# 400mm f5.6 - Why ?



## Haydn1971 (Jul 14, 2013)

Been pondering my long tele options over the last few months... A 100-400mm is looking very likely, but I'm left pondering, why would anyone but the 400mm f5.6 prime ?

Serious question, what does it offer other than being very slightly cheaper and lighter ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2013)

The IQ is a bit better than the 100-400L at 400/5.6, and more importantly, the AF is faster and less prone to hunting. So it's a great choice for birds in flight, where shutter speeds are fast enough to negate the benefits of IS.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 14, 2013)

I can imagine the AF difference being noticeable in use, but without pixel creeping, is the IQ difference noticeable. Also, just how bad is the focus hunting... Given I'm frustrated with my 70-300 IS and very happy with my 135mm L


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2013)

The 100-400 does great with a clean background, but with a bird in a thicket, for example, the lens will hunt or more commonly jump back and forth between two branches or a branch and the subject, repeatedly...sometimes, I just manually focus in that situation. The 600 II just locks onto the bird in similar situations (although with the 2xIII, it behaves sort of like the 100-400, if not as bad.


----------



## Canon1 (Jul 14, 2013)

Haydn1971 said:


> I can imagine the AF difference being noticeable in use, but without pixel creeping, is the IQ difference noticeable. Also, just how bad is the focus hunting... Given I'm frustrated with my 70-300 IS and very happy with my 135mm L



There can be a lot of copy variation with the 100-400. If you get a good one, you will love it and if you get a poor one you will curse it. I have a good one and am extremely happy with it. I ran focal testing to compare IQ with my 100-400 and the 400 f5.6. and the difference in results are negligible. 

As Neuro mentioned AF performance and IS are the big differences between these two lenses. If you are always shooting at fast shutter speeds (1/640 sec or faster) then you will be just fine with the 400mm prime. If you ever want to shoot in low light at slower shutter speeds you will be MUCH happier with the 100-400. I shoot handheld all the time with my 100-400 at 1/200 of a second and get tack sharp images. With my 400 f5.6 I had to shoot at 1/640-1/800 or faster to get sharp images. 

Translate this to low light and it is the difference between being able to shoot at ISO 1,000 or ISO 4,000. I primarily shoot in low light at the book ends of the day so I always am using the 100-400. The IS is key for me. I have excellent luck with this lens for BIF as well. The 5DIII has very customizable AF settings and this along with good technique has gotten me over the slower AF issues. I can't comment on the 70-300, but my other lenses are 300f2.8IS and 500 f4IS, both of which are very fast AF. 

My advice if you buy the 100-400 is buy it new from a reputable dealer so you can return it if you get a bad copy. This has been George Lepp's all time favorite lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2013)

The IQ difference in real world shots would likely be noticeable, but barely, in terms of sharpness and contrast. The 100-400L has a very nervous bokeh with a complex background. But overall, I've been very happy with my 100-400, and have no real interest in the 400/5.6.


----------



## Pag (Jul 14, 2013)

I bought the 400/5.6 a few years back after much hesitation. It came down to these few points:

Looking at samples, the 100-400 had barely better IQ at 400 than my 70-300 IS at 300 upsized to match the resolution
Sample pictures of the 400/5.6 were extremly sharp, meaning I could crop without fear of lacking details
Lots of complaints about the 100-400 push-pull zoom pumping dust into the camera (I'm skeptical, but I read about that issue enough to be worried)
The 400/5.6 is quite a bit lighter, which matters when walking around with the lens around your neck
Autofocus is faster (because the lens is ligter, so the motor doesn't work as hard to move it around)
I already had a 70-300, so I felt I didn't need the flexibility of the 100-400. I must admit I was kinda wrong here: not being able to zoom limits how often this lens is useful day to day (if I don't _really _need that much reach, I'll take the 70-300) and it can be hard sometimes to find your subject when you can't zoom in from a broader view.
The 400/5.6 has a built-in lens hood that is quite neat and it comes with a very good lens pouch (you laugh, but a lens that large doesn't fit in most bags, so that pouch makes it possible to carry it around)
It's cheaper

Overall, I'm satisfied, but I don't own a 100-400 to compare it to. It's a lens that does only one thing, but does it well. I wish it had IS though.


