zoom aspect of the 100-400, I would get that. If you only find yourself using the lens at 400mm and cropping after, then go ahead and get the 400mm prime.


----------



## Jemlnlx (Dec 10, 2013)

Thanks for all the responses. I did like the 100-400 as previously mentioned, but I found myself like many, going to 100 or 400. 

I have read opinions on the lack of IS and have found mixed reviews. On one end, its 400mm, where's the IS, hello!! and on the other end, most cameras these days, are capable of great results at ISO 1600, 3200 and higher, so shooting handheld at 1/1000 or with a monopod at 1/400 isn't too far fetched. 

I have also heard that this lens is corner to corner sharp at wide open (5.6), which helps.

I have also tried the Sigma 120-400mm OS which had fair reviews, but I found it to be (my copy at least) not sharp enough, and soft, especially at 400mm.

I might pull the trigger on the 400mm 5.6, the good thing about buying gear is that most of it holds value pretty well. I can buy something in good used condition (i.e. $925 for a UZ copy of the 400 5.6, box and all), shoot around with it for a month or two and resell it and will most likely break even, or even make a few $$.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 10, 2013)

Jemlnlx said:


> Thanks for all the responses. I did like the 100-400 as previously mentioned, but I found myself like many, going to 100 or 400.
> 
> I have read opinions on the lack of IS and have found mixed reviews. On one end, its 400mm, where's the IS, hello!! and on the other end, most cameras these days, are capable of great results at ISO 1600, 3200 and higher, so shooting handheld at 1/1000 or with a monopod at 1/400 isn't too far fetched.
> 
> ...



I have the Sigma 120-400 F5.6. It is nowhere near as sharp as the 400F5.6 from Canon and considerably heavier. The 70-200F2.8 and a 2X teleconverter will give you better results than the sigma 120-400....

I have used the Canon 400F5.6 and really like it. I wish it had IS but by leaning against a tree or something else solid you can greatly increase the stability of the lens. I keep thinking of upgrading to it, but the desire for IS is holding me back.... If they come out with an upgraded model with IS and even better optics I will be first in line to get one.

I am also waiting to hear/see some reviews on the upcoming Tamron 150-600. I expect it's sharpness to not be as good as the Canon.... but time will tell.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 10, 2013)

I used it for years and once mastered, it's an incredible lens. The color, contrast, and sharpness are incredible. You must use a tripod for best results, but it works handheld for bird in flight shots, and any time you can get 1/800+ shutter speeds. 1/400 is sketchy at this focal length. Also, I have done some tests with the 70-200 2.8 IS II and 400 5.6. It's quite close to the 400 5.6 at 400mm at f/5.6, closer still a f/8 but still not as sharp. 

It's hands down the best super telephoto for the money and if you can live without IS, I wouldn't hesitate to buy it.


----------



## Sebring5 (Dec 11, 2013)

I used the Canon 400mm f/5.6 for a long time until I discovered what the Sigma 150-500mm could do. I've heard the Sigma 50-500mm is even sharper. I've moved on to the Sigma 300-800mm and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 but you should consider the 500mm zooms from Sigma at this price point. IS is unimportant if you shoot with a tripod or use a shutter speed of 1/focal length of the lens or faster. I have IS on the 120-300mm but I turn it off.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 11, 2013)

Sebring5 said:


> I used the Canon 400mm f/5.6 for a long time until I discovered what the Sigma 150-500mm could do. I've heard the Sigma 50-500mm is even sharper. I've moved on to the Sigma 300-800mm and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 but you should consider the 500mm zooms from Sigma at this price point. IS is unimportant if you shoot with a tripod or use a shutter speed of 1/focal length of the lens or faster. I have IS on the 120-300mm but I turn it off.


I'm not sure where you heard that, but the (low-end) Sigma zooms are not even remotely close to the 400 5.6 - here's the 400 compared to the 150-500 compared @400mm, wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=683&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
The Canon is sharp from center to corners with just a hair of CA, while the Sigma is blurry mush with CA from mid-frame to the corners.

