Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM

[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!!

[aladyforty]

a few more

All handheld ISO500 F6.3

[jacobsen1]

Originally Posted by perryge

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!!

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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

[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