Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM

[jacobsen1]

yeah, it's really too bad the lens isn't sharp.... :shock:

[AeroSmith]

f/9

http://AeroSmith.smugmug.com/photos/185690624-L-1.jpg



f/8

http://AeroSmith.smugmug.com/photos/185681550-L.jpg



f/10

http://AeroSmith.smugmug.com/photos/181009888-L.jpg

[aladyforty]

After much research I went with this lens over the 100-400 L and so far I’m pretty happy with it. I can handhold it quite well and have used it both with a monopod and tripod but have handheld most shots so far. I’ve had it two weeks now and here are few of my first shots. Lens is great value for money

This one was the only shot where Ive used a tripod




http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1088/1489964308_5b1cf53e25_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1398/1441860263_3ebcc9f937_o.jpg


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1320/1482699009_5c7753f84a_o.jpg

two quite far off shot, handheld

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1091/1489999204_17c2f9c942_o.jpg

[grimreaper]

nice pics all,

but come on it's a week since a update, we want more :D

[aladyforty]

edited

[aladyforty]

edited

[grimreaper]

haha loving the emu's hair do

[Roy C]

Took this a few days ago on a 30D body, Handheld.

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p267/RoyC_photo/goose1.jpg

[aladyforty]

handheld



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2127/1614582637_751d115600_o.jpg



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2328/1690557989_58ae0fa63c_o.jpg

[Ed Rotberg]

I have to admit that since I got the 500 f/4L IS, I've been using the 400 less. I still love this lens though, and when I get my 2nd body (soon), I'm certain it will see a resurgence of use.

Here is a recent image taken with the 400 from a trip down to Florida:
http://www.edrotberg.org/images/Canon%20DPF/Sand%20Hill%20Crane%20portrait.jpg

= Ed =

[Cassie]

Took this a few days ago on a 30D body, Handheld.

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p267/RoyC_photo/goose1.jpg

WOW, I love this shot!

[aladyforty]

This was a test of handholding the 400 5.6 on insects. These flys hover just above bushes and trees and are about half the size of a large bee. settings were F8 ISO 640, fairly heavy crop

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2061/1807456678_242d33a433_o.jpg

[ErikT72]

My first chance at a Peregrine....

http://ErikT.smugmug.com/photos/213042337-L.jpg

[tekkie]

Took this a few days ago on a 30D body, Handheld.

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p267/RoyC_photo/goose1.jpg

holy crap thats sharp

[aladyforty]

edited

[woollyback]

Bilmey Roy that's one sharp and contrasty image - almost 3D

Love it:):):)

Best regards

Rob

Took this a few days ago on a 30D body, Handheld.

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p267/RoyC_photo/goose1.jpg

[cadams]

A few of mine. Absolutely wonderful lens!

http://www.ccaphotos.com/gallery/Creatures/slides/IMG_0621.JPG

http://www.ccaphotos.com/gallery/People/slides/IMG_1237.JPG

http://www.ccaphotos.com/gallery/Creatures/slides/crop_0632.JPG

http://www.ccaphotos.com/gallery/Creatures/slides/crop_0584.JPG

[c-bass]

i got this lens for christmas and love it. this is a pic i took with no photoshop only resized to fit here. i wanted this lens for wildlife shots and i think it will be perfect at fifty yards i could not get three dogs in pic together if they had been more cooperative and a little closer it would have worked but i could only get two. will post those pics later. also when resizing do i want to lower the quality or just the dpi so it will get below 100 to fit in forum?

[aladyforty]

i got this lens for christmas and love it. this is a pic i took with no photoshop only resized to fit here. i wanted this lens for wildlife shots and i think it will be perfect at fifty yards i could not get three dogs in pic together if they had been more cooperative and a little closer it would have worked but i could only get two. will post those pics later. also when resizing do i want to lower the quality or just the dpi so it will get below 100 to fit in forum?


congrats on the pressie, it is a wonderful lens in good light. Ive have mine for a couple of months or so and I love the quality it can produce and not only for wildlife shots

[rb643]

I got this this lens last week, and today was the first time I used it. I'm happy with it!:)

[bromm]

First 2 were taken with rebel XT, canon 400 f/5.6 + canon 1.4X II extender, handheld. Granted late afternoon low sun for great lighting, and approx 30-40 feet from subject. I feel they show that in ideal conditions the 1.4X does not noticibly affect image quality.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/bromm/album2/IMG_0807-01.jpg

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/bromm/album2/IMG_0771-01.jpg

The 3rd one was a little further away, but good lighting as well, 400 without the 1.4X extender.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/bromm/album2/IMG_0488-01.jpg

Last one, handheld, 400 without extender.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/bromm/album2/IMG_8088-01.jpg


I think the 400 f/5.6 is an awesome lens!

[aladyforty]

First 2 were taken with rebel XT, canon 400 f/5.6 + canon 1.4X II extender, handheld. Granted late afternoon low sun for great lighting, and approx 30-40 feet from subject. I feel they show that in ideal conditions the 1.4X does not noticibly affect image quality.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/bromm/album2/IMG_0807-01.jpg

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/bromm/album2/IMG_0771-01.jpg

The 3rd one was a little further away, but good lighting as well, 400 without the 1.4X extender.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/bromm/album2/IMG_0488-01.jpg

Last one, handheld, 400 without extender.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/bromm/album2/IMG_8088-01.jpg


I think the 400 f/5.6 is an awesome lens!

great shots, just proves one can get by without IS and this lens is superb in the right hands

[bromm]

Thanks Alady, appreciate the compliment.:D

[c-bass]

when i was looking for a long lens i never really found out what something looks like at different distances. the distance calculators never really helped me. this is the 400 5.6 lens at twenty feet exactly for the first image and sixty feet for the second. set to auto on camera flash used and taken a little after 5pm on february 1, no crop, straight from camera jpeg. for reference, my yard is .25 acres and sixty feet is almost from my driveway to the neighbors driveway. i stitched these together for size comparison and not quality. i will add more at longer distances later. hope this helps.