The Sigma 120-300 is a huge step up from the 150-500, but at 420mm with the Sigma 1.4x it's still not as sharp as the 400 5.6, even stopped down to 5.6:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=3
The 120-300 is a fine lens, but if you want a sharp lens at 400mm, you can't beat the 400 5.6. The only lenses that are sharper at the focal length are the 300 2.8 IS II + 1.4x III ($7,299) or the 400 2.8 IS II ($10,999). Even the 200 2 IS + 2x III and 400 DO aren't as sharp.

The 400 5.6 is by far the best 400mm for the money and gives professional results.


----------



## Canon1 (Dec 11, 2013)

This is a great lens when you have plenty of light. It is not a low light lens. I do most of my shooting around sunrise and sunset so this lens does not work well for what I do. 

I prefer my 100-400 over the 400 because the IS really helps. I can shoot at 1/125 of a sec and get very sharp images. With the 400 I needed to shoot at 1/400 min but 1/640 and 1/800 to get sharp images. (Handheld).

The 100-400 is really a sharp lens (if you get a good copy) and most importantly have it AFMA calibrated. Did you calibrate the copy you used?

Both lenses are great and have their place. I think the biggest consideration between these two is how strong the light is that you plan to use it in.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 11, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Sebring5 said:
> 
> 
> > I used the Canon 400mm f/5.6 for a long time until I discovered what the Sigma 150-500mm could do. I've heard the Sigma 50-500mm is even sharper. I've moved on to the Sigma 300-800mm and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 but you should consider the 500mm zooms from Sigma at this price point. IS is unimportant if you shoot with a tripod or use a shutter speed of 1/focal length of the lens or faster. I have IS on the 120-300mm but I turn it off.
> ...



About 1 1/2 years ago I did a comparison between a Sigma 120-400, a sigma 150-500, a Canon 100-400, and a Canon 400F5.6 on a 60D. The test was to see how much detail I could resolve on a liscence plate 200 meters away.

My rating was:
Sigma 150-500 - worst
Canon 100-400 - slightly better
Sigma 120-400 - better
Canon 400F5.6 - best

I went with the Sigma 120-400 because it was a zoom. I regret that choice as I mostly use the lens at the long end and anywhere else, the 70-200 is a far superior lens.

This fall, I had my hands on the same 100-400 used in the earlier test and was using it on a 5D2. (AFMA had been adjusted). This time the Canon 100-400 was significantly sharper than the Sigma 120-400. I re-tried the lens on the 60D and realized that it's lack of sharpness on the crop body was due to focusing issues.

Moral of the story.... AFMA your lenses.


----------



## vargyropoulos (Dec 11, 2013)

I've had this lens for about a year and as others have mentioned if you have decent light, it will get you great images probably on par with the other big whites. personally I found it to be better than the 100-400 even though it lacks IS.

I use it hand held on a regular basis for BIF, ideally you want 1/640 or faster shutter for such images. for perched birds you will probably want to use a tripod.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 11, 2013)

Lenscracker said:


> I have this 400mm lens, but I seldom use it. It is very sharp. The numbers on it are right up there with the $10, 000 lenses.



It is simply not true that the numbers are up there with the $10,000 lenses. The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but use one of the big whites and you see immediately how sharp is a really superb lens. I sold my 400mm f/5.6L after I bought a Sigma apo 400mm f/5.6L tele macro for £120. It's sharper than the Canon in the Photozone MTF measurements and also in my experience. For cropping the centre portions, my 100-400 was as good as my 400 L.

Here is a comparison of the 100-400 L with the 400 L, combined from various sources.


----------



## dpc (Dec 11, 2013)

Hi! I had the 400mm f/5.6L for a time. It is an excellent lens, very sharp. However, I found the lack of image stabilization an impediment. I know others find it possible to get sharp shots handheld with this lens, but that was not my experience. I also found it a pain having to haul a tripod everywhere. I eventually traded it in for the Canon EF 300mm 1:4 L IS with the Extender EF 1.4x III. I find this a very good combination even with the old image stabilization system. I did own the Sigma 150-500 for a while. This is not a bad lens at all, especially for the price and focal range. However, for me it was a bit soft at the long end and the 500mm focal length is what I wanted the lens for.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 11, 2013)

I just added 10 additional photos to the 400 f/5.6 thread so you can see what the lens did for me :
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2849.msg345918.html#msg345918


----------



## Ninjajack (Dec 11, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Sebring5 said:
> 
> 
> > I used the Canon 400mm f/5.6 for a long time until I discovered what the Sigma 150-500mm could do. I've heard the Sigma 50-500mm is even sharper. I've moved on to the Sigma 300-800mm and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 but you should consider the 500mm zooms from Sigma at this price point. IS is unimportant if you shoot with a tripod or use a shutter speed of 1/focal length of the lens or faster. I have IS on the 120-300mm but I turn it off.
> ...




