Talk me out of a 400mm f5.6

Ok so I currently own a 70-200mm f2.8 MII and a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS - both of which are very fine and great lenses. I can even put a 2*TC on the sigma and get decent shots at 600mm eg
https://c1.staticflick​r.com …30028951_a99516​284f_b.jpg

However I recently nosed around ebay and saw the prices on the 400mm f5.6. I know that the 400mm is a very popular lens for its price point; offering great optics at a very affordable price. Thing is whilst its very tempting I wonder if its really not worth it for me. It's bonus over the sigma is size and weight and likely some sharpness at the 400mm end; plus no need to use teleconverters to get to 400mm; however it is only 400mm. It's not really offering me anything I can't do already, whilst at the same time eating up money and space.


Sure it will keep a good resale value; but reselling again means having to find a buyer and going through all those hoops in the future.


So talk me out of wanting one (or not).

No

Big advantage for me was the swing weight, as it was relatively light, it made birding so much more easier as you could change direction pan etc

Heya,

If your 120-300 was longer, I'd say yes, get it. Having a 400mm sidekick to a 600mm setup for example makes sense. But your 120-300 already does what this lens does, with stabilization, and it's faster focal-ratio. Put a 1.4x TC on your 120-300 and you're set, at F4, stop down to F5.6 just to ensure sharpness and you have the same thing, with stabilization. Sure, it weighs more, but carrying both weighs even more. And you'll miss versatility of your zoom when you are static on just 400mm.

For me, I commonly was shooting a 150-600 for birds on both full frame and APS-C. I got a 300 F4L IS as its sidekick. I now actually use the 300 F4L IS on my 7D more than anything as I found I was getting closer to my subjects and didn't need the 600mm as much. I really enjoy the light weight, size, speed, everything of the smaller shorter lens with stabilization. So for me it made a lot of sense to get that shorter, lighter lens.

Thing is, for you, you already have a 300 F2.8 basically. And you can throw a TC on it.

Instead of a 400 F5.6, I'd just get a good monopod with a tilt head, and keep a 1.4x and 2.0x TC in the bag. You're already set.

But, then again, just to play devil's advocate, if you're really just not enjoying your 120-300 F2.8 OS because of its weight, then maybe you should be looking at a lighter lens. You'll do more shooting if you enjoy the gear. And the best lens is the lens you actually use after all.

You can always get the 400 F5.6L or a 300 F4L IS or something like that, with a 1.4x TC where you want. Try one out. See how it suits you. If you like it, keep it. If you don't, re-sell it. It's like a free rental and you get the experience.

I personally again went with the 300 F4L IS route, because it works well with a 1.4x TC to get me 420mm if I feel I need it, has stabilization, and is F4 and sharp at F4 with a very close (4.9 feet) minimum focus distance, so its a very versatile lens, can do macro pretty much out in the swamp for when I'm right up on something, or I can extend out with the TC. I also shoot on a 7D, and it performs great. Light weight. Stabilization. I chose this setup over the static 400 F5.6 without stabilization for the versatility. It compliments my 150-600mm, but honestly, I often don't even take the 600mm because I can get close enough to not need it these days. I got my 30o F4L IS for about $500 from KEH.

I still will make an argument for having a mount though. Either a tripod with a gimbal, or a monopod with a tilt head. It makes a huge difference with telephotos. So much easier to smoothly pan and track something in flight. And for things that are being still, well, you get a lot more odds to keep it sharp in the wind and it takes the weight off your arms while you wait for the right moment. Highly recommend you try something if you don't already use mounts with long lenses.

+++++++++++++++

I use a monopod + tilt head, and a tripod + gimbal setup. When walking, I do the monopod and tilt head. When sitting or hiding, I use the tripod and gimbal.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/JPSL​df

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/LgGe​zX

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/JJ9o​Fw

I totally agree with everything MalVeauX said in the above post. I also own the 300 f4 and would choose it again in a heartbeat over the 400 f5.6. If you just have to have a 400mm lens, spend a little (or a lot)more and consider a new Canon 100-400 or a gently used Canon 400 f4!