[c-bass]

rb, that first shot is awesome. and to get that quality resizing for the internet i bet the original is perfect.

[rb643]

rb, that first shot is awesome. and to get that quality resizing for the internet i bet the original is perfect.

Thanks c-bass. :)

[Roy C]

Had the lens a couple of years now but still amazed at its qualities.
Here's a couple I took yesteday.

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p267/RoyC_photo/canada2-1.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p267/RoyC_photo/rook2-1.jpg

[scottcolbath]

Mine just showed up in the mail today.

First shots.
http://wookiee.smugmug.com/photos/251690989-L.jpg

This one was in the shade in my front yard.
http://wookiee.smugmug.com/photos/251690971-L.jpg

S.C.

[scottcolbath]

A couple more pics I took this past weekend.
http://www.wookiee.smugmug.com/photos/252248604_t6kxX-X2.jpg

http://www.wookiee.smugmug.com/photos/252283696_QdtsX-XL.jpg

S.C.

[jacobsen1]

the most dangerous event in a rodeo right there ^^^ ;)

[stathunter]

Wow some great shots here. I was thinking of picking up that lens but have been seriously thinking about the 300 f4 IS to go with my 1.4 ---that might be a better fit for me.

[snapper seven]

You guys aren't helping much!!!!

I popped into these forums to check out people's views on the EF converters to go with my 70-200 2.8L and now after seeing this thread I am having to seriously consider this lens again...after agonisingly deciding that I could do with out it because of the weight and cost etc.

I feel like I need to go and have a cold shower now.

Ok just out of interest - how much better would this lens be (for motorsport) compared to the 70-200 2.8L and a 1.4x or 2x converter?
Appreciate your objective and non biased (given the thread we are in!) views.

Thanks

SS

[canonloader]

after agonisingly deciding that I could do with out it because of the weight and cost
Also consider the 300/4. It works quite well with a 1.4x converter to gives 420mm and keeps AF. It also has the same size objective lens as the 400/5.6 and is shorter and lighter.

[Perry Ge]

You guys have pretty much sold me on this lens. The IQ and AF look perfect for what I wanna shoot with it - birds and airshows.

The only thing holding me back and even considering the 100-400 IS is not so much the image stabilisation, but the fact that the zoom will actually fit in my bag!! :lol:

[aladyforty]

a few more

All handheld ISO500 F6.3

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2290585409_68535bc334_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2255/2278511073_15d60f1d43_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2240/2265322817_0e7f87c918_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2381/2266211661_948e1cdae4_o.jpg

[jacobsen1]

The only thing holding me back and even considering the 100-400 IS is not so much the image stabilisation, but the fact that the zoom will actually fit in my bag!! :lol:

Seriously consider the 300mm f/4. Nothing against this lens, but the 300 is smaller and has IS. With the 1.4TC you get a 420 f/5.6 WITH IS... Yes you take a slight hit (not much though) in IQ but you gain IS. Depends on how bad you need 400, IS and how much the size effects your bag and whether you'll use it or not.

They're both fantastic lenses so you can't go wrong really.

[gardengirl13]

Yeah but he already has (and loves) the 200, with a TC he'll have 300 covered, the 400 would be a nice addition.

perryge since you like primes so much I wouldn't recommend the 100-400 zoom, you'd be much happier with the 400. Once I pay off my car the 400 is my next lens even though I'll need a better tripod for it!

[Perry Ge]

Yeah but he already has (and loves) the 200, with a TC he'll have 300 covered, the 400 would be a nice addition.

perryge since you like primes so much I wouldn't recommend the 100-400 zoom, you'd be much happier with the 400. Once I pay off my car the 400 is my next lens even though I'll need a better tripod for it!

I must admit I'm still teetering. The 300 is out of the question, because yes, my 200L is amazing. And the lens will be used mostly for birding, with the occasional airshow, so native 400mm is crucial.

But the IS and smaller size of the 100-400 are so appealing, since I fly a LOT. The 400L's cheaper price, weight, and AF are really nice though. Hardest decision ever!

[Ronald S. Jr.]

A few from me from late last summer

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v611/remulac/hunting.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v611/remulac/heron-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v611/remulac/foxpost.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v611/remulac/heron2post-1.jpg

[cadams]

Ron I love the last image

[spicolli1976]

This lens works great for surfing as well!!!!!

[gooble]

Was something gnawing on that fox's ears?

[Fawlcon]

This isn't helping my decision between the prime and the zoom for wildlife :(

[canonloader]

Unless your shooting wildlife inside of 17 feet or big animals and birds, [buffalo and eagles] inside of 30 feet, then it's a no brainer. Just keep in mind that a lens with IS takes from half a second to .9 second, before it is ready to fire. That's a long, long time in the animal world. The prime has none of those drawbacks. :)

[Fawlcon]

:s. And I love the lens hood too...butttt I like the 300 f/4LIS too :s Or even the f2.8 if I can scramble up three times the dosh.

