# 400mm f/4. Anything good and "affordable"?



## drjlo (May 30, 2012)

Since getting 5D III, 70-200 II with 1.4x is not quite reaching far enough. Is there any 400mm f/4 out there that does not cost more than 70-200 II (preferably less) yet works with 1.4x TC on 5D III? Could be Canon or another brand.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2012)

Not AFAIK. You'll need to go to f/5.6 for a modern lens. I believe there are some old manual lenses that would work, with adapters (probably f/4.5).


----------



## 1982chris911 (May 30, 2012)

How about the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO HSM AF ???


----------



## Rat (May 31, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> How about the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO HSM AF ???


That, with a 1.4 you apparently already have, will do just nicely. Flip side: not as sharp as your 70-200 2.8II with a 2.0 TC - although that is F5.6, of course. Still, if you're not ready for a 5K+ lens, I'd say a 2x converter is probably your best bet. (edit: OK, you're aiming for [email protected] Missed that the first time. In that case, go Sigma  )

I was going to suggest the Sigma 300mm F2.8 HSM. 20% more expensive than the 70-200 2.8II and no OS, but it 'll give you a very fast 300 too, and 420mm @ F4, and 600mm @ F5.6, and at least the HSM is there. I have no idea how the IQ holds up on that one though, I just know it exists


----------



## Chewngum (May 31, 2012)

I have the sigma 120-300 2.8 non OS. Amazing lens, for the versatility and the IQ. Ok so unlike the 70-200 mkII it wont give you the IQ of comparable primes, but it will give you a 240-600 f5.6 with fast AF, and the OS version also gives you weather sealing and OS. It an incredible lens and the optics between both version are fairly similar other than a coating or two. As per the OP, it will give you a 420mm F4 when used with your 1.4x converter with great performance and very useable performance with IQ and AF with a 2x converter should you buy one. Highly recommended lens and one that Canon currently does not compete with (we'll see what the 200-400 F4 1.4x is like when it comes out).


----------



## drjlo (May 31, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not AFAIK. You'll need to go to f/5.6 for a modern lens. I believe there are some old manual lenses that would work, with adapters (probably f/4.5).



Well, the Canon 400mm f/5.6 would have been perrr..fect, if it was f/4. This is when I start cursing Canon for no f/8 autofocus (with 1.4x TC). Seems like there is a huge gap in 400mm f/4 lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> How about the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO HSM AF ???



I would have suggested this as well, except:



drjlo said:


> Is there any 400mm f/4 out there that *does not cost more than 70-200 II (preferably less) *yet works with 1.4x TC on 5D III? Could be Canon or another brand.



...which, it isn't. 



drjlo said:


> Well, the Canon 400mm f/5.6 would have been perrr..fect, if it was f/4. This is when I start cursing Canon for no f/8 autofocus (with 1.4x TC). Seems like there is a huge gap in 400mm f/4 lenses.



The main issue with making fast and affordable super telephoto lenses is the size of the physical aperture, and the amount of glass needed to fill that aperture with light. A 400mm f/4 lens means a 100mm diameter iris diaphragm, meaning lots of glass, meaning _expensive_. Many people have suggested they want Canon to make a 500mm f/5.6L IS lens as an 'affordable' supertele prime, similar to the 300/4 and 400/5.6 - such a lens would actually be closer in spec to the 300/2.8 than the 400/5.6, likely pushing the lens into the >$4.5K range (well outside of 'affordable' for most people).


----------



## drjlo (May 31, 2012)

Looks like I may just go for Canon 300mm f/4 IS with 1.4x TC.  Not as much reach as I wanted, but at least it should be more portable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2012)

drjlo said:


> Looks like I may just go for Canon 300mm f/4 IS with 1.4x TC. Not as much reach as I wanted, but at least it should be more portable.



I'd also consider the 100-400mm - optically better (slightly) than the 300+1.4x, versatility of a zoom, and I really like that it collapses to the same size as the 70-200 II (the 300mm and 400mm primes are inconveniently long, IMO).


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 31, 2012)

I second the 100-400L. I loved it when I had a 7D, and like it on the 1D Mark IV. The IQ is suprisingly good at 100 and 400mm, looking at my photos. I have it and I really like it.


----------



## briansquibb (May 31, 2012)

Is the 400DO suitable?


----------



## drjlo (May 31, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Is the 400DO suitable?



Really? For a $6500 400 mm lens, it seems to underperform. For example:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

BTW, what are people's feelings about Canon 300mm f/4L IS vs. Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS? I do like my 70-200L MkII, so I wish there was a reasonably priced 200-400L, but alas..


