400mm f/5.6L: First Impressions

This is my first telephoto lens over 200mm and I thought I would give my impressions on it having used the lens for a couple of days. I don't really do wall tests or any of that stuff, so I tend to use real world examples and impressions.

Build Quality:
The build is very nice on this lens. It has a very robust feel and appears to be made of mostly metal. I really like the simplicity of the design; there are two focus limiter switches and a mf/af switch and that's about it. The manual focus ring also has an interesting design with the large rubber ring and a smaller ring a little bit farther down the barrel. I actually like this design since my fingers seem to find the smaller ring towards the end in actual use.

I think that the built in hood is a brilliant idea. Since I always shoot with the hood on anyway, it prevents me from having to take it off and reverse it after storage. The mechanism works flawlessly, just push out and then screw to tighten. This goes for the tripod ring as well. You are able to take it off and on without removing the lens which is a very handy feature with a lens that is good for bif. I can be taking picture of an animal, look up and see a bird flying over, unscrew the tripod ring and raise the lens up to shoot handheld. This is design is similar to my Sigma 70-200 and I prefer it to the Canon 70-200 tripod collar.

Autofocus:
Very fast, especially on the 8.5m-infinity setting. Seems to lock on well and is very quiet in operation. I would compare the focus speed to the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses that I have used. I personally find it impressive that this lens can keep up with its f/2.8 cousins being a f/5.6 lens. The AF tracking is very smooth on this lens as well.

In Use
I really like the feel of this lens when using handheld. I find myself limited to strictly daylight usage without a tripod/monopod, but when I can use it handheld it is a joy to use. I am in the military and have a hunting background and using this lens reminds me of shooting. I am able to use my rifle techniques when shooting this lens due to the long, skinny barrel. It feels very light for a lens its size and is easy for me to carry around all day. It will take a while for me to develop skills in framing moving objects quickly at 400mm. I am used to zooming out and then zooming in once I have captured the target, but now I really have to work on my technique and being able to lock on target right away. My technique at this point is: look over the top of my hot shoe, line up on the target, then lower my eye into the viewfinder and raise camera slightly.

Lack of IS: One of the most debatable things about this lens is rather or not it is worth owning due to the lack of IS. I think it is, but does require some technique changes if you are used to using handheld lenses. I previously used my 70-200 f/2.8 for wildlife and found myself shooting handheld a lot of the time due to the f/2.8 aperture. I am now using my tripod pretty much exclusively. I don't really find this a problem since I believe that tripod images have the highest IQ in general anyway and one of the main reasons I chose this lens is for it's IQ reputation. I also am in the woods most of the time and try to keep my ISO 400 or below if possible and 800 at the max, so the tripod is needed due to lack of handholdable shutter speed.

Once I improve my long lens technique, I will probably try more handheld shots. One thing I will say is that while shooting during the day, it should be no problem to get sufficient shutter speeds for BIF shots at ISO 400 or less.

Image Quality:
Sharpness:I have found the image quality of this lens to be excellent. I did a test using a sign and found the lens to be almost exactly the same sharpness from f/5.6-f/8. This is the first lens that I've used where the results were this close (barely beating out my 17-55 which is excellent wide open). This is very nice since it will allow me to keep my ISO values lower and always have as limited a DOF as possible.

Colors etc.:Images are contrasty and have pleasing colors. Comparable to the other Canon L lens that I have used (70-200 f/2.8).

Bokeh: I find the bokeh very nice on this lens. One of the deciding factors on buying this lens was the bokeh quality. I have looked through the entire archive on both this lens and the 100-400 and have always preferred the bokeh of the prime to the zoom. That's not saying that the 100-400 can't provide nice bokeh, I've seen some excellent bokeh from the lens, but that the prime seems to provide more consistent bokeh, especially in busy backgrounds. The zoom bokeh sometimes has a funky look that I don't like, but it's just a personal preference.