Butt...hmm. Zoom :(

[logiclee]

Is it just me?

I've been looking at the 300mm f/4IS but looking through the archives the 400mm f/5.6 looks sharper, has better colours and more contrast.

I was thinking along the lines of getting a 300mm f/4 IS and using the 1.4 converter but now I'm starting to think the 400mm f/5.6.

Is there as much difference as the archives suggest and as I'm 60% handhold would I be better off getting IS and sacrifice the IQ?

Cheers
Lee

[canonloader]

Is there as much difference as the archives suggest
Yes. IS lens have proven to be less sharp than non-IS lenses, with a few exceptions, attributed to small differences found in copies of the same version lens. Not all 400/5.6's are sharp, not all 300/4 IS's are soft.

[Mike-DT6]

Not all 400/5.6's are sharp . . .

I haven't heard of anyone complaining about 400mm f/5.6 soft copies. Have you heard of any issues with this lens?

This lens will be my next purchase, so I would be interested to hear about any known problems with this lens.

Mike

:-)

[Mike-DT6]

Is it just me?

I've been looking at the 300mm f/4IS but looking through the archives the 400mm f/5.6 looks sharper, has better colours and more contrast.

I was thinking along the lines of getting a 300mm f/4 IS and using the 1.4 converter but now I'm starting to think the 400mm f/5.6.

Is there as much difference as the archives suggest and as I'm 60% handhold would I be better off getting IS and sacrifice the IQ?

Cheers
Lee

Lee

I found this article to be very helpful:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

I was also considering a 300mm plus 1.4x TC, but have read that it isn't as sharp as the 400mm f/5.6. In fact that gets mentioned in the above article, right at the end.

Mike

:-)

[canonloader]

Mike, my first big lens was a 100-400 - IS that had a bad IS unit. It was really bad, never gave a really sharp image. I had Canon fix it, then sold it soon after to buy a 400/5.6. Yes it was very sharp, compared to the zoomy and it gave some fine images on my 30D. But, I always suspected it was not up to par with some of the other owners copies of the same lens, who's pics I was seeing in the bird forum every day next to mine. Was it me, my lens, my 30D, my post processing, tripod? Is there even any way to tell short of sending it to Canon? All I know is, it seemed to be just a touch softer than about half the other 400's out there I was seeing shots from.

To be honest, I have gone through several bodies and several lenses, and so far, the sharpest lens/body combo has been the 40D I bought new and the 70-200 non-IS I bought used. I am saving now for another 400/5.6.

My final word? I think all Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses are a far cry from what they should be. I don't believe either one has any kind of acceptable assembly line testing of their products to assure the junk goes in the bin and not in a box and out to B&H. I think 50% of the stuff that makes it to market is junk and I know people who have wasted their money on junk are going to call me names for telling it like I see it, but, there it is.

If at all possible, walk into the store with your body and a full charge on the battery and an empty Card and ask to shoot the lens your going to buy, before you buy it. Go look at the images on your computer. If it's sharp, buy it, if not, go back and show them the proof. And that still is not proof that it's their soft lens and not your body.

And before anyone says poo, just think of the what's hit the news in the last year, lead in kids toys, poison in your toothpaste, batteries that explode, and [gasp] $5000 camera bodies by, you guessed it, Canon, that won't focus right, and then try and convince me that other big name multi nationals aren't doing the same thing. ;)

[Mike-DT6]

Thanks Mitch.

This is what drives me mad about lenses. All I would wish for is a guaranteed sharp lens, then I would know if it was me (or maybe the camera body) causing the problems if I wasn't getting sharp photos.

I know my 70-200mm f/4 L is really sharp, even at f/4 on my 20D, so at least that lens and body combination is good. I'm trusting that my camera body is fine so that I can go on to hope that my 400mm f/5.6 L is sharp when I get it! :lol:

I couldn't agree with you more on your third paragraph. I wish they would test everything before it leaves the factory.

Mike

:-)

[condyk]

I've been looking at the 300mm f/4IS but looking through the archives the 400mm f/5.6 looks sharper, has better colours and more contrast.

I had the 300mm IS L and liked it in design and usability terms but the IQ was only decent. Also, AF slows with a TCon and it impacts on IQ if you fancy a 420mm with IS. The 400mm is a better lens IMO. IQ and all round handling excellent. Had two.

[VOLKAN AKGUL]

400 F5,6

[VOLKAN AKGUL]

yours respectfully

good lens!

[ChunkyDA]

Really nice lens...

[Bubble]

http://vietnamet.com/dabanh/7.jpg

[wallybud]

I absolutely LOVE this thread ha!

[Adamora]

Woo ^^

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/9803/cutestdeereverdaru2.jpg

[SoaringUSAEagle]

Watch those backgrounds Adam :) Nice bokeh besides that hotspot.

[Ed Rotberg]

Still the finest lens for birds in flight, bar none!

= Ed =

http://www.edrotberg.org/images/Snowy%20Egret%20on%20approach.jpg

[Adamora]

Watch those backgrounds Adam :) Nice bokeh besides that hotspot.


Stupid sun :p

[SoaringUSAEagle]

Stupid sun :p

Heh, yeah. No big deal. It's a real nice shot.

[Adamora]

Heh, yeah. No big deal. It's a real nice shot.