----------



## briansquibb (May 31, 2012)

drjlo said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Is the 400DO suitable?
> ...



Hey wasn't suggesting it was suitable - just asking

I get most things used so list price is neither here nor there to me


----------



## DigitalDivide (May 31, 2012)

drjlo said:


> Looks like I may just go for Canon 300mm f/4 IS with 1.4x TC. Not as much reach as I wanted, but at least it should be more portable.



I have the 300L f/4 IS and I've been very happy with it on my 5D2. Fast AF, good IQ, and not excessively heavy. The IS is awesome, and is the main reason I picked this lens over the 400L f/5.6. I _just _got the 1.4 x mk3 TC, taking advantage of the current rebates. This gets me 420mm at f/5.6 _and _IS for not a huge amount more $$$ than the 400 would have been.

I am on a business trip to Japan right now and I didn't want to lug along the 300, so I've been trying out the TC with my 70-200L f/4. That combination seems to be working pretty well, although I haven't looked closely at the results off camera yet. I took a bunch of shots of formula cars at the Motegi racing circuit, and the AF seemed to track pretty well even with the TC. So I'm hopeful that the combination of 24-105, 70-200 and 1.4 TC will make a nice light and compact kit for casual travel when I don't want to carry my full set of gear.

I'm looking forward to trying out the 300 plus 1.4 TC combination in earnest when I get home. I only had time for a few quick shots of birds at a feeder before I left, and I didn't nail the focus. I did do my homework before buying, and came to the conclusion that the IQ of the 300/1.4 TC pairing was close enough to the 100-400L and the 400L f/5.6 to make this combination viable.

Like you, I have been vaguely evaluating 400 f/4 (or equivalent) options. The cheapest Canon solution would probably be a used copy of the 400 DO, which can be had for less crazy money than things like the 300L/f2.8 with TC, for example. But I'm thinking my best option will be to pick up a 7D to get the reach I want. The 7D is far less expensive than most fast 400 options, and has an AF system that is up to the demands of bird photography which the 5D2 really isn't. As a bonus I get a backup body as well. Until then I am stuck with borrowing my daughter's T3i when I can get away with it. 8)


----------



## Steve Campbell (May 31, 2012)

Does the Sigma 120-300 take the Canon teleconverters? I like the look of this lens. Right now, my Canon 300 f4 IS lives on my 7D as the equipment I use for maximum reach. I also use the 1.4 II TC when I need more reach. It's pretty good, especially with good light. This is one of the cheapest ways to get this type of reach and still maintain decent quality. 420mm at 5.6 in a decent size package.

There is also the Sigma 150-500 to consider.


----------



## tomscott (May 31, 2012)

Just remember than converters make the AF slower.

Better off getting the 100-400 than the 300mm F4 and buying a 1.4x to stick to it most of the time.

The 100-400mm is cheaper than a 300mm +1.4x, more versatile and will be quicker to focus at 400mm the extra 20mm will not make any difference.


----------



## Forceflow (May 31, 2012)

Steve Campbell said:


> Does the Sigma 120-300 take the Canon teleconverters? I like the look of this lens. Right now, my Canon 300 f4 IS lives on my 7D as the equipment I use for maximum reach. I also use the 1.4 II TC when I need more reach. It's pretty good, especially with good light. This is one of the cheapest ways to get this type of reach and still maintain decent quality. 420mm at 5.6 in a decent size package.
> 
> There is also the Sigma 150-500 to consider.



I hope you like the weight of it as well! It comes to 2950g or 104oz. One of the reasons why I chose against it. I find the 100-400 already on the heavy side. (And that one doesn't even weigh half) 
Else it is indeed supposed to be a very good lens. And it is compatible with Sigma converters so I would assume it also takes Canon converters. (I see no reason why it shouldn't)


----------



## 1982chris911 (May 31, 2012)

Steve Campbell said:


> Does the Sigma 120-300 take the Canon teleconverters? I like the look of this lens. Right now, my Canon 300 f4 IS lives on my 7D as the equipment I use for maximum reach. I also use the 1.4 II TC when I need more reach. It's pretty good, especially with good light. This is one of the cheapest ways to get this type of reach and still maintain decent quality. 420mm at 5.6 in a decent size package.
> 
> There is also the Sigma 150-500 to consider.



I tried the 120-300 OS with a Canon III x2 on a 5d MkIII. Works OK and gives you up to 600mm f5.6 ...

the Sigma 150-500 is no comparison to the 120-300 ... It feels kind of toy lens against the former. the 120-300 F2.8 OS (new one!!!) can rival the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS II in sharpness if you get a good copy ... There are several reviews online that confirm this.