Thank you Mackguyver for ruining my day! Haha!

I have the Sigma 150-500mm and knew it was a mushy mess already, especially when I picked up a Canon 70-300L last year, wow what a difference. But I hadn't seen that direct comparison between the Sigma and the Canon 400 before. Holy shit that is horrible!

I was already going to sell the Sigma and pick up the Canon 400, but damn, I can't sell that thing fast enough! I think some of my family may be getting smaller Xmas presents this year so I can afford that sexy little 400, I love how small it is too!

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 11, 2013)

Ninjajack said:


> Thank you Mackguyver for ruining my day! Haha!
> 
> I have the Sigma 150-500mm and knew it was a mushy mess already, especially when I picked up a Canon 70-300L last year, wow what a difference. But I hadn't seen that direct comparison between the Sigma and the Canon 400 before. Holy S___ that is horrible!
> 
> ...


Jack, you're welcome and I'm sorry  And yes, it's so small - I sold mine to get the 300 2.8 IS II, which is a killer lens, but I can't toss it in my pack or bag like I used to do with the 400 5.6. I definitely miss it and this thread makes me kind of sad I sold it!


----------



## Jemlnlx (Dec 11, 2013)

Thanks for all the comments. I pulled the trigger and got a pretty good deal on one. UZ code with all accessories box and case $925. I am expecting the lens to be sharp but my concern, from what I have read before is the lack of IS. Though I will give it a solid attempt, I expect to be using at least a monopod, which I am hoping to get satisfactory shots at 1/400ish. If that fails I will have to step it up to a tripod. 

Also, I hear the lens isnt super heavy...any need for an upgraded foot? 

Thanks again for all the input, very informative.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 11, 2013)

Jemlnlx said:


> Thanks for all the comments. I pulled the trigger and got a pretty good deal on one. UZ code with all accessories box and case $925. I am expecting the lens to be sharp but my concern, from what I have read before is the lack of IS. Though I will give it a solid attempt, I expect to be using at least a monopod, which I am hoping to get satisfactory shots at 1/400ish. If that fails I will have to step it up to a tripod.
> 
> Also, I hear the lens isnt super heavy...any need for an upgraded foot?
> 
> Thanks again for all the input, very informative.


Congrats on the lens! Be patient with it at first - once you get comfortable with it, the shots will come. Yes, a monopod works quite well with it, but a tripod is best. By tripod, I don't mean that you have to lock down the head and use mirror lock up and a release for every shot, though that will get the best results. Most of my shots are simply on a tripod, head with some play in it, finger on the shutter. Then again, if I look at my favorite shots with this lens, it's probably 60% tripod / 20% monopod / 20% handheld. It takes a fair amount of practice for the handheld shots, but they are possible. Burst mode is helpful to get a good shot if you're shooting at 1/400s.

As for the foot, it's plenty heavy / strong. I don't see any need to replace it and I'm not sure anyone even makes one.


----------



## streestandtheatres (Dec 11, 2013)

Jemlnlx said:


> Thanks for all the comments. I pulled the trigger and got a pretty good deal on one. UZ code with all accessories box and case $925. I am expecting the lens to be sharp but my concern, from what I have read before is the lack of IS. Though I will give it a solid attempt, I expect to be using at least a monopod, which I am hoping to get satisfactory shots at 1/400ish. If that fails I will have to step it up to a tripod.
> 
> Also, I hear the lens isnt super heavy...any need for an upgraded foot?
> 
> Thanks again for all the input, very informative.