Test Images
ISO 400, f/5.6 about a 30% crop

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Although not the same lens, it is similar... The 300 f/4L IS is close to your entire review for me. IS aside, they look to have the same build and characteristics... I LOVE the built in hood so much! I wish more lenses had this! Wide open (like the 400) I find it very sharp with only minor sharpening if stopped down (not even a full stop) at f/4.5 or f/5… It is like my “sweet” zone, where I gain stop-down sharpness but stay close to wide open. It balances nicely if that makes any sense.

These two lenses although "aging" are tried and true... They work wonderfully!

My only "problem" with the 300 is that it can be awkward to hold due to where the focus ring is located. Where I place my hands is basically where the focus ring is, so I feel like my hand may shift the focus sometimes on accident. If I have the tripod collar on though, it seems to prevent that a little because I seem to rest the collar in my palm so it is not on the focus ring. Do you find this same issue with the 400? Its not a big deal, but maybe it is just me!

I was debating between the 300 and 400 when I was looking for a super telephoto.. I went with the 300 only because of IS really and the MDF (which is GREAT)... I want to look into some extension tubes soon for this lens and my 135L...

I agree my copy was as sharp if not more at f5.6 than at f8.

Invertalon wrote in post #10413184
My only "problem" with the 300 is that it can be awkward to hold due to where the focus ring is located. Where I place my hands is basically where the focus ring is, so I feel like my hand may shift the focus sometimes on accident. If I have the tripod collar on though, it seems to prevent that a little because I seem to rest the collar in my palm so it is not on the focus ring. Do you find this same issue with the 400? Its not a big deal, but maybe it is just me!

The way that I hold the 400, this generally isn't a problem. There may be a little bit more space between the back of the 400 and the zoom ring than on the 300. When I shoot handheld I hold the lens around the part where the tripod collar goes (I take it off shooting handheld most of the time). When shooting on a tripod, I hold further down towards the middle of the lens hood part.

Invertalon wrote in post #10413184
I was debating between the 300 and 400 when I was looking for a super telephoto.. I went with the 300 only because of IS really and the MDF (which is GREAT)

Have you tried the 300 with a tc yet? I've seen some great shots with this combo. I chose the 400 for ultimate IQ at the longest focal length I could afford, but I've always thought that the 300 f/4 was a killer lens. I'm actually considering purchasing the 300 in the future for those times when I need f/4 or IS and also because it makes such a great long distance macro. Even with tubes, the 400 doesn't do this as well (but I'm going to get some tubes anyway for my "still life" nature shots.)

I try to handhold my 300 towards the lens hood if possible, but just does not feel 'right'... The best place that is comfortable for me is RIGHT where the focus ring is... So at times I battle to hold it, haha. But I am still "new" with this lens so my technique should improve. I don't think I have had any "focus slip" by my hand, but it just feels like it will!

Oh yes, the 1.4x TC with the 300 is excellent.. Here is one of my shots, wide open at f/5.6... It impressed me to be honest! AF still fast and the outcome was better than expected. One thing I like about the 300 was the versatility... 300 f/4 or 420mm f/5.6 with IS.. Add in the MFD + 1.4x TC and it gets even better. I want to try an extension tube as well with it (but trying to learn about those now...)

Invertalon wrote in post #10413349
I will be happy when and if they update the 300L... Even with a price increase, bring on even better optics, 4-stop IS and keep the MFD (or even better) I will be all over it. Even if they increase the price by $500 I sold my 70-200 f/4 IS for this lens and I do not regret it ONE bit!

I would also like to see a 400L update with 4 stop IS. I'd probably sell my current copy to fund the new one. Both the 300 and 400 are probably due for an upgrade, but are still excellent lenses right now. I think that the 400 is more of a "niche" lens and the 300 has a lot of versatility for a prime.

The 400 certainly seems to have a nicer collar and focus ring position than the 300, resulting in a nicer balance. Given the relatively similar size of the lenses it's surprising they did this.

A long QR plate or some DIY solution on the tripod collar should help the 300s handling.