----------



## kirispupis (Jul 14, 2013)

I currently own both the 300/4, 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III, and the 400/5.6. In the past I have owned the 100-400 and a Sigma 80-400. The 100-400 is not a bad lens, but the 400/5.6 offers the following advantages.

- Noticeably better image quality
- Much faster AF
- Lighter and easier to carry
- Doesn't do so badly with a 1.4x extender

Its biggest negatives are

- Poor macro capabilities - not very suitable for lizards and small bird that come close
- No IS

It may be the best lens out there for birds in flight - even better than the big primes - simply because it combines outstanding sharpness with easy portability. For that reason I am undecided about keeping it once I have enough money for a 200-400/1.4x someday. If Canon someday does introduce a dramatically improved 100-400 with better IQ and AF, then I could see selling my 400/5.6 but in the meantime I have no desire to ever buy another 100-400 while my 400/5.6 is a regular fixture in my backpack.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2013)

Pag said:


> Looking at samples, the 100-400 had barely better IQ at 400 than my 70-300 IS at 300 upsized to match the resolution


 If you mean the 70-300 L, that's reasonable. But if you mean the non-L, that lens seems to be rather soft at 300mm, and uprezzing isn't going to add detail. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


----------



## MadHungarian (Jul 15, 2013)

When you (and others) mention focus hunting and other autofocusing differences between lens, as a newbie i've wondered about that -- isn't it the camera that runs the autofocusing algorithm? And the lens just responds to the commands the camera gives it? So why should one 400mm lens autofocus better/worse than another 400mm lens here? Or is it really more of a cooperative endeavor between camera and lens?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2013)

MadHungarian said:


> When you (and others) mention focus hunting and other autofocusing differences between lens, as a newbie i've wondered about that -- isn't it the camera that runs the autofocusing algorithm? And the lens just responds to the commands the camera gives it? So why should one 400mm lens autofocus better/worse than another 400mm lens here? Or is it really more of a cooperative endeavor between camera and lens?



It's cooperative - there's an AF microprocessor in the lens that works in tandem with the canera's AF system.


----------



## Lurker (Jul 15, 2013)

400 IQ is much better. Lens is simpler, issues with 100-400 are well known and include dust getting sucked in from push pull operation and the focus ring and zoom tensioner locking up. Most of the time I used the 100-400 it was at 400mm. 400 is lighter and cheaper.

I went from 100-400 to 400/5.6 and never looked back.

I may give up the 400/5.6 for a new 100-400 with better IQ or a 200-400, if the lottery pays off. The new 100-400 won't be cheap either, not as bad as the 200-400 but not cheap.


----------



## miah (Jul 15, 2013)

I was in a similar predicament a few months ago. With a 5D3 and a 70-300L, I felt that getting to 400 with a 100-400 was simply too redundant--especially because I love the results I get with my 70-300. I also liked the idea of the 400 f/5.6's lower weight, faster AF and sharper IQ. So, I sprung for the 400 and haven't regretted my purchase one bit. Even with a 1.4X, images are sharp. The AF is very fast. And though it's a bit long in the backpack, it's smaller diameter and lighter weight make for an easy carry. In short, if I had to do it all over again, I would buy these same two lenses.

Footnote: Though I do not own a 100-400, I have borrowed one from a friend of mine on a number of occasions. It's a very nice lens, especially if you only want to carry one. But in concert with my beloved 70-300L, the 400 f/5.6 just made more sense.


----------



## Nirmala (Jul 15, 2013)

The 400 5.6 L was the first L lens I ever bought. I have been very happy with it, its a very fast and sharp lens, which performs very well for my needs. I bought this over the 100-400 for similar reasons others have mentioned here already. I personally have not missed the convienence of IS or zoom, as these features were not relevant for my needs.


----------



## Pag (Jul 15, 2013)

> If you mean the 70-300 L, that's reasonable. But if you mean the non-L, that lens seems to be rather soft at 300mm, and uprezzing isn't going to add detail.



It was the non-L 70-300. It was a few years back, but I remember seeing a comparison between the two lenses showing there was little difference in the real world in the sharpness of both. Might have been that a poor copy of the 100-400 was used, might have been a great copy of the 70-300, might have just been a bad test -- I don't know.