----------



## K-amps (May 31, 2012)

Here is another thought... 

Consider a 2x mk.iii TC and use it on your 70-200mk.ii

I do the same and I rarely take out my 100-400L, but use the 70-200mk.ii + 2x mk.iii combo for most trips. The IQ is very comparable to the standalone 100-400L even though in absolute terms one could argue for the other. I find the combo has more gradiation in shadows, while the 100-400L has more contrast (both at 400mm), contrast is fixable in PP. I AFMA'ed my 70-200mkii + 2xmk.iii combo and it is very close in sharpness to the 100-400L. But if one splits hairs, one could call the 100-400L sharper in a controlled test... but in the field I doubt you will see the difference most of the time... the difference is probably more of academic in nature.

This will cost you less than $500 plus you can use the 2x on other lenses too.


----------



## unfocused (May 31, 2012)

The simplest, cheapest and most effective option is a 7D.

It will multiply any lens by 1.6 with no loss of aperture speed and better quality than any teleconverter. Cheaper than many of the options being suggested here.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 31, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Here is another thought...
> 
> Consider a 2x mk.iii TC and use it on your 70-200mk.ii
> 
> ...



I'm actually considering getting the 2xIII also. I thought I'd never go more than 1.4x on the 70-200 2.8II, but after hearing that people were getting pretty good results with the 2x, I have now changed my mind. This is good because it makes more sense to have 400mm rather than just 280, even though you are losing a cpl of stops.


----------



## swampler (May 31, 2012)

unfocused said:


> The simplest, cheapest and most effective option is a 7D.
> 
> It will multiply any lens by 1.6 with no loss of aperture speed and better quality than any teleconverter. Cheaper than many of the options being suggested here.


someone else suggested the same to me just the other day!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 1, 2012)

swampler said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The simplest, cheapest and most effective option is a 7D.
> ...


 
I have the 7d, and use it with all those lenses. Its great as long as light is bright, but as it gets darker, its worthless while my 5D MK II and MK III keep right on going. A 1.4 or 2X TC with the 70-200mm MK II really loses ability to focus except in good light, while the 100-400mmL keeps on going.

There are lots of choices, and every one is a compromise, so pick your poison.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 1, 2012)

unfocused said:


> The simplest, cheapest and most effective option is a 7D.
> 
> It will multiply any lens by 1.6 with no loss of aperture speed and better quality than any teleconverter. Cheaper than many of the options being suggested here.



Well, if I were to do that, I would buy a 7D after the rumored 7D MkII is launched and price of 7D goes down. If 7D II retains the same tired 18MP sensor as widely believed, that is.. Actually, I already have a 550D that already shares the same darn sensor, so the need is not that pressing. 

Of course, on some nights, I still have strange thoughts of buying a D800 as my "backup."


----------



## drjlo (Jun 1, 2012)

After doing lots of research, I've failed to get excited about the illusive good, affordable 400 f/4 lens. It's curious why Canon has not updated the aging 300 f/4 L IS (only 2 stops) and 400 f/5.6L, and those are not exactly cheap, either.

I just ordered the Kenko 2x DGX TC, as the IQ of my Kenko 1.4x DGX is stellar, and I will make do with the 2x TC on my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 MkII until something more exciting looms ahead..


----------



## K-amps (Jun 1, 2012)

drjlo said:


> After doing lots of research, I've failed to get excited about the illusive good, affordable 400 f/4 lens. It's curious why Canon has not updated the aging 300 f/4 L IS (only 2 stops) and 400 f/5.6L, and those are not exactly cheap, either.
> 
> I just ordered the Kenko 2x DGX TC, as the IQ of my Kenko 1.4x DGX is stellar, and I will make do with the 2x TC on my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 MkII until something more exciting looms ahead..



I hope it works for you, however i don't know if it will stand up to the anon 2x Mk.iii and hence comparisons with the 100-400L might fall shot with the kenko. On the plus side... it will fir almost all EF lenses where as the Canon does not.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 1, 2012)

K-amps said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > After doing lots of research, I've failed to get excited about the illusive good, affordable 400 f/4 lens. It's curious why Canon has not updated the aging 300 f/4 L IS (only 2 stops) and 400 f/5.6L, and those are not exactly cheap, either.
> ...



The clincher was I could order the Kenko 2x for $180 new from eBay. Can't argue with that, and pretty much every user report I've read says Kenko 2x is indistinguishable from Canon 2x MkII, so even if Canon MkIII is a little better, who knows..


