Canon 400mm/f5.6 "L" lense

[Swimmer]

Yup, it is time to get a long lense. The 28-75mm/f2.8 Tamron is a great "walk-around" travel and portrait lense, but as predicted by the Veterans on this site, would not suffice. Does anyone own this lense? Do you think it would be versatile enough at lower light levels. Although, I think most of my outdoor shooting would be in stronger light environments. It is supposed to be very sharp even when used with the 1.4x. Also, a bargain, since the IS and wider aperature lenses are ~ 4-5 times the price! Let the glass geeks speak!

[Steve Foss]

I have shot with it. It is sharper than the zooms, and as sharp as Canon's faster 300, 400, 500, 600 IS and 1200L non-IS primes. I have shot with all Canon's prime telephoto L lenses now, excepting the 1200 (at $75,000 to $80,000 and only available by custom order, there probably are only about a dozen copies of this baby in the whole world). The 400L f5.6 retains excellent sharpness with a 1.4 TC. Unless you have a "1" series Canon body, however, you won't be able to autofocus with the 1.4 TC on the lens. Only the top bodies allow autofocus retention in lenses slower than f2.8 using the TC. You can, however, tape off two or three of the contacts on the TC, "fooling" the camera into allowing autofocus, though it will move slower than without the TC. I don't know which contacts need taping. I think a quick Web search would find that out for you.

And, of course, with the TC you're shooting at f8 wide open instead of the f5.6 inherent to the lens. All that being said, I get my sharpest images on the 100-400L IS at f7.1 to f8, anyway, and you'll get sharper images from the 400 prime at f5.6 than with the 100-400 at that aperature. I bought the 100-400L IS primarily for the flexibility, but if you don't need that, it's worth saving a couple hundred bucks and going with the 400L f5.6.

With no image stabilization, technique also becomes vital with the 400 prime, especially when f8 is as wide open as you can get with the TC. That means slower shutter speeds, quite often too slow for handheld work even at iso400, so a rock solid tripod will be a must.

Good luck with the glass. You'll love the upgrade. It's not just about sharpness, either. L glass offers better color saturation, more contrast and virutally none of the lens defects you get with the cheaper stuff.

[Swimmer]

Thanks Steve. It is nice to have the input to add a little confidence in what will be a purchase costing a nice chunk of change. I didn't realize that the 100-400L IS was so close in price. Since I have seen the sharpness of your work with that lens (there, I finally spelled it right), and I am certainly not a professional, perhaps it would make sense to look at that one. The flexibility and shutter speed advantages you mentioned may outweigh the sharpness of the prime. A quick search revealed the 400L prime for about $1100 and the 100-400L IS for about $1350. Now I have a decision to make. Also, it sounds like these lenses are crowd pleasers...not so good for stealth shooting of people and candy for theives. But any color lens of any length would probably attract attention. I suppose the critters don't mind though.

Also, reading reviews of the lenses, I found that a non-Canon 1.4 teleconverter allows the AF function to operate. Although a Canon TC would probably be critical for image quality.

One final question. When in the woods do you usualy shoot at around 350mm? In other words, would I have problems with the fixed 400mm in terms of usefullness considering my only other lens option is the 28-75 (I think I'm trying to convince myself to go with 100-400L IS).

[Swimmer]

PS, the consensus on some of the reviews of the 100-400L IS is that the older copies suffered some image denigration at 400mm much more that the latest copies.

[Tom Wilson]

Swimmer,

the 100-400 lens is a beauty, and would definitely be the best choice IMO. Back when I was debating switching to Canon (Steve, if you harrass me over that I'll deny it ) I was really impressed with that lens.

[Dbl]

Swimmer, I have the 100-400/4.5 -5.6L IS and I love it. I picked mine up used for around $1,000. It looks like it was never used. It certainly has been very versatile in my bag shooting everything from wildlife, closeups, portraits, sports and landscapes. I would guess that I have it on my camera 85% of the time.

I have been somewhat frustrated at times with what I consider the sharpness of the lens. I will shoot a number of photos and look at them in PP and think this lens should be better. The next group I shoot I think, wow this is sharp. Technique probably has more to do with that than anything. I will be conducting some focus tests on the lens shortly to settle it once and for all.