----------



## Vossie (Jul 15, 2013)

I've never tried the 400 5.6, but got some of my best shots with the 100-400.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 15, 2013)

The value 300-400mm range appears full of compromise :-/

I'm not ready yet, next year maybe, things may have changed by then


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 15, 2013)

Agree with previous posts that the 400 Canon prime is sharper (gets extremely sharp if you close it a bit, to f/7.1 or so). If you use a teleconverter on it though, the sharpness goes away, along with the ability to autofocus (unless your camera can AF at f/8...still isn't worth the trouble though). Why not just wait for the new 100-400? That way you could let everyone know how much disposable income you have! It will be priced in the $2500 range, because of Nikon's new 80-400.

I bought the Sigma 120-400 instead, it works great, costs half the money. Don't regret it at all, rather I see myself keeping it a long time. Very sharp, especially on the 6D, and especially at distances closer than 100 feet. Might not be as sharp as the Canon 100-400, zoomed out to 400mm on an 18mp crop camera (especially at infinity focus)...but then again _it might be_. Really depends on sample variation. The color rendition via the Sigma, especially at wider than 200mm, is awe-inspiring. It's not just "warmer" either...it's _better_. The Canon "cool purple" color cast is banished! Contrast of the Sigma at wider than 200mm is very high, so is sharpness...to the corners at f/4.5 on the 6D. Above 200mm some of the contrast and color go away, but then they also go away on the (current) Canon 100-400. The IS on the Canon is slightly better in some instances, but it's not that different. The IS on the new Canon 100-400 would likely make it worth the money, even if sharpness isn't increased by a lot...and it just might be. 

While the Sigma does hunt a bit if there is bright contrasty limbs in front of or behind the bird, for the most part it grabs the bird pretty easily. Toward the wide end of the zoom range, it does birds in flight with servo focus on the 6D, almost as well as my 70-200 f/4...which is really saying something. I've not had a chance to try a bird in flight in servo mode closer to the 400mm end yet. I'm sure it would work great if the bird was large and at a distance, and in decent light. Small birds at close distance "in flight" at 400mm, are kind of difficult to keep in the field of view. 

Obviously the best zoom lens is the new Canon 200-400 f/4...if money is no object. The new Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is probably worth a try, too.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 16, 2013)

I've had both the 400mm 5.6 and two 100-400mmL's. Both are excellent for their purpose.

I kept my 2nd 100-400L because it had some advantages that worked better for me.

1. IS will let be use a fairly slow shutter speed.

2. Close focus for small birds where you can get close

3. When its telescoped, it is short and easy to carry in my camera bag.

4. IQ is very good.


The 400 5.6 had 



1. Fast AF


2. Slightly better IQ as long as it was on a tripod or at 1/1000 sec shutter speed handheld.

3. Better Bokeh, a area where most good primes beat the zooms.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 16, 2013)

Haydn1971 said:


> Been pondering my long tele options over the last few months... A 100-400mm is looking very likely, but I'm left pondering, why would anyone but the 400mm f5.6 prime ?
> 
> Serious question, what does it offer other than being very slightly cheaper and lighter ?



The AF on the prime is a lot faster and more accurate. It's lighter and cheaper.
It's IQ is slightly better (assuming you have a good 100-400L) and it's focal length is slightly longer. The 100-400L is closer to a 380mm in reality. The prime offers a slightly better out of focus rendering (the 100-400L can look a but fussy) it also meters closer to f5.6 than the zoom too. It's smaller and has an integrated hood. The 100-400L is quite a long lens when racked out to 400mm and with the hood attached. The zoom is far more versatile, has an Image Stabiliser and closer Min Focus Distance. 
For some guys, they buy one or the other. For other guys who have the need for a more capable 400mm lens, then they are not over lapping lenses and often buy both. 
Some of us are waiting for the new 100-400IIL to be announced (rumoured but not confirmed) later this year and it could be a game changer and unify the benefits of both these lenses into one unit....or then again it might not!


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 16, 2013)

Haydn1971 said:


> Been pondering my long tele options over the last few months... A 100-400mm is looking very likely, but I'm left pondering, why would anyone but the 400mm f5.6 prime ?
> 
> Serious question, what does it offer other than being very slightly cheaper and lighter ?



