Minimum focus distance on 400/f5.6L. Real issue or not?

I am just taking my first steps on shooting birds and so far I've been mainly using 20D and 200/2.8L with 1.4x II and 2x II. So far my main issues with 200/2.8L and TCs have been that:
- AF is bit slow
- with 2x II, one should stop it down to f8
- shaky, if I don't take monopod with me
- focal length falls short -> heavy cropping

Last issue about focal length is an area, where I have do more studies about birds behavious, unless we start talking about 500/4L IS or 300/2.8L IS. When looking for cheaper solution main contenders seem to be 300/4L IS and 400/5.6L.

Pros for 300mm lens: IS, can be used at f4 and 420mm focal length with 1.4x II
Pros for 400mm lens: faster AF and should have better IQ at 400mm (vs. 300 + 1.4x)

One potential pitfall that occasionally comes up on various forums about 400/5.6L is the 3.5m minimum focus distance (in comparison to 1.5m in 300/4L). Is it something that is causing problems on real life, when typical birds size around here is something from blue tit, house sparrow, etc. to common gull?

Hmm.. I thought that I had found new angle to 300mm vs. 400mm lens question, but it seems that "minimum focus distance 400mm" gives nice list of answers for me to study, so I guess we can classify this topic as 'case closed'.

Just as quick link for those search for answer to this issue:
https://photography-on-the.net …imum+focus+dist​ance+400mm

Patience ...we in North America are just now waking up (and that's just us in the East...)

The minimum focus distance was one of the main reasons I chose the 100-400 (OK, not 300, but similar focus distance)over the 400 prime. In my experience on this side of the pond winter feeder birds will come quite close - and so do shorebirds in the fall. I've been happy with that decision so far as I've taken many shots of birds from under ten feet away. I've also been able to take flower close-ups and larger insects without having to always use tubes because I could get relatively close.

Nothing against the prime though as it is an amazing lens. If you don't anticipate shooting from that close you do have the extra reach over the 300, and it is quite a sharp and fast focussing lens...

Will a Kenko extension tube shorten the minimal focal length (400/5.6) without losing the IQ? I believe you have to use tape in order to retain the AF feature.

Tom

I have used Kenko tubes quite a bit with my 400L, before I sold it. You can stack all three in the set and still keep AF and minimum focus is about 3.5 feet. But, a small sparrow that close will more than fill the frame. I used the 20mm tube most often and that brings minimum distance in to about 7.5 feet. Just remember, you will lose maximum focus distance, [Infinity] when using any tube. With any of the tubes, IQ remains high since there is no glass in them. But I would recommend using a tripod. In fact, I recommend using a tripod all the time with this lens as it will increase IQ no matter what, by reducing any and all hand shake.

BTW, I would also recomment you never use the tape trick. I found that it makes the USM chatter a lot when finding focus, and that is not good for the USM. Over even a short trial with using tape, I felt that it had already "loosened up" the focusing mechanism inside the lens and I quit using it. If you want to use TC's and keep AF, buy a 1D body.

thanks for the answer! Great information!
Tom

canonloader wrote in post #3537630
I have used Kenko tubes quite a bit with my 400L, before I sold it. You can stack all three in the set and still keep AF and minimum focus is about 3.5 feet. But, a small sparrow that close will more than fill the frame. I used the 20mm tube most often and that brings minimum distance in to about 7.5 feet. Just remember, you will lose maximum focus distance, [Infinity] when using any tube. With any of the tubes, IQ remains high since there is no glass in them. But I would recommend using a tripod. In fact, I recommend using a tripod all the time with this lens as it will increase IQ no matter what, by reducing any and all hand shake.

Mitch, by the way, did you use the tape method to keep AF, or do you just set a manual focus on a feeder for example?
Tom

You don't lose AF with Kenko tubes, only teleconverters. Never use tape. Seriously, don't even try it as even short periods of using the tape trick can ruin a lens.

I also quit using the tape to try to use a 1/4 TC and my shots improved tremendously. The 400 with a TC will not focus consistently (an expert told me this-MOREHTML!!)
I LOVE the 400, but have just ordered a 70-200 because of the distance thing. I went to the Memphis zoo and was constantly having to change from the 400 to my 24-70 due to differences in enclosure sizes,etc. I figure with the 70-200 I'm going to have to do less changing. I HOPE!!!!
Karen

The flexibility of the zoom and the minimum focus distance, well not to mention IS, were the key reasons I chose the 100-400L over the 400 f5.6L. IQ is just a bit better with the couple different copies of the 400 I've shot compared with the three copies of the 100-400 I've shot.

But I do a lot of shooting of birds coming in to feeding stations, and I'm in a blind, and a small bird from six feet away fills about half the frame at 400mm, leaving a nice bit of air around the bird. It's worked well for me.

If I had to depend on the 400 prime in that setting with its 11-foot minimum focus distance, I'd slap on the extension tube to help counteract the issue.

Regardless of the lens, when I'm shooting from the blind like that I'm always using a tripod with a ball head, so IS becomes moot in those circumstances. If I had a bit more cash, I'd buy the 400 prime and couple it with the tubes on the tripod on one of my bodies, and put the 100-400L IS on the other body to pick up when those unexpected situations arise that develop too quickly for tripod use or happen beyond the compromised max focus distance of the 400/tube setup.