Coming from you, thats great :D

[tommykjensen]

2 shots I took last weekend

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo2.php?n=20080419_ib.jpg

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo2.php?n=20080419_jonas.jpg

[Daniel2000]

I was looking forward to get a 100-400, then I found out there is this lens, 400mm f5.6L
at a real good price, around 300$ less on B&H
so I investigate a little, and find this thread...

no chance I'm NOT getting this one... :D

really nice pics everyone

[sml]

Wow! Just caught this thread--thanks for "bumping" it, Daniel2000! I'm interested in this now, too. Had been considering the 100-400, but I have been leaning away from zooms lately...
Physically, this is seems to be a long, large lens....and heavy. Right? And it's not IS. Not exactly a "walk around." I am assuming that it is advisable to use a tripod (for most of the shots here?). Is that correct?

By the way...is this going up in price, too? Or has it already?

[tommykjensen]

The lens is not heavy at all and if you have steady hands you certainly can handhold it. My 2 shots posted here was shot handheld.

[canonloader]

Physically, this is seems to be a long, large lens....and heavy. Right? And it's not IS. Not exactly a "walk around." I am assuming that it is advisable to use a tripod (for most of the shots here?). Is that correct?
It's not any larger than the 100-400 and I think it's lighter. No, it's not IS, but I don't own an IS lens and don't miss them. Yes, get a tripod, a good one if you can afford it, and a ballhead. You should have a good tripod and use it no matter what lens you get. I have owned tripods since I started shooting SLR, 40 years ago. All of them, every one, lived in the closet with dust bunnies. last year I got the 400/5.6 and a good tripod. I didn't use it much. Then one day, looking through other peoples shots in the bird section, I finally figured it out, the sharpest, best, all around goodest shots were shot by people using tripods. Kind of easy to figure out really. Since that day, I don't go anywhere without the tripod. ;)

[sml]

My 2 shots posted here was shot handheld.

Thanks for the response!
Do you recall your settings?

I notice you also have the 100-400. Interesting.
Any preference...

[tommykjensen]

Thanks for the response!
Do you recall your settings?

I notice you also have the 100-400. Interesting.
Any preference...

Exif for both: f/5.6, 1/2000s, ISO 320, and shot with 5D

The prime is pretty new and I haven't shot it alot yet. If subject is at a constant distance I would prefer the prime. If subject is moving towards me the zoom.

[Napalm_fire]

Here is my best shot from my 400mm F/5.6L. Awesome lens!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v347/Napalm_Fire/Cool%20Pics/_MG_7059.jpg

[rgravel]

May I join :) Its my favorite blens.

http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/image/93376680/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/image/89090831/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/image/74977279/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/image/80842988/original.jpg

[Mike-DT6]

I love those photos Robert. Every one of them is excellent, especially the owl in flight.

Mike

:-)

[THE TROOPER]

I love those photos Robert. Every one of them is excellent, especially the owl in flight.

Mike

:-)



wow, i agree excellent.

Best Regards

Ian

[I Simonius]

Here is my best shot from my 400mm F/5.6L. Awesome lens!

]

that's a prize duck shot!;):D

[rgravel]

Thanks Mike and Trooper. Nice of you to have looked ;)

[sml]

Thanks Mike and Trooper. Nice of you to have looked ;)

I looked, too!
Nice!

[wolf]

Exceptionally nice images Robert (rgravel)!

[Daniel2000]

May I join :) Its my favorite blens.

http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/image/93376680/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/image/89090831/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/image/74977279/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/image/80842988/original.jpg

like this we can see them righ away ;)

awesome pics by the way :)

[Raikyn]

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2261/pboat31000x563ey8.jpg

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8452/napiermoonrisepp800x775yp7.jpg

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7631/plane4800x533lqpk3.jpg

[I Simonius]

May I join :) Its my favorite blens.

[

impressive shots -especially the seagull or whatever it is!- what a gullett:D

[oaktree]

Great shots! This could be my first white lens.

[TooManyShots]

I finally got my 400L F5.6 after many attempts to get a hold of one locally. I got it from Keh.com since they do have it in stock. The lens is very new with UW0315 code. Anyway, did couple of test shots with the lens on my 1dmarkII and 1.4 extender. Handholding it isn't that hard. Very little PP work done on them--maybe some shadow and highlight tweaks.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2328/2490063911_08121c1db3_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vracing/2490063911/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3272/2490063743_425bd67fb5_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vracing/2490063743/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2187/2490881928_ac9b4dd89a_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vracing/2490881928/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2337/2490063781_c52e66653b_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vracing/2490063781/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2111/2490063853_b750362bb4_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vracing/2490063853/)

[TooManyShots]

These shots are taken with the 400L F5.6 and a 1dmark II. I couldn't even tell which ones were shot with the converter.

Black and White Warbler.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2357/2511682589_5a3118c1da_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vracing/2511682589/)

Green Night Heron.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2512511652_822d8bf550_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vracing/2512511652/)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2136/2511682191_e4820e28d1_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vracing/2511682191/)

Black Crowned Night Heron
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2238/2511682351_d40e7f913a_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vracing/2511682351/)

Northern Flicker
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2148/2512511772_eafe7f1277_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vracing/2512511772/)

Catbird close up.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2223/2511682507_e5233d6fbf_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vracing/2511682507/)



Do I look Pretty???
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2152/2511682651_daab239374_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vracing/2511682651/)

[sf1]

Picked mine up a few weeks ago and haven't had too much time to use it. All shots below are taken using an XTi. Here are some good shots (at least I think they are):

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_1807-Version3.jpg

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_1727-Version21.jpg

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_1782-Version2.jpg

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_2055-Version2-Version21.jpg

[fotodan]

Picked mine up a few weeks ago and haven't had too much time to use it. All shots below are taken using an XTi. Here are some good shots (at least I think they are):

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_1807-Version3.jpg

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_1727-Version21.jpg

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_1782-Version2.jpg

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_2055-Version2-Version21.jpg


Man, that robin shot is a classic. EXCELLENT shot..