Just another list of pro's for the 5.6/400 for ME:
* IQ (sharpness, contrast) because I want to use it with my 2x TC (mark 1)
* contralight flare rejection (assumed to be better due to the low number of lens elements)
* sturdy construction
* fast reliable AF
* built in lens hood
* I like the idea of a 24mm - 40/50mm - 100mm - 200mm - 400mm prime set since I startet photographing

The prime won against the 100-400 zoom because I really like shooting "perfect" primes. The 70-200 4.0 is an exception because it delivers excellent IQ (except direct contralight situations).

Sometimes I missed the flexibility of a 100-400 zoom because I like to walk with ONE lens / body.

Another point about sharpness/resolution: Under real world conditions the excellent IQ of the prime goes down to roughly 1 MPix when you do landscape photography - due to shimmering atmosphere.

If I were NOW in the situation to decide between the 5.6 400 and the 100-400 I would perhaps wait - if possible - for the mark ii version of the zoom. If it has similar IQ like the prime, a 4x IS system and sells for 2.5 kEuro it would be my choice.

Just my 2ct - Michael

PS: An example of 5.6/400 with 2x TC (mark i) from an HD video with 3x zoom (EOS 600D, 1 sensor pixel = 1 image pixel), effective focal lenght is roughly 4000 mm.


----------



## weixing (Jul 16, 2013)

Hi,
I also owned the 400mm 5.6L and the reason I choose over the 100-400mm is basically faster AF and cheaper... basically the best budget birding lens out there. 

Also, I try hand holding 100-400mm @ 400mm and the IS really didn't help much @ 400mm, so I figure out I'll be need a tripod even if I had the 100-400mm L, so I go for the cheaper option and had been very happy with it.

By the way, the 400mm F5.6L can AF with the new Teleplus Pro 300 DGX (the one with the blue dot) without the tapping trick.... Just that on my 60D, the centre point AF don't work well, but the surrounding AF point work very well and AF quite fast.

Have a nice day.


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 16, 2013)

mb66energy said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > Been pondering my long tele options over the last few months... A 100-400mm is looking very likely, but I'm left pondering, why would anyone but the 400mm f5.6 prime ?
> ...



Very nice video still of the moon! At 4000mm, I can certainly see why atmospherics are a factor, and why many astro photographers use video rather than shooting a lot of stills. The shutter vibration would definitely also be a factor at 4000mm...not to mention you get to choose the best shot from hundreds or thousands of frames of video. Nice job! I personally would have sifted out some of the deep aqua sky saturation, whether you think you remember it looking like that to your eye, or not...Also the moon has some subtle yet rich browns and olive green hues if you push its saturation...


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 17, 2013)

CarlTN, thanks for your comments!

And for the info about astrophotography:
* I never heard that this is a common "method" for good images - but now I remember a talk about
an mathematical method called "triple correlation" to suppress atmosphere effects
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-22-24-4028 (the abstract is helpful as
general information)
They used a sequence of 100 or 1000 images and analyzed the set to gain Hubble-like resolution
without traveling into an orbit ;-)
* I never kept in mind during my video filming about the missing mirror motion - but that is a
good argument. Especially with my 25 year old Manfrotto 190 Pro tripod!
(Now I have a hangup between 190cxpro3 and 055cxpro3 but I think after realizing 4000mm
after your comments I will tend to the sturdier 055cxpro3!)

Michael


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 19, 2013)

mb66energy said:


> CarlTN, thanks for your comments!
> 
> And for the info about astrophotography:
> * I never heard that this is a common "method" for good images - but now I remember a talk about
> ...



Michael, I'm glad I could help in any way. Actually _you know a lot more_ about astrophotography than I do, so I will be happy to learn from you!

I really do like how your image shows very subtle shadows of even the shallow craters present in the center of the image, far away from the sunset shadow part! Impressive because the shadows there are small anyway because the craters are shallow, but then also because the angle of sunlight falling on them, makes the shadows even more slim.

Have you heard any more about the upcoming comet "ISON" that is supposed to be so bright this fall, and how will you photograph it? I hope it's not a dud...it was thought it might be brighter than the full moon!


----------

