Canon 400 F5.6

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 end

Archive 2008 · Canon 400 F5.6

Sanlameer
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · Canon 400 F5.6

BH photovideo indicates that this lens is in stock again. It was not available for months. I guess, no IS or an update in the in the near future.

Dec 15, 2008 at 07:46 PM

abqnmusa
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · Canon 400 F5.6

Yes, but it is a very sharp, fast focusing lens. Great for birding & wildlife.

Dec 15, 2008 at 07:49 PM

orangefirefish
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Canon 400 F5.6

Don't hesitate to use it with a 1.4x if you have a 1d body! Awesome lens.

Dec 15, 2008 at 07:51 PM

wing tong
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · Canon 400 F5.6

Sanlameer wrote:
BH photovideo indicates that this lens is in stock again. It was not available for months. I guess, no IS or an update in the in the near future.

A lens going out of stock for a period of time does not indicate that that lens may receive any upgrades. Aside for the canon cash-cow line (ie. 24-70, 24-105IS, etc.), production lines for low demand lenses like the 400 f/5.6 (relatively speaking) runs for a short period of time and then stops while that same manufacturing line is retooled for other low demand lenses.

Dec 15, 2008 at 08:03 PM

Sanlameer
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · Canon 400 F5.6

wing tong wrote:
Sanlameer wrote:
BH photovideo indicates that this lens is in stock again. It was not available for months. I guess, no IS or an update in the in the near future.

A lens going out of stock for a period of time does not indicate that that lens may receive any upgrades. Aside for the canon cash-cow line (ie. 24-70, 24-105IS, etc.), production lines for low demand lenses like the 400 f/5.6 (relatively speaking) runs for a short period of time and then stops while that same manufacturing line is retooled for other low demand lenses.

Thanks, I realise it, but one could always hope. The 300 F4 had an update and the 400 F5.6 deserve one too. "? Wishfull thinking"

Dec 16, 2008 at 01:05 PM

trenchmonkey
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Canon 400 F5.6

It has no peers...JUST the way it is.

Dec 16, 2008 at 01:08 PM

Colin Key
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Canon 400 F5.6

Sanlameer wrote:

I guess, no IS or an update in the in the near future.

Why do folk come on here wanting/demanding/anticipating an "up-grade" to IS on this beautiful lens. One of its selling points is that it has no IS - it is simple, fast, cheap and best value for money in Canon's "L" line-up at the moment. Adding IS would kill it stone dead.

Too many "wanna-be's" think that IS is a panacea to better photographs - it is NOT.

Colin

Dec 16, 2008 at 01:28 PM

Sanlameer
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · Canon 400 F5.6

Colin Key wrote:

Too many "wanna-be's"

Colin

Was that comment really neccesary?

Dec 16, 2008 at 05:02 PM

trenchmonkey
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · Canon 400 F5.6

I don't think Colin was singling you out, judging by your profile you've been around.

This lens is perfect for what it does.
Too many people think IS is a necessity for great IQ. If things are moving and your SS isn't up...no IS in the world will help.
The 400 f5.6L is light, fast, well built, gorgeous IQ, and relatively cheap for what you get. Be happy it's available!

Canon EOS 40D 400 mm f/5.6 1/1000 sec 400 ISO 0.0 EV

Dec 16, 2008 at 05:15 PM

retrofocus
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Canon 400 F5.6

Colin Key and Trenchmonkey: I don't quite understand the logic here in your statements, please help me out. The 70-200 f4 lens comes in two versions - with IS and without IS. The IS version is super sharp and did not decrease the photo quality at all as most tests confirm. So why can't this be transferred to the 400 f5.6 lens? Why should an additional IS on this lens decrease picture quality or increase the weight a lot (for the 70-200 f4 versions the weight increase by adding the IS is minimal). I can see that an IS system would be a price increase for such lens, but isn't a good IS worth it?

Again, I am not somebody who does not understand how to use an IS correctly, but it is certainly advantageous in situations where you don't have a tripod available and you need to handhold your camera setup.

Dec 16, 2008 at 05:25 PM

trenchmonkey
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · Canon 400 F5.6

I personally wouldn't mind an IS version but would be feign to cough up 2x the money.
I've purchased 1/2 a dozen in the $800-$950 range and you can bet the "improved" one
would be double that. I shoot Nikon too and have faster glass for my lower light needs.
I still shoot this Canon glass because it's THAT GOOD as is. Be careful drawing parallels
to the 70-200 f4L IS update. Everyone knows what a freak that lens is.

