Hey Jim......

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Could you post your impressions of that 400 5.6?

In particular it's focus speed compared to the 100-400,IQ,bokeh,etc. I'm looking at picking one up but as most do,I'm curious about missing the IS.

Just for fun I put the 2x on my 70-200 and turned off the IS. It was pretty easy to get sharp shots down to 1/250th @ 400mm.

How is it compared to the zoom?

Thanks!

[Steve Foss]

Each great lenses in their own way. Go to it, Jim!

[OutlawTorn]

Ive only tested one, I dont own one but based on my small bit of experience with the 400 5.6 and other reviews, I can speak to some of your questions.

The focus speed is exceptionally fast - it will blow the zoom out of the water. You will probably notice higher IQ, as well - not ground breaking, but definitely better. Although it was possible to take good shots without a tripod, I wouldnt spend too much time without one on this lens - your handholding technique may be better than mine.

Im curious to hear from someone with more experience though. Ive been considering the 400 5.6, 300 f4 IS w/ 1.4x, 100-400, or the sigma 150-500.

[Steve Foss]

I've used both extensively for birds and other wildlife and have posted comparisons of them here before. Both are excellent pieces of kit.

[Jim Almquist]

I really think that it is a lot sharper and the focus is super fast compared to the 100-400. I just download a Back/Front focus chart to see if the 100-400 is right on because the 400 5.6 is so sharp. The one thing that I have to change is the distance that I am from birds if I want to get a decent BIF shot but once I get that down I really feel it will shine. I do most of my shooting off a tripod/monopod so the loss of the IS is not that big of a deal to me.I have gone from the 30D to a 1DMK11 but I don't know if that would have made a big difference on the focus speed but Steve, Dan or Ken might be able to answer that question.There was one for sale for $950.00 on CT- What a steal

For now I want to keep both and get a better lens for close up shots then my 50 1.8 but today was my last day of work so only time will tell- I have never been unemployed for longer then a week since I got out of the Army but this time it might be different.

[Steve Foss]

I have gone from the 30D to a 1DMK11 but I don't know if that would have made a big difference on the focus speed but Steve, Dan or Ken might be able to answer that question.

[finnbay]

Quote:

have gone from the 30D to a 1DMK11 but I don't know if that would have made a big difference on the focus speed but Steve, Dan or Ken might be able to answer that question.

Haven't shot the 30D, but have the 10D, 40D and 50D along with Mark II's. Focus speed is somewhat better, but reliability IMO is far superior. Many more "keepers" because of right-on sharpness with the Mark II.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Quote:

Yeah, I know. Blah, blah, blah, there I go again spouting off when I wasn't asked.

Anyone can chime in-the more the better.

The 300F4 IS + 1.4TC was another option. I know that lens is good,but focus speed will surely nosedive with the tc.

Having had a 100-400,and always running it at 400,that lens is most likely out. I also like the hoods on the 300 and 400 primes. I'm wondering if Canon will come out with the 400 5.6 IS anytime soon?

[Jim Almquist]

Quote:

I'm wondering if Canon will come out with the 400 5.6 IS anytime soon?

Steve and I talked about that and he said it would more then likely drive up the price. Right now the price is about right for such a good lens and if you can get a deal on a used one all the better. I picked mine up for a $1000.00 and that included shipping and it was still under warranty.

[Steve Foss]

I'm wondering if Canon will come out with the 400 5.6 IS anytime soon?

Yeah, Jim and I kicked that one around a time or two.

I wish they would. Even at a couple hundred dollars more than current price, that'd be the absolute mack daddy of affordability and image quality. And with high ISO capabilities getting better and better, wide apertures are going to be less and less important in order to get enough shutter speed for sharp images.

And then if Canon redesigned the 100-400 into a closer rendition of the fabled Nikon 200-400 f4 VR but at $1,000 less than Nikon's price tag (or came out with a 200-400 F4L IS and left the 100-400 alone except for adding newer generation IS), what a perfect world this would be.

You listening Canon? Get right on that for us, will you?

[MARINERMAGNUM]

I've always wondered why not a 400mm F4 IS for about $1400? That would be the sweet spot for me! Seems do-able for Canon. Man,that would be a sweet rig.

[Steve Foss]

I've always wondered why not a 400mm F4 IS for about $1400? That would be the sweet spot for me! Seems do-able for Canon. Man,that would be a sweet rig.

Not at that price. A 400 f4 is a bigger, heavier, wider lens than an f5.6, and it would cost a lot more. And Canon already has that offering in the 400 f4 DO IS, which has not been tremendously popular because of price and lack of image contrast. Because it is a DO lens it is quite light for its focal length/aperture, but a standard non-DO 400 f4 would be a whole other matter. I think you'd be up around the size/weight of the 300 f2.8. Cost would probably be in the same ballpark, too.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

You wouldn't think 100mm would make that much diff. The 300 F4IS is a nice little size. Maybe a 350?

[Steve Foss]

It's the 100mm AND the wider aperture.

[MN Shutterbug]

All I can add to this is, I wouldn't have my best selling eagle photo if I'd been shooting a 400 prime. While at Red Wing, 1 1/2 years ago, an eagle came out of nowhere and flew right by me. I had to quick back off on my zoom to get him all in the frame. He was shot at 270mm. I realize this is a rarity, but it can happen.

Also, one thing that kind of annoys me is, Canon produces some lenses that are sharper than others. What's the deal? What kind of quality control is that? I've heard it mentioned more about the 100-400, but it is a topic re: other lenses. I consider myself lucky that I got a sharp one.

[Steve Foss]

X, I've shot four copies of the 100-400 at one time or another and couldn't tell one from the other with IQ. That being said, every lens maker has quality control issues, and some copies of lenses are sharper than other copies of the same lens. Stuff happens.