[sf1]

Man, that robin shot is a classic. EXCELLENT shot..

Thank you....here is the whole series:

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_1781-Version2.jpghttp://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_1782-Version2.jpg

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_1783-Version2.jpghttp://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_1784-Version2.jpg

Your next...
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/IMG_1785-Version2.jpg

[wolf]

Awesome capture with the robin!

[Mike55]

These shots are taken with the 400L F5.6 and a 1dmark II. I couldn't even tell which ones were shot with the converter.



Northern Flicker
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2148/2512511772_eafe7f1277_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vracing/2512511772/)




I like how the dots o nthe belly of this bird just pop out. Really cool. I've seen these out and about a few times.

What's the shutted speed on this one? Also, how would you compare your 400 5.6 to your 300 F4 IS? Thx.

[TooManyShots]

250s. :) I was using flash and on a monopod. With the flash, I can freeze motion and camera shakes to a greater extend. Without the use of flash, like the Heron shots, I would bump the shutter speed to 500. I didn't find the lack of IS is an issue since I use my monopod regardless. I do find the longer MFD is an issue. So, I added an extension tube but still not as close as the 300L F4 IS. What this means is that even at MFD, a smaller song bird would still appear too small to frame. What I like is that I can add an 1.4x converter and my 1D can still auto focus. That alone I am really impressed with, total focal length would be 728mm on a 1.3x crop body. With a 300L F4 IS, with a 1.4x converter, I would only get 543mm on a 1.3x crop body. Using a 2x converter on the 300L would degrade the IQ too much.

I do like the 300L more in terms of construction. Is heavier and it has more glass. Is fatter. :) With the 400L, only half og the barrel has glass in it.

I like how the dots o nthe belly of this bird just pop out. Really cool. I've seen these out and about a few times.

What's the shutted speed on this one? Also, how would you compare your 400 5.6 to your 300 F4 IS? Thx.

[BOUNCINGNRG]

it's easy to blame the glass when it's usually focusing errors or poor long lens technique that's at fault.



I was going to ask, do you use AF or MF, and what do you mean by poor long lens technique.

[Heath Holden Photography]

by the looks of this subject, the 400mm f5.6 is a pretty awesome lens! on a 20D it'd be sweet for surf photography and also wildlife correct? i have a 70-200 f4 is which is damn sweet, just not quite long enough! also a 17-40 which I love!

[canonloader]

The 400/5.6 is maybe the best wildlife/birding lens ever made. It is very fast to focus, which you need when photographing any action, especially birds and wildlife. It's OK handheld, but I preferred mine on a tripod with a grip action head. On a 1D Body, it pairs up nicely with a 1.4x TC and keeps autofocus. :)

[Heath Holden Photography]

thanks for that. i am pretty keen on a 400mm, and i am sightly against the 100-400 after reading a few words on it. i also have 70-200 f4 is so the 100-400 would be kind of pointless!

[canonloader]

If you already have a lens with IS, then you already know the big drawback to using them for action photography. The IS unit has to spin up before the lens will drop into focus, and that can take .5 seconds or longer, by which time, the bird is gone, the wave has curled, the badger has eaten your car and you've missed your shot. I have gotten rid of all my IS lenses and I do not miss them, especially now that I have my new Bogen-Manfrotto tripod. ;)

[Heath Holden Photography]

Ha, and the bear has **** in the woods! Thanks for you help. Might order it NOW!

www.heathholdenphotography.com (http://www.heathholdenphotography.com) - still building!
www.redbubble.com/people/terribleone (http://www.redbubble.com/people/terribleone)

[snapper seven]

Can I ask a stupid question please?

I think we can all agree that this is a truly great lens and I am seriously considering buying one but my passion is motorsport and most of the images shown as examples of what this lens is capable of are for wildlife/birding.

Is there a reason why there aren't many motorsport images - in the sense that is this lens not suited to motorsport?
I struggle to see why given how fast and nimble the lens is but would just like some views before I part with my cash in case it is a bad buy for my needs.

...and no the 100-400L was never a consideration. (I have a 1D MKIIn and 70-200L 2.8 +1.4TC currently - just looking for extra length ooh er!)

Thanks

SS

[In2Photos]

Can I ask a stupid question please?

I think we can all agree that this is a truly great lens and I am seriously considering buying one but my passion is motorsport and most of the images shown as examples of what this lens is capable of are for wildlife/birding.

Is there a reason why there aren't many motorsport images - in the sense that is this lens not suited to motorsport?
I struggle to see why given how fast and nimble the lens is but would just like some views before I part with my cash in case it is a bad buy for my needs.

...and no the 100-400L was never a consideration. (I have a 1D MKIIn and 70-200L 2.8 +1.4TC currently - just looking for extra length ooh er!)

Thanks

SS
I am not a MS shooter but I would think that a zoom would be more desired due to its versatility. But from everything that I have read about this lens I don't see why it couldn't keep up with MS. It is one of the fastest focusing lenses (so I have heard).