Dec 16, 2008 at 05:34 PM

retrofocus
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Canon 400 F5.6

Thanks, trenchmonkey, for clarifying this! I fully agree with your statement now. I have hoped for a 400 f5.6 IS version just being $500 more expensive than the non-IS version - but this might be too optimistic! I agree that not a lot of people would like to spend twice the amount of money for the affordable price tag of the non-IS version - honestly I would go for the non-IS version then, too!
Great bird shot BTW above!!!

Dec 16, 2008 at 06:39 PM

M Vers
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Canon 400 F5.6

trenchmonkey wrote:
Be careful drawing parallels to the 70-200 f4L IS update. Everyone knows what a freak that lens is.

Its not only the 70-200/4IS that has outstanding IQ with the addition of IS, but its the EF-S 17-55, 18-55 and the 24-105 as well. Could they be better lenses w/o IS?--who knows but they sure as hell perform pretty well as they are. Point is modern day IS systems do not affect IQ negatively at all--and this is proven. As for weight, that is negligible as well. The only thing you will see a difference in is price, but for some that increase is meaningless for what they get. I say either update the 400/5.6 with an IS system or leave it and add a 400/4IS non-DO and price accordingly (somewhere dead smack in the middle of the 400/5.6 and 400DO).

Dec 16, 2008 at 06:54 PM

trenchmonkey
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · Canon 400 F5.6

Thank you! Retro.

I'm reminded of the 300 f4 to 300 f4 IS "upgrade" The non-IS was sharper and focused much faster w/TC.
What I'd love to see is a 400 f4.5 IS for around $2K, not holding my breath on that happening.

Dec 16, 2008 at 07:00 PM

trenchmonkey
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · Canon 400 F5.6

M Vers wrote:
trenchmonkey wrote:
Be careful drawing parallels to the 70-200 f4L IS update. Everyone knows what a freak that lens is.

Dec 16, 2008 at 07:13 PM

M Vers
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · Canon 400 F5.6

trenchmonkey wrote:
I didn't know EF-S lenses were part of the discussion...."L's" methinks. The 70-200 f2.8 is
sharper than it's IS counterpart...ask anyone who's shot with both. Back OT it's about the prime
and I maintain there's nothing wrong with it as is.

I brought up the others as examples (24-105L as one) of modern IS systems, their affects on IQ, weight, and cost, so I think that's a viable point. I'd also like to say that I do not think there is anything wrong with it (400/5.6) atm as well--but IS sure would be a helping factor IF IQ is maintained. I think its safe to say based on the most recent lenses that IS is the wave of the future--specifically when looking at teles+super teles...(200/2IS, 800/5.6IS are good examples). As for the whole 70-200/2.8 thing, does the IS version have the latest version of IS implemented? Aside from that, my copy is plenty (extremely) sharp enough wide-open at all FL's.

Dec 16, 2008 at 07:19 PM

LCollector
Offline
Account Locked

p.1 #17 · Canon 400 F5.6

Not diverting any attention from the original topic, but that posted image really does not portray/justify the quality/detail this lens can produce. That bird has squinted eyes and is over-saturated/over-sharpened, edges look jagged to me !!!

And,OP, this lens is great without IS, remember, without IS, it's cheap too. And there's no lens that even comes closer for the price/quality ratio.

-L

Dec 16, 2008 at 07:33 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · Canon 400 F5.6

It needs neither IS, nor updating.

Canon EOS 5D 400 mm f/8.0 1/250 sec 1600 ISO -0.3 EV

Edited on Dec 16, 2008 at 07:39 PM · View previous versions

Dec 16, 2008 at 07:39 PM

M Vers
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · Canon 400 F5.6

LCollector wrote:
And,OP, this lens is great without IS, remember, without IS, it's cheap too. And there's no lens that even comes closer for the price/quality ratio.

...300 f/4IS ring any bells?

Dec 16, 2008 at 07:39 PM

LCollector
Offline
Account Locked

p.1 #20 · Canon 400 F5.6

MVers..I doubt. Send me a professional review that shows the 300 f/4 IS is superior to the 400 f/5.6. I will pay you.

Dec 16, 2008 at 07:43 PM

M Vers
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #21 · Canon 400 F5.6

Depends on what you consider professional...
400/5.6
300/4IS
The two are so close IQ wise that you couldn't possibly pick out one from the other in a series of images. Price is very similar as well.

