Canon 400 5.6L

[Frogballs]

Hello all mentors. Please help me out here. Large glass is what I want but, why wouldn't I want this lens, is it too old not good. What am I not understanding? I shoot motorsports and I am a rookie and trying to learn. I find my 70-200 2.8 is short at times and I can't afford $5000.

[Terry66]

I use it all the time for sports. It's a great lens. It is incredibly sharp, great color, super fast AF, light, and fairly small for a 400. No question it would be much better to have a 400L f2.8, but do you have $6K?

I love this lens....however, for motorsports, I find that a 300mm would be more practical. I also have a 200L f2.8 prime and use it with a 1.4 to get in the 300mm range which is why I went with the 400L f5.6

Hope that helps!

[Frogballs]

So I have a 70-200 2.8 only, what would your next purchase be. I do alot of walking in the pits to and the lens I have makes the quick pics tough. I was thinking of the 24-70 2.8 for my next purchase?

[Terry66]

For the pits, I think something a little wider would be cool. Maybe a 17-40L or a 16-35L if you shoot night races. I don't think you would miss the 40-70 range all that much, but that is just a personal opinion. Either lens would work great.

I think if I were you, I would add a 1.4X to get you in the 300mm range and then add a good quality short zoom depending on yuor tastes.

[fortinaa]

I had the 400 5.6L and found it to be an awsome lens in terms of quality. My only gripe was that it was a 5.6. It was pretty much useless for anything in the evening other than at very high ISO. The other thing I didn't like (at least for wildlife) was the 3m closest focusing distance. I like the 300F4 much better for focus distance, but it is slower to focus. The other lens I have looked at for reach and speed sake is the Sigma 120-300 2.8. Reported to be a great and sharp zoom that you can add 1.4 and 2x TC to and retain AF. With either TC, you'd still be as fast as the 400 at 5.6.

[Panza]

I must agree here. I have the 400 5.6, and it is a great lens as far as build-quality, picture-quality and AF speed goes.
But it it is a daylight lens and the 400 2.8 which I am getting would be much better. Many $$$$ though.. :(

[swalter]

Here's a review of the lens at Luminous Landscape

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

-Scott

[Croasdail]

I personally can't stand the 100-400 L, but RFMSports uses it and has done some pretty great stuff with it. It is optically as just as slow and probably not as sharp as a really good 400 prime (so just don't magnify it to 200% on screen), but the flexibility it would give you would be really nice to have. It's also in the same ball park price wise. The 400 prime is a rock solid lens - can go wrong with it and there lots of good used ones out there.

[Frogballs]

What to do! I am a hobbyist that would love to be taken under someone's wing and be taught. I am a mechanic and would love a career change but photography seems to be flooded for $$$. I bought the 20d and the 70-200 IS and I shoot motorsports for the most part and love the results of the BIG glass. I would likea 500mm IS but the cost is scairy if I don't get paid for using it.

[DavidEB]

look at the shots you take now with your 70-200 and see how many of them have the subject in less than half the screen. Or how often your best shot is too far away. If it's a lot, then 400 is for you. If not, then you're doing fine as it is. You might also scrape by with a 1.4x t-con taking you up to 280mm at f4.

Another question is, how many of the situations you shoot in require f4 or faster? An f5.6 lens won't do you well in twilight, or on dark cloudy days when you need a high shutter speed. Try shooting a few of your events limiting your current lens to f5.6 and see how it works out, in terms of exposure and freezing the action. Then you won't have any surprises if you do buy the 400 f5.6.

[Frogballs]

I started by shooting drag racing, it's where I started racing, but I do attend other stuff. When I go to a Nascar race, I refuse to bring more than my 70-200. I find that Friday night produces some intense pictures with the flames from the fuel cars, but it is at night. What is the lowest f stop you would shoot without going past 800 ISO. I feel above that the pictures are far from crisp. I am really thinking about renting a 400 or 500 for next weeks points race. I am just afraid I will fall in love. I can say for the most part the pictures I have shot do fill in the frame, but the HUGE car in the frame look of the big lenses is desirable. But I feel for someone who doesn't get paid and just loves photography combined with autosports the $3K lenses are for people who have the cash. I wish I knew someone to go halves with!