Have fun! I bought one about two weeks ago, and I can't take enough photos at the moment. So far all handheld... (I also added a few to the 400mm lens gallery thread...)
M


----------



## quod (Dec 12, 2013)

I have owned all three lenses (I sold my 70-200 f/4 IS). I have also shot with two 100-400s. A few points:
- 400/5.6 the sharpest of the three, followed by the 70-200, followed by the 100-400
- The 400/5.6 is sharper than my 500/4 (version 1)
- The 400/5.6 AF speed is noticeably faster than the 100-400; I recall that the 70-200 was fast too
- Both the 400/5.6 and 70-200 are light weights; the 100-400 is noticeably heavier
- The 400/5.6 and 70-200 have better bokeh than the 100-400, which can get frustratingly ugly at times
- The 100-400 is the most versatile, followed by the 70-200, followed by the 400/5.6
- The 400/5.6 and 70-200 are smoother to use; the 100-400 push-pull is a little awkward for me
- The minimum focusing distance for the 400/5.6 is a lot longer than the other two
- All three work well with the 1.4x III teleconverter (although you will need a 5D3, 1DX, or 1DM4 to AF)

I sold my 70-200/4 IS because I found myself reaching to my 70-200/2.8 II more. That said, it is a wonderful little lens, it is sharp, and it has something like 3-4 stops of IS. It's really good.

Likewise, I am going to sell my 100-400 because the extra sharpness of the 400/5.6 is noticeable to me. That little extra detail in bird feathers is why I am keeping it over the 100-400. The 100-400 is good, but the 400/5.6 is great.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 12, 2013)

I use the 400 5.6, and love it. I went through an evolution however. I calibrated the lens with Focal, and then I upped the shutter speed to over 1/focal length and put 5DIII with lens on sturdy tripod, and now when I use it, get great shots (when I don't, it's my fault). Learning curve in NOT steep, and with only a bit of practice, you can will get excellent images from edge to edge by all standards, and for a great price. Also, it is easy to carry as it is light, and relatively small, so it is a great lens.

Scott


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 12, 2013)

I'm a bit puzzled as to why your 70-200mmL f/4 IS has issues at 200mm. It is much sharper than the 400mm. Get it fixed, its one of the best lenses for the price.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 12, 2013)

You should be aware that for panning while birds on fly IS isn't very important but the shutter speed you use. In this case what you need is a very fast Servo AF that can track the bird on the fly.
If you plan to take pictures on stationary subjects like birds in their nests, then IS is important for handheld shots or a good tripod.
Here in CR recently posted that the new version (II) of the excellent Canon 100-400mm is under tests, I hope it will have better AF and modern optics. If released, this will be inmediately in my wishlist.
In the mean time when I need extra reach I used the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II + 2X teleconverter, even though sharpness isn't on par with the 400mm f5.6.


----------



## cervantes (Dec 12, 2013)

Am I the only one around here...

...who thinks a 400 5.6 is not a super telephoto lens?

:


----------



## Viper28 (Dec 12, 2013)

I owned a 400/5.6L for a number of year and used it on both 400D and 40D bodies, I sold it only when I moved to a 300/2.8L and to some extent regret doing so. The lens was light weight, very sharp and very fast focusing, certainly better than any 100-400 that I've borrowed (although the IS on that lens is a bonus). I could handhold it down to around 1/250th fairly successfully.

Few sample images

40D






400D





40D


----------



## Frodo (Dec 12, 2013)

I've had my 400/5.6 since the days of film. I have had this lens for the longest of all my gear. There is a reason for this. It is sharp wide open and small. I shot some wonderful seabird shots with my 7D on a trip in the Southern Ocean last year.
Three tips: (1) Shoot wide open unless you need the extra depth of field. Quality does improve on stopping down, but not much.
(2) set up your autofocus properly (AF acquisition speed etc) on a 7D (and presumably 5DIII), as well as AFMA. Even at 5.6 depth of field is shallow, so the AF system needs to work. 
(3) you should use 1/750th when shooting even on full frame - a 1/1000th on crop. I have steady hands but I need these speeds to have reliably sharp photos not only to stop camera movement, but also the movement of birds. A monopod is very helpful for e.g. windsurfing photos


----------



## Tiosabas (Dec 12, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm a bit puzzled as to why your 70-200mmL f/4 IS has issues at 200mm. It is much sharper than the 400mm. Get it fixed, its one of the best lenses for the price.



It s pretty well known the 70-200 f4 IS perfoms poorly when at 200mm and at or close to MFD. I have it and this problem is noticable. Mine also suffers from the dredded slipping focus problem. Buyers beware to check for this issue if buying new or second hand. Sorry for going off topic. Otherwise its a very sharp lens.