Dec 16, 2008 at 07:52 PM

tanglefoot47
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #22 · Canon 400 F5.6

Colin Key wrote:
Sanlameer wrote:

I guess, no IS or an update in the in the near future.

Why do folk come on here wanting/demanding/anticipating an "up-grade" to IS on this beautiful lens. One of its selling points is that it has no IS - it is simple, fast, cheap and best value for money in Canon's "L" line-up at the moment. Adding IS would kill it stone dead.

Too many "wanna-be's" think that IS is a panacea to better photographs - it is NOT.

Colin

I totally agree with you and think about it having IS would add weight, cost much more and you only need it in low light. I used the 400 for flying birds many times and IS would not help

It's a great lens leave it alone

Dec 17, 2008 at 04:16 AM

M Vers
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #23 · Canon 400 F5.6

tanglefoot47 wrote:
Colin Key wrote:
Sanlameer wrote:

I guess, no IS or an update in the in the near future.

Why do folk come on here wanting/demanding/anticipating an "up-grade" to IS on this beautiful lens. One of its selling points is that it has no IS - it is simple, fast, cheap and best value for money in Canon's "L" line-up at the moment. Adding IS would kill it stone dead.

Too many "wanna-be's" think that IS is a panacea to better photographs - it is NOT.

Colin

Yea, you're right...IS does absolutely nothing to help the photographer--its all a marketing ploy. Damn, all these years I could have sworn it did something. Maybe I should just turn it off for good and shoot strictly BIF and action field sports at shutter speeds higher than 1/200th like everyone else. Oh well, I guess there's always tripods and bumping up the ISO....never thought I'd be a wanna-be

Dec 17, 2008 at 04:28 AM

skid00skid00
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #24 · Canon 400 F5.6

Adding IS to the 400 would double it's cost. The cost would go from ~$1000, to ~1500, demand would drop, and Canon would charge ~$2000 to pay for retooling, and still make a profit.

Adding 4-6 additional lens elements ALWAYS decreases optical performance. You can make up for that by more spendy lens glass, polishing, and coatings... Which makes for a higher price, which decreases sales, which increases price.

I get 70% pixel-sharp shots with my 400 AND 1.4x TC, on a 1Ds, handheld, at 1/200 second. Here's some other handheld shots: http://home.earthlink.net/~ladlueck3/sharp560.htm

Dec 17, 2008 at 05:38 AM

M Vers
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #25 · Canon 400 F5.6

skid00skid00 wrote:
Adding IS to the 400 would double it's cost. The cost would go from ~$1000, to ~1500, demand would drop, and Canon would charge ~$2000 to pay for retooling, and still make a profit.

Adding 4-6 additional lens elements ALWAYS decreases optical performance. You can make up for that by more spendy lens glass, polishing, and coatings... Which makes for a higher price, which decreases sales, which increases price.

I get 70% pixel-sharp shots with my 400 AND 1.4x TC, on a 1Ds, handheld, at 1/200 second. Here's some other handheld shots: http://home.earthlink.net/~ladlueck3/sharp560.htm

Did adding IS to the 300/4 double its cost and significantly affect its IQ and weight? What about the 500+600mm's? What about the 70-200/4IS and the 18-55IS...are they not worth the extra cost for better IQ and versatility? As I stated prior, modern IS systems are now cheaper to produce and while many still have the notion that it adversely affects IQ and weight that notion is simply wrong. New technology always adds significant cost to a product--as time passes and that technology ages and becomes more common the overall cost drops and more lenses are integrated with the technology (the same thing happened when AF, USM, and SP coatings/elements were developed). This can be seen in Canon's most recent lens releases--70-300 DOIS, 400/4 DOIS, 70-200/4IS, 24-105IS, 18-55IS, 17-55IS, 17-85IS, 70-300IS, 55-250IS, 200/2IS, 800/5.6IS. The majority of recent glass is fit with an IS system. See a pattern? Not all of it is cheap, but the price does not reflect only the addition of IS--IQ has also increased as well. For example: the 70-200/4IS is double the cost of the non-IS because of the lenses IQ superiority compared to the non-IS ver. ONTOP of the addition of IS--not only because of IS. If you honestly believe Canon will not update or replace the 16 year old 400/5.6 with an IS variant (be it f/5.6 or f/4--which there is, just not in production) in the near future I'm sorry to say you are being a bit naive.

Dec 17, 2008 at 06:31 AM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end