[canonloader]

As long as the subject is far enough away to not overflow the frame, there is nothing wrong with the 400 Prime for motorsports. Still, you should try one before you buy one.

[rgravel]

Can I ask ...Thanks

I'm no expert in MS photography, but judging from my one experience at Le Circuit Mont-Tremblant a few years back with my 70-200, my EF 400 f/5.6 would be too long in most instances, at least for cars. It might be OK for motorcycles at that particular track though.

I guess it depends the circuit and how close one can get from the action, because the lens can certainly focus fast enough.

[snapper seven]

Well i guess I will be finding out for myself soon enough as I pulled the trigger today and bought one.

I was chatting with a few other people who said that at big circuits, such as Le Mans they are often found wanting 500mm plus I recall that alot of Formula One snappers use the 600mm F4 so I should be ok. I still have my 70-200 for smaller circuits so reckon I will have myself well covered and guess there is no reason why the lens won't perform well.
I'll let you know how I get on at the Classic Le Mans event with some pics from it perhaps

cheers

SS

[Mike-DT6]

Can I ask a stupid question please?

I think we can all agree that this is a truly great lens and I am seriously considering buying one but my passion is motorsport and most of the images shown as examples of what this lens is capable of are for wildlife/birding.

Is there a reason why there aren't many motorsport images - in the sense that is this lens not suited to motorsport?
I struggle to see why given how fast and nimble the lens is but would just like some views before I part with my cash in case it is a bad buy for my needs.

...and no the 100-400L was never a consideration. (I have a 1D MKIIn and 70-200L 2.8 +1.4TC currently - just looking for extra length ooh er!)

Thanks

SS

I had the same question as you! Here's my thread from January which has some helpful information:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=430696

Mike

:-)

[snapper seven]

Thanks for that link Mike! I hadn't seen that.

As you can see above I bought one today and I'm very happy with my decision and think it will compliment my current range nicely. I see major snappers use the 100-400 but like someone observed, rarely have I seen the 400 5.6L at motorsports (though I saw one at Brands last Sunday) but it was interesting to hear what Cadwell says about low light struggles with the 5.6. Watch any F1 event and they all seem to use the 500 or 600 F4's with and without TC's so I don't think it will be a massive problem.

I can't wait to get it and use it!!!

Did you go for one in the end?

Cheers

SS

[Mike-DT6]

Yes, I got mine a few weeks ago! :-D Like you I have the 70-200mm and the 400mm is an ideal companion for that lens.

I haven't been to any motorsport with it yet, but I have been practising with it in the back garden!

Mike

:-)

[silverwolf]

Would any of you recemmend a 1.4 or 2x TC for this lens i dont like the thoughts of a f8 or f11 MF only lens.Please help Sean .L

[canonloader]

Sean, I hate to manual focus. I'm not good at it, or fast enough. However, the 400 does auto focus fine on my 1D with a 1.4x attached. You can also get non-reporting 1.4x teleconverters that will allow it to AF on the 40D. It might hunt a bit in low light, but for me, it's better than MF. :)

And of course, it will always AF with Kenko tubes attached.

[silverwolf]

Thank's canonloader which TC sould i get.Sean .L:)

[In2Photos]

Thank's canonloader which TC sould i get.Sean .L:)
I have the cheaper Tamron TC and I think it does quite well on my 70-200 f/4. It is a non-reporting TC which is why I got it. I paid $75 for it second hand. Might want to take a look at that one.

This is the one I use:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/53109-REG/Tamron_AF14C700_1_4x_Teleconverter_for_Canon.html

[canonloader]

I know for a fact that this one does not report (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/389038-REG/Kenko_K15AFDGC_1_5x_DG_AF_Tele_Converter.html) to the camera and it's 1.5x. It's not the best though, and image quality does suffer a little bit. Still fair, but not as sharp as without. As any TC will do to one degree or another.

There is a tread devoted to just teleconverters (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41922) though and you should read it before deciding.

[vondo]

And of course, it will always AF with Kenko tubes attached.

I assume you mean with a Kenko teleconverter not (extenstion) tubes.

That's not true with the latest version of the Kenko TC. They report just like the Canon ones do, so I lose autofocus with my 20D and this combo. There is a trick to tape the pins, though.

[silverwolf]

Thank's you two the kenko 1.5 will give me 600mm and it's not a bad price either.Sean .L

[canonloader]

I assume you mean with a Kenko teleconverter not (extenstion) tubes.

No, I meant the Kenko tubes. No glass, just a tube to put the end of the lens further from the sensor, in effect, giving magnification to any lens. The down side is, you will lose infinity focus, but the still work very well for distances under 20 feet or so, and you keep auto focus.

The Kenko TC I linked to above does not report to the camera, so if you put it on a 400/5.6, the camera still sees it as f/5.6, allowing the camera to AF.

[silverwolf]

Awsome canon loader it seems like a attractive price and will give me 600mm.But the link that you gave me to the TC thread it says it does report, the only one i seen that does not report,is the tamron AF 1.4.Here is the link to it http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/53109-REG/Tamron_AF14C700_1_4x_Teleconverter_for_Canon.html
Thanks Sean

[canonloader]

Well, they are wrong. I own this TC and it does not report. A surefire indication of whether it reports or not is to look at the pins inside the end where the lens attaches. Reporting TC's have 11 pins, non-reporters have only 8. You can see in the image of the Kenko 1.5x at this link (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/389038-REG/Kenko_K15AFDGC_1_5x_DG_AF_Tele_Converter.html), it only has 8. It's the same as taping the pins, except it won't hunt all over in decent light.