----------



## Click (Dec 12, 2013)

Viper28 said:


> I owned a 400/5.6L for a number of year and used it on both 400D and 40D bodies, I sold it only when I moved to a 300/2.8L and to some extent regret doing so. The lens was light weight, very sharp and very fast focusing, certainly better than any 100-400 that I've borrowed (although the IS on that lens is a bonus). I could handhold it down to around 1/250th fairly successfully.
> 
> Few sample images



Great shots. I especially like the first one.

...And welcome to CR


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 12, 2013)

Tiosabas said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a bit puzzled as to why your 70-200mmL f/4 IS has issues at 200mm. It is much sharper than the 400mm. Get it fixed, its one of the best lenses for the price.
> ...


I'm with Mt Spokane on this one, and "well-known" to whom? I owned the 70-200 f4 IS and it was as sharp at 200mm as any other focal length and even with the 1.4x at 280mm, it's sharper than most other lenses. I think you definitely need to have your lens calibrated/repaired. Here are some results at 200mm from DxO, LensTip, and Photozone, all showing the lens to be extremely sharp. Now back to the 400mm 5.6...


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 12, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Tiosabas said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


I Concur.
The 70-200F4 is one of the few lenses that you can put a 1.4X teleconverter on (with a crop body) and not see much degradation in quality. Mine is very sharp.


----------



## Tiosabas (Dec 12, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Tiosabas said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



The weakness of this very good lens as I stated earlier is at MFD. "Well known to whom"? Google is your friend.


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 12, 2013)

Personally I have owned the 400/5.6 along with the following other solutions over the years
300/4 IS - awesome lens, great for frogs, dragonflies and small birds. Not so great with extenders.
70-200/4 IS + 1.4x - bare lens is very nice, mediocre with an extender
70-200/2.8 II + 2xIII - sharper than the 70-200/4, takes a 1.4x very well, but 2x loses a lot. AF is poor with extender.
100-400 - nice lens, but only slightly sharper than 70-200/2.8 + 2x III and AF is poor
Sigma 80-400 - extremely soft, not worth it

I absolutely love my 400/5.6 but personally I have noted that it's really a lens that a photographer uses - not a hobbyist. It has no IS and poor magnification, so in order to get the shots you really need to understand what it is capable of. Still, it is far sharper than any of the solutions above and has the best AF @ 400mm.

Although I love this lens, I am currently selling mine in order to fund a 200-400/1.4x. Ideally I would like to not sell it, but as nice as this is the 200-400 outdoes it.

Below are some photos taken with it.



JSC_3936-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr




JSC_4686-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr




JSC_5053-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


----------



## Jemlnlx (Dec 12, 2013)

I never said that my 70-200 wasnt sharp at 200. In fact I love that lens. I find it sharp on both ends. The reason for getting the 400mm is well...200mm v 400mm.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 12, 2013)

Arthur Morris is the doyen of bird photographers. For many years, the 400 f/5.6 was his "favourite toy" lens. Here is a typical quote from his blog:

http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4isor4f56.html

Which is a better lens, the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom lens, or the 400mm f/5.6L lens?
I'm asked this question almost every day (sometimes more than once) -- either in person, on-line, or by phone. I always answer it with a question, "Do you want to use the lens primarily for bird photography?" 
If yes, then the straight 400 is clearly the lens for you. It is the world�s best flight lens. It is lighter than the 100-400 zoom. It costs less. It will give sharper results with the 1.4X teleconverter than the 1-4 zoom. The speed of initial focus acquisition is unmatched. When used with an EOS 3 body and mounted on a fairly sturdy tripod, you'll have a great starter outfit for bird photography -- a sharp 560mm f/8 lens with functioning autofocus. 