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 1, 2012)

drjlo said:


> After doing lots of research, I've failed to get excited about the illusive good, affordable 400 f/4 lens. It's curious why Canon has not updated the aging 300 f/4 L IS (only 2 stops) and 400 f/5.6L, and those are not exactly cheap, either.



That is one reason to wait for the 100-400L replacement. Even if it is priced at 2500, it will still be less costly than the 300 f/4 and the 400 f/5.6 combined, and should deliver better IQ too.

With the 100-400 ending at 400mm at f/5.6, it doesn't make sense to have a 400mm f/5.6 prime. Perhaps Canon should introduce a 400mm f/4 prime instead. Will it be expensive -- absolutely, but a lot less than the +10k 500mm or 600mm primes and only a stop slower with an 1.4x.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 1, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> With the 100-400 ending at 400mm at f/5.6, it doesn't make sense to have a 400mm f/5.6 prime. Perhaps Canon should introduce a 400mm f/4 prime instead. Will it be expensive -- absolutely, but a lot less than the +10k 500mm or 600mm primes and only a stop slower with an 1.4x.



I sure hope 100-400 MkII comes along, but honestly, waiting for these rumored Canon lenses is becoming very tiring.


----------



## tron (Jun 1, 2012)

I do have 100-400mm, 300mm (non-IS) and 1.4EF II.

Believe it or not I found that the 300+1.4 combination at f/7.1 was sharper than the 100-400 at f/8.0 !!!
(both on a tripod)

Maybe it's because it is the non-IS 300mm version I do not know.
Also it was not an extensive test (I was taking pictures and happened to have both of them).
The 100-400 is generally satisfactory but the 300 + 1.4 was better!
The 100-400 provides versatility but when time is available (tripod, static subjects) then I will prefer the other combination.

Now where is my cheap 400mm f/4.0 lens?


----------



## K-amps (Jun 2, 2012)

drjlo said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > drjlo said:
> ...



From what I have read, the MK.iii blows the Mk.ii in IQ. 

You can research this on your own as well.


----------



## infilm (Jun 2, 2012)

@drjlo. 

What are you shooting that you want the reach of a 400mm-600mm lens? I ask because I recently discovered that my 5D2 will auto focus with my 300mm f4 and the 2x II extender in live view mode. If you're shooting something other than sports or quick moving objects, perhaps a 300 and a 2x extender might work for you. Hope this helps.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 2, 2012)

infilm said:


> @drjlo.
> 
> What are you shooting that you want the reach of a 400mm-600mm lens? I ask because I recently discovered that my 5D2 will auto focus with my 300mm f4 and the 2x II extender in live view mode. If you're shooting something other than sports or quick moving objects, perhaps a 300 and a 2x extender might work for you. Hope this helps.



Yes it works even with 400mm f5.6 + 2x @ F11 under liveview, but it is slower than MF and less accurate than MF. At best it will get you close to the focal point then you can manually adjust it for max focus by hand.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 2, 2012)

infilm said:


> @drjlo.
> 
> What are you shooting that you want the reach of a 400mm-600mm lens? I ask because I recently discovered that my 5D2 will auto focus with my 300mm f4 and the 2x II extender in live view mode. If you're shooting something other than sports or quick moving objects, perhaps a 300 and a 2x extender might work for you. Hope this helps.



So f/8 AF works in live view but not viewfinder? 
I unfortunately am known to chase after birds and love shooting them in flight. THAT can get quite expensive in Canon land. I'll try the Kenko 2x TC on the 70-200 MkII, which fortunately has fabulous IS, AF, and MTF to burn, hopefully all enough to compensate for 2x TC effects. It already works great with 1.4x TC..


----------



## swampler (Jun 2, 2012)

drjlo said:


> I unfortunately am known to chase after birds and love shooting them in flight. THAT can get quite expensive in Canon land. I'll try the Kenko 2x TC on the 70-200 MkII, which fortunately has fabulous IS, AF, and MTF to burn, hopefully all enough to compensate for 2x TC effects. It already works great with 1.4x TC..


I have the Kenko 2x TC on the 70-200 f/2.8L (not MkII and not IS) and it works well stopped down a bit. Can get some haze wide open, but not always.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 3, 2012)

An Old FD 400mm F4.5? Close enough Eh? 8)


----------



## infilm (Jun 5, 2012)

drjlo said:


> infilm said:
> 
> 
> > @drjlo.
> ...



I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the Canon 2x II extender. I have to say that I was quite impressed with both the IQ and the speed of the AF. To be honest when I bought the extender I really was expecting the worst, but ended up being very happy.


