# Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM



## WarStreet (May 28, 2011)

After some math, I concluded that 400mm @ 5.6 should give me a good background blur (different from depth of field) when used on a FF camera for a framing about 2m - 2.3m height in landscape orientation. In fact this combination blurs the background slightly more than an APS-C 300mm @ 2.8 combination, after adjusting the subject distance to get the same framing. I will get even more background blurring in portrait orientation for the same height, and for tight crops, so if I am not missing something, I am interested in getting a copy of this to be used in sports on a future 5DIII in daylight. 

I considered the bigger lenses alternatives too, but apart from the high price problem, I am afraid of weight, especially since I will also have a 70-200 on another body, and I prefer to move around comfortably and fast rather then standing still or move awkwardly due too a big lens + monopod.

The weak points of this lens are 

(1) no IS, which I don't need in sports (I switch it off on my 70-200 2.8 IS II)

(2) No weather sealing, this is good to have but I will fix this problem with a hydrophobia (might be too big for this small lens) or an equivalent product. 

(3) 3.5m MFD, which is not a problem for my use. 

The strong points are

(1) very good image quality, (resolution, CA, vignetting, distortion, flare, bokeh)

(2) very fast AF which is extremely important for me. 

(3) weight of 1.25kg & cheap price. 


Am I missing something ? Do you have any other alternatives with my priorities in mind ?


----------



## Admin US West (May 29, 2011)

Good luck with it, it should do a excellent job for you. The only other thing I found that was a minor negative was the length. It does not fit in the same space as a 70-200mm f/2.8 like the 100-400mm L does, so I found it akward to fit into my camera bag.

Post some images!!


----------



## Flake (May 29, 2011)

Alternatives? Well if you have the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 why not consider the 2X teleconverter which gives 400mm f/5.6 at the long end, I'm not sure how the AF compares between the two, but you should be able to try it out somewhere.

Consider the 1D MkIII of MkIV instead of the 5D MKIII. The 5D bodies have never been the most responsive and they're not designed for action in the way the 1D series are. In addition 1D bodies focus more quickly than lower models

Don't forget that there's a 300mm f/4 IS L for around the same price point roughly the same weight, but you get an extra stop of light to blur a background a 1.4X TC gives 400mm f/5.6 with the high MP sensors you can crop a little and lose no quality.


----------



## autochrome (May 29, 2011)

Flake said:


> Alternatives? Well if you have the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 why not consider the 2X teleconverter which gives 400mm f/5.6 at the long end, I'm not sure how the AF compares between the two, but you should be able to try it out somewhere.
> 
> Consider the 1D MkIII of MkIV instead of the 5D MKIII. The 5D bodies have never been the most responsive and they're not designed for action in the way the 1D series are. In addition 1D bodies focus more quickly than lower models
> 
> Don't forget that there's a 300mm f/4 IS L for around the same price point roughly the same weight, but you get an extra stop of light to blur a background a 1.4X TC gives 400mm f/5.6 with the high MP sensors you can crop a little and lose no quality.



It's not weather sealed though, neither the 400mm f5.6, but there was an article here some time ago on a patent for a 300mm f4.0 II IS, that surely will be weather sealed. How long it'll take to materialize, who knows, but it won't be productive to wait for it. Having lenses primarily for outdoor use without weather sealing however, is exposing expensive glassware to the elements without any assurance of survivability.


----------



## WarStreet (May 30, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> Good luck with it, it should do a excellent job for you. The only other thing I found that was a minor negative was the length. It does not fit in the same space as a 70-200mm f/2.8 like the 100-400mm L does, so I found it akward to fit into my camera bag.



Thanks for your go-ahead. I didn't paid too much attention on carrying this lens. I use a thinktank belt system, and their biggest holster accommodates a pro body with 70-200 2.8, but this lens is 58 cm longer, and they don't have bigger holsters. Maybe I should add a very small and light backpack without any fancy stuff just to carry this. I would need to have something like Black rapid double strap, but I don't know how easy would be to use this with a holster. I might give it a try when I get the new camera.



Flake said:


> Alternatives? Well if you have the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 why not consider the 2X teleconverter which gives 400mm f/5.6 at the long end, I'm not sure how the AF compares between the two, but you should be able to try it out somewhere.
> 
> Consider the 1D MkIII of MkIV instead of the 5D MKIII. The 5D bodies have never been the most responsive and they're not designed for action in the way the 1D series are. In addition 1D bodies focus more quickly than lower models
> 
> Don't forget that there's a 300mm f/4 IS L for around the same price point roughly the same weight, but you get an extra stop of light to blur a background a 1.4X TC gives 400mm f/5.6 with the high MP sensors you can crop a little and lose no quality.



Thanks for your help. I did considered to use the 2x TC. I already used the 70-200 + 1.4x on APS-C with good enough results, but sometimes I crop alot and would like to have more resolving power. A 70-200 2x on FF camera would produce more resolving power than my APS-C 1.4X setup, but still, it will neutralised most of the FF res advantage and I might feel that loss if I will need to crop and also print. For other situations I am sure it will be a good solution. I am not sure, but the background blurring seems to be less pleasant when I used the 1.4x , but this could be a bad impression from my side. Also, since I wish to use 2 bodies, the 70-200 can go on the other body. 

Regarding the 1D, I did considered it (I even considered the D3S too :-[ ) but again after some long thinking and a bit of math, I preferred the 5DIII. I have already explained why somewhere else, to keep it short, I will use this camera for all other stuff, and I carry the camera with me all the time, so size matters for me. Although not a sports camera, I think there are lot's of advantages that this camera have and that can be used for sports, one of them is the better background blur. The low fps (5fps ? ) just means a smaller amount of images I can choice from a particular action. The 1D will have twice as much. The center point AF servo, should not be a problem with fast lenses in daylight, as I am doing well with a rebel. The only problem could be indoor low light servo performance. I have to wait and see when the camera is out. Eventually I know that I will get a 1D when they make it FF, but still I would like to have the all rounder and smaller 5DIII too. 

Thanks for mentioning the 300 4.0 lens, I wrongly thought that the background blurring of this lens will be less than the 400 5.6, but I forgot to compensate for the same framing. The advantage of this lens over the 400 is bigger when the distance of the subject - background is smaller. With the 400 I will have a larger distance cover on the pitch compared with the 300 for the same framing range, and from my memory the 400 is a better lens then the 300. I need to do more homework before I make my purchase.


----------