But, a few years later comes this confession:

http://www.birdsasart.com/b13.html

Confession #1: Though I still consider it the best lens in the world for photographing birds in flight (see FAQs on web site for details), I no longer carry my beloved "toy lens"--the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L--on my shoulder as my auxiliary intermediate telephoto. It has been replaced by the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L Image Stabilizer zoom lens. I have been using the 1-4 more and more every day and--contrary to some reports from other users--have been making razor sharp images at all focal lengths with wide open to moderately stopped down apertures. In addition, I have it used it wide open, handheld with the 1.4X tele-converter with excellent results (with static subjects) at 560mm. For bird photography, the versatility of this lens is unmatched; I find myself making images that I would never even have thought of before--especially of groups of birds in their surroundings. And though it is heavier than the 400 f/5.6L, it is also a superb flight lens. At Bosque Del Apache NWR late this fall, I used the 1-4 on a tripod before sunrise for "bird-scapes" and then again almost exclusively for the spectacular blast-offs. I only wish that the zoom were a bit smoother. I am even considering selling one of my 400 f/5.6s; I never ever thought that I'd say that when the 1-4 first came out.....


In my opinion, it is simply preposterous that Canon still makes a 400mm lens without IS. When I want a 400, I put the 1.4xTC on my 300mm f/2.8 II. It's expensive but not too heavy, and four stops of IS make all the difference in use. Or, I take the 100-400mm when weight and size are concerns or I need a zoom. What's the pint of carrying a lightweight lens if you have also to carry a tripod to get the best out of it?


----------



## Canon1 (Dec 12, 2013)

AlanF said:


> In my opinion, it is simply preposterous that Canon still makes a 400mm lens without IS. When I want a 400, I put the 1.4xTC on my 300mm f/2.8 II. It's expensive but not too heavy, and four stops of IS make all the difference in use. Or, I take the 100-400mm when weight and size are concerns or I need a zoom. What's the pint of carrying a lightweight lens if you have also to carry a tripod to get the best out of it?



I agree with all of this and find myself doing the exact same thing... I love my 300 II and my 100-400. Never liked the 400 5.6 when compared to these other two lenses.


----------



## dslrdummy (Dec 12, 2013)

Canon1 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, it is simply preposterous that Canon still makes a 400mm lens without IS. When I want a 400, I put the 1.4xTC on my 300mm f/2.8 II. It's expensive but not too heavy, and four stops of IS make all the difference in use. Or, I take the 100-400mm when weight and size are concerns or I need a zoom. What's the pint of carrying a lightweight lens if you have also to carry a tripod to get the best out of it?
> ...


I find that I need a shutter speed of at least 1/1000, preferably higher, to get sharp images with the 400f/5.6 hand-held and it is not much better with a monopod.


----------



## Eimajm (Dec 13, 2013)

To reiterate others view, this is a great little lens, quick to focus, sharp and hand-holdable all day long. With a solid stance you can shoot static subjects down to 1/400. Yes IS would be nice but you are looking at a substantial increase in cost. Best bang-for-buck birding lens IMO. If you would like to see some images visit my flickr site http://www.flickr.com/photos/eimajm/, any birds prior to 21Sept this year are shot with the 400mm.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 13, 2013)

Another link of interest on this topic - Roger at Lensrentals measured all of the 400mm lenses recently - scroll down to "Imatest Results":
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/canon-200-400mm-f4-is-quick-comparison

You'll notice that the 400 5.6 holds it's own against the big boys


----------



## AlanF (Dec 13, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Another link of interest on this topic - Roger at Lensrentals measured all of the 400mm lenses recently - scroll down to "Imatest Results":
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/canon-200-400mm-f4-is-quick-comparison
> 
> You'll notice that the 400 5.6 holds it's own against the big boys



It holds it own in the same way as someone coming 3rd in the 100m a second behind the winner.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 13, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Tiosabas said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



I had a 70-200 f4 LIS and I currently use a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II...and to be fair, there is so little between them. I think there is more copy variation between 70-200 lenses in general to speculate which one is generally better. Lens charts are only a rough guide and only pertain to the quality of the tester, the distance from the lens to the chart and the quantity of lens samples used in the test. Unfortunately, one or two copies usually aren't enough to formulate a reasonable expectation. 

If the OP's 70-200 lens isn't performing it is either two factors at play, the lens is out of spec or the user isn't handling it right.


----------



## sawsedge (Dec 13, 2013)

Looking at numbers always makes me feel like my 100-400L is inadequate, yet I get good images from it. ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 13, 2013)

AlanF said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Another link of interest on this topic - Roger at Lensrentals measured all of the 400mm lenses recently - scroll down to "Imatest Results":
> ...