An example, on Saturday I was shooting soccer at the Schwans Cup in Blaine and was somewhat disappointed in some of my shots. A number of OF shots. I then shot a couple of baseball games on Sunday and, wow, they were very sharp. Two different sports, soccer moves much faster, the combination of the focus speed on the 20D along with a lens that is not designed for fast action sports and you will get a few OF's. Baseball you can anticipate action better and do a lot of pre focus work. Keep in mind this is not a lens that most use for fast sports work, unless you have a 1D series body to go with it. I have been using it to get used to the system, and I will be adding a 70-200/f2.8 non-Is and then a 300/f2.8 along with a few others for my type of shooting.

I think you would be happier with the 100-400 for what you will be using it for than the 400 prime. You have seen the type of shots it is capable of in good hands (Steve) and I don't think you would regret the purchase. If you did, there is no problem selling it or trading it for the prime. Those things sell like hotcakes.

The TC question, the Tamron 1.4 cheapo will autofocus with this lens, the pro, the Kenko, and the Canon TC II will not. The Tamron does not send info to the camera so the autofocus works fine, you can tape, as Steve mentioned, the pins to make it work with the other converters, though focus speed is not nearly as fast. As you look at the lens with the pins at the top, the last three on the left are the ones you tape. Scotch tape works fine, but use it between the lens and the TC, not the TC and the body (no tape in the body).

We don't live all that far apart and if you are interested in shooting that lens let me know and we can arrange for that to happen. Sorry for the long post, good luck with the choice.

Dan

[Steve Foss]

OK, lots of interesting stuff here, but only a few points to reply to (Tom, I knew you had a lick of sense somewhere in your makeup. )

Swimmer, I shoot a lot of medium-scale landscape work with the 100-400. That puts me at 150-250mm an awful lot, so I get more than wildlife and sports benefits with the lens. But especially when shooting a large animal at close range (moose and deer), sometimes I need to back off the mm. And with any animals or birds, even the small ones, sometimes you want to compose an environmental portrait, and don't have time to switch lenses. That's another situation where high-end zooms allow you to function professionally, quickly and efficiently and a prime won't.

The 100-400L is definitely a bit sharper at f7.1 or f8 than at f5.6. Just a fact of life. Pretty much all zooms are like that.

I have found that the 20D/100-400L IS focuses very quickly when shooting outdoor sports in decent light. It is only a "slow" lens in terms of the maximum amount of light allowed through the aperature. When it comes to focus speed, it's very good. Using Al servo or One shot modes, depending on circumstances, I've been able to capture baseball, cross-country skiing, track, downhill skiing, soccer, football, softball and all the high-speed watersports with very little focus frustration. Where the 100-400L doesn't perform as well is not a focusing issue, but in low light, simply because it only opens to f5.6. And with the 20D, I only get six shots in RAW mode before the buffer fills, and the combo works its fastest and best for high-speed sports when shooting in jpeg mode, which allows 24 or more before the buffer fills and allows the Al focus mode to operate at its highest rate of efficiency. The 30D's buffer is bigger, and it's not so much of a problem with that upgraded body.

If I did sports for more than just shots for the weekly newspaper, I'd go immediately to the Canon 1D MarkIIn, which I've shot before and have a long-distance love affair with, and the 70-200L f2.8 IS, with the 1.4 TC as an option, which combination is the cat's meow for flexible low-light sports.

I won't use any TC but Canon TC with my equipment. Image degradation is too common with other brands. I know Tamron has a good rep, but I'm a fiend about image degradation. Hate it, hate it, hate it. That's just me.

[Swimmer]

Thanks again guys. I know you guys like gabbing about lenses so I hope my posts don't get to annoying. You know, I can get the 70-200 f4L (non IS) for about $500 and Tamron 1.4 TC which would be half the cost and pretty flexible...I wonder if that would give me enough range for critter photography.

[Swimmer]

Dan, thanks for the offer. I will let you know when/if the final decision is to be made.

[Steve Foss]

Quote:

---

You know, I can get the 70-200 f4L (non IS) for about $500 and Tamron 1.4 TC which would be half the cost and pretty flexible...I wonder if that would give me enough range for critter photography.

---

Nope, it won't, not for birds at any rate. You'll have only 280mm max, plus the camera's conversion factor, and you'll be stuck with that lower power at f5.6.