----------



## Mike Miami (Jun 11, 2012)

[/quote]

I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the Canon 2x II extender. I have to say that I was quite impressed with both the IQ and the speed of the AF. To be honest when I bought the extender I really was expecting the worst, but ended up being very happy.
[/quote]

+1


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 11, 2012)

You might consider some combination of lens + converter on a crop body camera rather than your very nice 5DIII, or just crop the images your 5DIII takes in post which is probably even better than using a crop body. Probably not the advice you want, but it might be worth jotting down some notes to see what combinations that would give you and in the end could likely cost you less than a 70-200 IS which was your suggested price range.

Something like getting a 2x converter plus a crop body, with your existing 70-200 brings you to a crop body equivalent of a 224-640 @5.6 for example. Again, using the same combination on your 5DIII and cropping the image to the same composition will probably produce comparable if not better results? Again probably not what you want, just a thought.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 11, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> You might consider some combination of lens + converter on a crop body camera rather than your very nice 5DIII, or just crop the images your 5DIII takes in post which is probably even better than using a crop body. Probably not the advice you want, but it might be worth jotting down some notes to see what combinations that would give you and in the end could likely cost you less than a 70-200 IS which was your suggested price range.
> 
> Something like getting a 2x converter plus a crop body, with your existing 70-200 brings you to a crop body equivalent of a 224-640 @5.6 for example. Again, using the same combination on your 5DIII and cropping the image to the same composition will probably produce comparable if not better results? Again probably not what you want, just a thought.



I find the best converter being the 1.3 converter called the 1D4


----------



## FarQinell (Jun 11, 2012)

Could you not make do with the slightly smaller image size given by the Canon 300/2.8 IS version 1?

Arguably one of the sharpest lenses Canon ever made.

Very sharp wide open with huge 107mm nominal aperture.

Resolving power is proportional to aperture (there are other things to consider of course - before anybody chips in!).

For the 400/4 DO you have to stop down to f5.6 to get half decent results from what I have read.

400/5.6 equates to only 71mm aperture - so less detail in your image. In fact the little 400/5.6 prime performs just as well as the DO and is much much cheaper.

With the 300/2.8 you get a very good 420mm with a 1.4TC.

The only thing going for the 400/4 DO is its relatively light weight. 

Plenty of 300/2.8 version 1 coming on the market as rich folk trade up to version 2!


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 11, 2012)

Could get a 400 f/2.8 and stop down :-* :-* :-*


----------



## drjlo (Jun 12, 2012)

infilm said:


> I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the Canon 2x II extender. I have to say that I was quite impressed with both the IQ and the speed of the AF. To be honest when I bought the extender I really was expecting the worst, but ended up being very happy.



Just got the Kenko 2x TC DGX. On 5D MkIII, it ONLY works with 70-200 II, not anything else, which I expected since my Kenko 1.4x only works with 70-200 II as well. Kenko can keep denying compatibility problems with 5D III and put their head in the sand, but problem exists. 

On 70-200 + 2x TC, probably cropped out 80% of the photo. It was at dusk, so iso2000.




DZ3C3817 by drjlo1, on Flickr


----------



## SambalOelek (Jun 12, 2012)

drjlo said:


> infilm said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the Canon 2x II extender. I have to say that I was quite impressed with both the IQ and the speed of the AF. To be honest when I bought the extender I really was expecting the worst, but ended up being very happy.
> ...



Nice level of detail considering the 2x converter. There is quite a lot of visible noise, though, did you push the exposure in post?


----------



## drjlo (Jun 12, 2012)

SambalOelek said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > infilm said:
> ...



It was pretty dark by then and even at ISO2000 I could see noise without pushing the exp. I had DPP in "high speed" mode, which does not offer NR, so it was converted to jpeg without any NR. Just after this quick test shot, it basically became dark, so next test shots will have to wait..


----------



## K-amps (Jun 13, 2012)

Here's another shot of the 70-200 combo: i.e. 70-200 mk.ii + 2x mk.iii MAF'ed on a 5Diii: Lots of usable footage.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 13, 2012)

drjlo said:


> infilm said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the Canon 2x II extender. I have to say that I was quite impressed with both the IQ and the speed of the AF. To be honest when I bought the extender I really was expecting the worst, but ended up being very happy.
> ...



hmmm all my lenses seem fine on my new body with my kenko stuff, on the first body i returned none worked, I think its body dependent, do you have any other wierd focusing problems? my new body has a 3 in the 6th digit my first one was a 1


----------



## drjlo (Jun 15, 2012)

Got to shoot some more 70-200 + 2x TC. Dusk again and ISO 6400.




DZ3C4180 by drjlo1, on Flickr


----------