You can call B&H and ask them, or order it. They have a two week no questions asked return policy. ;)

[silverwolf]

Thanks man.I got one more question will it retain the exif details like SS and everything else.Thank's again:)Sean

[In2Photos]

Thanks man.I got one more question will it retain the exif details like SS and everything else.Thank's again:)Sean
Yes and no. It will not give you the correct aperture or focal length. Everything else will report fine.

[silverwolf]

Thanks everybody i can save 200 bucks on this VS the canon, i can get me a grip to go with it too:pSean

[tommykjensen]

Hmm I think there is too much talk and too few photos :p

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo2.php?n=20080703_polarbear1.jpg

[condyk]

So ya takin' the 400mm to Africa this time or that crummy 100-400mm again? ;-)

[silverwolf]

I agree tommy.Here is a couple.:D, What does everybody think.Sean.L

[foxbat]

Although this thread is dominated by birds it's great to see all the other superb shots of planes and even people with this lens. Anyway enough of that and back to the birdies.

Juvenile blue tit:
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/foxbat_gb/Birds/8.jpg

Ruddy Turnstone:
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/foxbat_gb/forums/naturescapes/turnstone.jpg

[foxbat]

...and a seagull in the last few minutes of light:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/foxbat_gb/Birds/gull.jpg

[aladyforty]

...and a seagull in the last few minutes of light:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/foxbat_gb/Birds/gull.jpg


all great shots, its the best birding lens in my opinion

[aladyforty]

But its more versitile than people would have us believe, these are all handheld at ISO 500 F6.3

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3158/2617389560_04f8a3d35c_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/2615879484_3d3678f8c2_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3077/2615783434_9d38580c8e_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/2614835027_f4e0b38a20_o.jpg

[Buttkicker]

Great thread guys/gals
I have had my 400mm F5.6 for nearly 3 years and whats not to love about this Lens
some of mine
http://eventphotographer.smugmug.com/photos/158492367_S4g39-L.jpg
2
http://eventphotographer.smugmug.com/photos/158444832_3qSuA-L.jpg
3
http://eventphotographer.smugmug.com/photos/120793348_psf2Z-O.jpg
4
http://eventphotographer.smugmug.com/photos/298001698_4j4SS-L.jpg
5
http://eventphotographer.smugmug.com/photos/298001769_7oRNA-XL.jpg
6
http://eventphotographer.smugmug.com/photos/175029926_GQXXk-L.jpg
Cheers Chris

[aladyforty]

some great shots there chris. I only put this lens on my camera when I know Im going to need distance, such as birds, surfing and other sports etc. I think Ive only used a tripod once with it and a monopod twice, I find it very easy to handhold and the quality is wonderful

[Hawkman]

100% crops with some USM applied.
More at http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/40056_sampler_gallery

1D Mark IIN f5.6 (wild 13 lined ground squirrel)

http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/image/82737465/original.jpg

1D Mark IIN f7.2 (wild red-tailed hawk talon):

http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/image/82815927/original.jpg

[jjackflash]

Great stuff here
This was at f5.6 on a tripod.....love this lens!

[Adamora]

100% crops with some USM applied.
More at http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/40056_sampler_gallery

1D Mark IIN f5.6 (wild 13 lined ground squirrel)



1D Mark IIN f7.2 (wild red-tailed hawk talon):

http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/image/82815927/original.jpg


ITS A DINOSAUR :O

[Heath Holden Photography]

i bought this lens, pretty damn sweet!
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n185/bukchoklit/_MG_4005.jpg

[moronNZ]

My hello to this thread with my one week old 400mm F5.6
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2278/2663961700_97c0454a08_o.jpg

I absolutely love this lens:D

[Adamora]

My hello to this thread with my one week old 400mm F5.6
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2278/2663961700_97c0454a08_o.jpg

I absolutely love this lens:D


God...after reading IT that picture scared me to death

[Tee Why]

What's with all these birds? :) I replaced my bigma with the 400mm and I miss the versatility of the bigma on occassion but optically the 400mm is finer.

http://tomyi.smugmug.com/photos/331308018_P7Gx4-L.jpg

http://tomyi.smugmug.com/photos/326923888_LcfEf-L.jpg

http://tomyi.smugmug.com/photos/331292370_5DrKs-L-2.jpg

http://tomyi.smugmug.com/photos/327787622_ZYcdX-L.jpg

[bromm]

I love my 400 f/5.6, here are a few with it mounted on my XT.

Common Yellowthroat Warbler
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/bromm/IMG_2522-01.jpg

An American Bittern
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/bromm/IMG_2252-01.jpg





Mallard duckling

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/bromm/IMG_8205.jpg

And to digress from birds for a minute.. a Garter Snake

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/bromm/IMG_0266-01.jpg

And a Lady Slipper Orchid

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/bromm/IMG_1938-01.jpg

This Lens Rocks!! :D

[Bill634]

I will eventually buy this lens. I had been considering the 100-400 F5.6L for quite awhile but there are just too many soft copy anecdotes. If you live close to where you buy your lens I suppose you can get by with returning soft copies until you hit a sharp one but that's not too handy if you have to mail order all of your gear. You don't hear much about soft copies of this lens and most of the images posted on this thread are just outstanding. No 'IS' but a lens this big I'd be using with my tripod anyhow.