I'd be ecstatic if I could come in 3rd behind Usain Bolt ;D As for holding it's own - the results are close - 94% as sharp (center) / 91% as sharp (average) as the 400 2.8 IS II for a price that's 88% less seems to be a pretty fair deal to me. Those two stops and the IS are mighty expensive, but then again, we're not all gold medal winners


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 13, 2013)

AlanF said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Another link of interest on this topic - Roger at Lensrentals measured all of the 400mm lenses recently - scroll down to "Imatest Results":
> ...



The numbers for sharpness Center-Avg-Corner
400F2.8 - 935-865-740
200-400 - 910-835-740 (a hair behind, call it a photo-finish)
400F5.6 - 880-785-680 (close, but no cigar)
100-400 - 740-655-540 (way behind)

To make it easier to see, change the numbers to how far the lens is behind the 400F2.8
400F2.8 - 0 0 0
200-400 - 20 30 0
400F5.6 - 55 80 60
100-400 - 195 210 200
The 400F5.6 is not really that far behind the 400F2.8 or the 200-400, but is significantly ahead of the 100-400. Given that the top two lenses are in the same price range, and the bottom two lenses are in the same price range, it should be noted that the 400F5.6's numbers are significantly closer to the two expensive lenses and not to the 100-400....


----------



## tron (Dec 14, 2013)

AlanF said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Another link of interest on this topic - Roger at Lensrentals measured all of the 400mm lenses recently - scroll down to "Imatest Results":
> ...


200-400mm at f/4 910	820	720
200-400mm at f/5.6 910	835	740
400mm at f/5.6 880	785	680

It doesn't seem like a big difference to me.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 15, 2013)

This what the difference in MTFs of the 400 f/2.8 II at f/2.8 (top) and the 400 f/5.6 at f/5.6 (bottom) mean in practice as measured by SLRgear's blur tests.


----------



## tron (Dec 15, 2013)

My comment was for 200-400 vs 400 5.6. So the above does not describe anything. 400 2.8 would (and should) be of course better than 400 5.6.
But 200-400 stands in between.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 15, 2013)

AlanF said:


> This what the difference in MTFs of the 400 f/2.8 II at f/2.8 (top) and the 400 f/5.6 at f/5.6 (bottom) mean in practice as measured by SLRgear's blur tests.



I think this is one situation where we need to keep in mind that there is still copy to copy variance. Lensrentals essentially did the same test, and I don't think they got the same numbers. Some of the 100-400 zoom lenses are sharper than some of the 400f5.6 lenses, it's entirely possible for someone to have a dud (and I'm not saying that a 400f5.6 that's "only" as sharp as the average 100-400 would qualify as a "dud").
Another thing that makes this lens in particular really interesting is that we have copy to copy variance over a period of 20 years. How many steps in Canon's lens manufacturing process have been improved in that time? I'm betting there aren't many components besides the shell that my 2012 vintage 400f5.6 shares with a 1993 model.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 15, 2013)

You are absolutely right that there is real and significant copy to copy variation between lenses. I have a very good copy of the 100-400, but have just been offered another copy that is unbelievably sharp. Trouble is that 400mm is now too short for me, and I have got used to the 300mm f/2.8 II with TCs.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 16, 2013)

AlanF said:


> This what the difference in MTFs of the 400 f/2.8 II at f/2.8 (top) and the 400 f/5.6 at f/5.6 (bottom) mean in practice as measured by SLRgear's blur tests.



I do question that 400mm f2.8 lens test....we all know it's a more capable lens than that, I suspect there is a flaw in their testing method for longer lenses. It's a comon issue with lens tests...the photozone.de lens test of the 300mm f2.8 IS L was laughable...it suggested that it was no better than a consumer zoom...and subsequantly the review got pulled, but some of us still remember it. 
I have a 400 f2.8 L IS and I had until recently a 400mm f5.6 L, they are both very sharp lenses but the f2.8 is in a different league.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2013)

GMC
I think you have misinterpreted the figures: the test for the 400mm f/2.8 shows that it is about as good as you can get. The 400mm f/5.6 is not as sharp.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 16, 2013)

AlanF said:


> GMC
> I think you have misinterpreted the figures: the test for the 400mm f/2.8 shows that it is about as good as you can get. The 400mm f/5.6 is not as sharp.