The 400/5.6 is a great lens, and unique for weight and size. Perfect walkaround BIF lens.
Never felt the need for IS, but then again light is not a problem here

As you have already said, it's not really offering me anything you can't do already, if you simply add a 1.4x teleconvertor to that Sigma you have a 1EV faster 400mm to shoot with, whilst at the same time eating up money and space. Furthermore, its purchase further proves to your wife what a fool you are, and that she really should have married whats-his-name!

(is that enough dis-incentive?)

Watch out... I smell GAS here !
Am I the only one ?

Wilt wrote in post #18316931
Furthermore, its purchase further proves to your wife what a fool you are, and that she really should have married whats-his-name!

(is that enough dis-incentive?)

Wait but I don't have one of those!

Yes this might be a bad case of GAS.

The size/weight issue is certainly one I feel with the 120-300mm. Not as much as when I started using it, but it's certainly no featherweight. Heck its heavier than a 300mm f2.8 L MII.
I think what pushes me is that after the 400mm 5.6 the only improvement to what I have really is hitting the super-telephotos. Which start near the £5K mark and go all the way past £10K. Not impossible targets to meet, but hard to reach and take years to hit (esp as there's always other little purchases that appear along the way - both essential and desirable).

Stop procastinating, buy it.
If you dont like it, sell it.
You will make your money back.
I have both the 400 F 5.6 and the 100-400 MK II
They are both good

As you say, you have the focal range covered with T-Cons. The SIGMA will get you there very well.

HOWEVER, the one reason I can thing of to add the 400mm f/5.6L to your line up would be for pointing at fast moving subjects with super fast AF.

If you need this, this lens is the best for that one trick. It is the go to birds in flight lens for a reason.

You simply can not use the 120-300mm in the same way. It can't be made to deploy or track as fast, and even with it's nice AF, it is not as fast as the 400mm.

As you say, it's this or a 500mm+

I regret not buying one sooner. SO sharp!

Go on buy it, you know you want too...

I thought about getting one for some time until I cracked and bought one, loved it. Then sold it as i needed the money for something else (sold it for what I paid for it) have since been through the same cycle again. I have really enjoyed the lens both times I have owned it and have not lost out selling it on either occasion. I suspect I will have another in the future, it is a superb bird in flight lens...

When I had a copy it was my take everywhere lens, glad I had it with me on a trip to the dentist... (uncrossed shot on a 40D).

You should NOT buy a 400 F5.6 L! You should buy (my) 300 F2.8 L IS

There we are, I have talked you out of a 400 F5.6 L!

Seriously though the 400 F5.6 L is a great lens for the money, good/v good IQ, light, fast AF and no IS! Probably why the AF is quick?

The Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 or Mk2 is a better lens but heavier and more expensive (even better AF despite IS). If your budget would allow I would go for one of these.

However if the price or weight are too much then the 400 F5.6 L is a bargain - especially second hand.

I took a CPS eval loan for both the 300f4IS and 400f5.6 last fall. I HATED the 300's IS startup. It's clunky as hell(even more so than the 70-200ISmk1 I used to have), feels awkward and I felt that I had to wait until it started to spin before actually hitting the shutter for it to be effective, which is several seconds. For as much as everyone says the 400f5.6 should be updated with IS, the 300f4IS needs to be updated as well with the newer IS. I noticed that every time I put it on, I wanted more reach. I put it on only a few times. BUT, I absolutely LOVED the 400f5.6! It's super sharp, focuses really fast and is relatively light. It also pairs REALLY well with the 1.4x extender too. Dark viewfinder at f8 but still very accurate. I've been watching them on the used market ever since. I've seen them as low as $675 but most hover around $750 or so. It's an absolutely awesome lens at that price. My dilemma is that I rented the 1-4mk2 in Jan along with the 5dsr and now I've complicated things for myself.

Buy a used 400mm f5.6 and create some awesome images!

There is a great IS update to the Canon 300 F4 L IS, It is simple, free and works! It is called the OFF switch

Joking aside, turn IS off, and the 300 F4 L IS really comes into it's own with quicker responding AF and MUCH better tracking - so much so that I bought mine in preference to the 400 F5.6. However if you, or the OP, really needs 400mm then the 300 F4 L IS is not the best tool for the job - the 400 is just better if one needs reach.