[silvex]

Great thread guys/gals
I have had my 400mm F5.6 for nearly 3 years and whats not to love about this Lens
some of mine

2

3

4

5
http://eventphotographer.smugmug.com/photos/298001769_7oRNA-XL.jpg
6

Cheers Chris

Killer shot ( no pun intended :) ) I would only crop it to make it dead symetrical and level it.

[aladyforty]

I will eventually buy this lens. I had been considering the 100-400 F5.6L for quite awhile but there are just too many soft copy anecdotes. If you live close to where you buy your lens I suppose you can get by with returning soft copies until you hit a sharp one but that's not too handy if you have to mail order all of your gear. You don't hear much about soft copies of this lens and most of the images posted on this thread are just outstanding. No 'IS' but a lens this big I'd be using with my tripod anyhow.


Ive never heard of a soft 400 5.6, I know mine is tack sharp, so glad I got it

[aladyforty]

I will eventually buy this lens. I had been considering the 100-400 F5.6L for quite awhile but there are just too many soft copy anecdotes. If you live close to where you buy your lens I suppose you can get by with returning soft copies until you hit a sharp one but that's not too handy if you have to mail order all of your gear. You don't hear much about soft copies of this lens and most of the images posted on this thread are just outstanding. No 'IS' but a lens this big I'd be using with my tripod anyhow.


Im sure you will love it

[Tee Why]

I will eventually buy this lens. I had been considering the 100-400 F5.6L for quite awhile but there are just too many soft copy anecdotes. If you live close to where you buy your lens I suppose you can get by with returning soft copies until you hit a sharp one but that's not too handy if you have to mail order all of your gear. You don't hear much about soft copies of this lens and most of the images posted on this thread are just outstanding. No 'IS' but a lens this big I'd be using with my tripod anyhow.
My guess is that the 400mm is simpler to make since it's only got 7 elements and essentially non moving vs the 100-400mm with 17 elements and an extending barrel. I hear that as the bearings for the extending part of the lens wears off, it's optics may suffer. Just what I heard.

[foxbat]

Given enough light you can even use it for motorsports.

A gorgeous lamborghini. The V10 sounding spectacular through the racing exhaust:
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/foxbat_gb/Sports/cars/_M1O6240.jpg

Ginetta G50 in a one make race:
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/foxbat_gb/Sports/cars/_M1O6211.jpg

8fps on the 1D Mark 2 captures the moment. Struggling for light here and had to go up to ISO 640. For serious motorsport photography you need a faster lens than this.
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/foxbat_gb/Sports/cars/_M1O6307.jpg

[silvex]

Given enough light you can even use it for motorsports.

A gorgeous lamborghini. The V10 sounding spectacular through the racing exhaust:
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/foxbat_gb/Sports/cars/_M1O6240.jpg

Ginetta G50 in a one make race:
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/foxbat_gb/Sports/cars/_M1O6211.jpg

8fps on the 1D Mark 2 captures the moment. Struggling for light here and had to go up to ISO 640. For serious motorsport photography you need a faster lens than this.
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/foxbat_gb/Sports/cars/_M1O6307.jpg
All great shots! love the lambo shot! I would clone out the fence in the back.

[Tee Why]

Some birds
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/photos/337468287_cyaXU-M.jpg

http://tomyi.smugmug.com/photos/326923888_LcfEf-L.jpg

Non birding uses.
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/photos/337481262_oKBzn-M.jpg

http://tomyi.smugmug.com/photos/337481791_pfm7i-M.jpg

[foxbat]

Anyone for more sports cars?

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/foxbat_gb/Sports/cars/_M1O6053.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/foxbat_gb/Sports/cars/_M1O6173.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/foxbat_gb/Sports/cars/_M1O6329.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/foxbat_gb/Sports/cars/_M1O6169-copy.jpg

[GMCPhotographics]

I've only had my copy of this fine lens for a few months. I love it!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3105/2729966536_91e3ffaaba_o.jpg
40D, 400 5.6L

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3154/2729136117_9f24601a7e_o.jpg
40D, 400 5.6L

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3087/2551320665_cc5e085737_o.jpg
40D, 400 5.6L

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/2634313673_8a10f25300_o.jpg
5D, 400 5.6L

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2627166771_082cbab1c7_o.jpg
5D, 400 5.6L

[sodalis]

Really enjoy this lens.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/alloutdoors/Nature/TwinFawnsweb.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/alloutdoors/Nature/_MG_1433web.jpg

[Adamora]

Really enjoy this lens.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/alloutdoors/Nature/TwinFawnsweb.jpg



Amazing photo. these photos just give someone a whole new perspective on photography.

[Adamora]

http://adamora.smugmug.com/photos/353222584_LcprR-X2.jpg

[Belmondo]

Oooooh. That's nice, Adam.http://adamora.smugmug.com/photos/353222584_LcprR-X2.jpg

[Adamora]

Oooooh. That's nice, Adam.


thank you tom :D

[canadacaller]

My First post here on this fourm so be gentle. These are all taken with a Cannon 40D with a Canon 400mm f/5.6 "L" .
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j159/canadacaller/IMG_5236.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j159/canadacaller/Disney1220.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j159/canadacaller/disney2361.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j159/canadacaller/disney2525.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j159/canadacaller/disney2488.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j159/canadacaller/disney2545.jpg



http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j159/canadacaller/07-21-08183-crop.jpg