Opps...soz, I was looking at this on a mate's non calibrated laptop...the purple looked blue...lol


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 17, 2013)

Beautiful shots!



Viper28 said:


> I owned a 400/5.6L for a number of year and used it on both 400D and 40D bodies, I sold it only when I moved to a 300/2.8L and to some extent regret doing so. The lens was light weight, very sharp and very fast focusing, certainly better than any 100-400 that I've borrowed (although the IS on that lens is a bonus). I could handhold it down to around 1/250th fairly successfully.
> 
> Few sample images
> 
> ...


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 17, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > This what the difference in MTFs of the 400 f/2.8 II at f/2.8 (top) and the 400 f/5.6 at f/5.6 (bottom) mean in practice as measured by SLRgear's blur tests.
> ...



That's interesting. Part of my reasoning for saying that I don't trust the results of the SLRgear test is that when you go to Photozone.de and compare the 400f5.6 wide open with the 40mm Pancake at f16, the Pancake at f16 should be obviously worse than the 400f5.6. Now go compare that with the SLRgear tests, according to them the Pancake at f16 is far superior to the 400f5.6 wide open.
Someone doesn't have their numbers straight. To get an average, when I look at the TDP charts the 400f2.8ISII and 400f5.6 "look" nearly identical wide open.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2013)

9VIII said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



GMC apologised for misreading the slrgear charts, which do show clearly that the f/2.8 is far superior to the f/5.6. Have you also misread the charts from photo zone and slrgear? 

Photozone shows that the 40mm STM is far superior to the 400mm wide open, the mtf approaching the maximum resolution (borne out by slrgear's 1 blur unit at the centre compared with nearly 3 for the 400mm) and slightly better at f/16. The slrgear charts show that the 40mm is just a tad better at f/16, not far superior. Photozone and slrgear are in excellent agreement. So, I think they have got their numbers straight. 

The TDP tests are too crude to distinguish between sharp lenses - you need to see the high resolution parts of the iso charts.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 18, 2013)

9VIII said:


> That's interesting. Part of my reasoning for saying that I don't trust the results of the SLRgear test is that when you go to Photozone.de and compare the *400f5.6 wide open with the 40mm Pancake at f16*, the Pancake at f16 should be obviously worse than the 400f5.6. Now go compare that with the SLRgear tests, according to them the Pancake at f16 is far superior to the 400f5.6 wide open.
> Someone doesn't have their numbers straight. To get an average, when I look at the TDP charts the 400f2.8ISII and 400f5.6 "look" nearly identical wide open.



400f5.6 at f5.6 vs. Pancake at f16. You've got the Pancake at f16 right there and the 400f5.6 is already posted above. Big difference.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 18, 2013)

Also notice that the SLRgear review has the 400f5.6 getting worse at f8, not better, and then it gets better at f11 and f16? That just doesn't make sense.

Come to think of it we actually have four sets of data, with Lensrentals, Photozone, and TDP all agreeing that the 400f5.6 is very sharp and/or nearly as good as the 400f2.8ISII at f2.8.
At this point I think it's safe to completely throw out the SLRgear review of the 400f5.6.


----------



## nc0b (Dec 22, 2013)

It depends what you are shooting, but I finally pulled the trigger on the 400mm f/5.6 a year ago. I already had the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, and for BIF I tried the 1.4X and 2X Version III TCs. For general wildlife I still use the the TCs to have IS. The IQ loss with the 2X is modest, but the focus speed by design is drastically slower than the 400mm prime. With the 70-200 & 2X TC combination, if I lost focus on a bird in flight, the focus would get lost on the sky and never recapture it. With the 400mm, particularly set on 8.5m focus limit, the prime can reacquire focus quickly. Even though I have read many comments discounting the auto-focus capability of the 6D, I have been very pleased with the 6D / 400mm f/5.6 combination. I crank the ISO up as needed to keep the shutter speed at 1/1000, shooting everything handheld. The 400mm 6D combo is quite light weight, well balanced and a joy to use. With the newer Canon bodies, I don't find noise an issue, and I don't need to spend a fortune on a big white that too heavy to hand hold for any length of time.


----------

