Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2007 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens

  
 
Andrew Welsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


I eagerly awaited the arrival of the Canon 400mm f/5.6 lens (bought right here on FM from chopstxx, thanks!!!), since it is my first purchase of an "L" series lens. After dealing with FedEx (long story) I received the package yesterday. It was well packaged, and I had bought it "used" although the previous owner never actually used it, so it was wrapped in all of it's original packaging. And well packed it was. Unwrap the outer box, remove styrofoam, pull out lens soft case from plastic bag, open lens case, pull out bubble wrapped lens, remove bubble wrap, remove plastic bag from lens. Relatively heavy (~2-3 lbs) for someone used to the kit lens and 50/1.8, but actually lightweight by super telephoto standards. I liked the off-white paint color and the newness of it all. It exhudes quality construction.

Over lunch break at work, I took it out, attached it to my Canon Rebel XT/ 350D and snapped this picture of one of the "reserved" parking spot signs next to my truck. This was at f/5.6 and pretty much at the close focus distance, about 10 feet away.

I immediately snapped one at f8 to compare the DOF. Very little difference (about 1/2"), since I'm so close.


There are birds around the parking lot at work, with a drainage pond nearby hosting Canadian geese. Nice easy targets and I could walk to about 20 yards/meters away from them.

One of the sharper images:


I even stalked a little bird in a bush next to the building and got it near the edge of the bush.. but the little guy moved while I snapped the photo. I think I shot at 1/320 sec but he was quick.


Now for the serious part. I get home and set up the tripod in the living room about 12 feet / 4m from the wall and use my US Treasury Department resolution test chart... and here are the comparisons of f/5.6 and f/8 shots with and without sharpening looking at the center and edge of the frame. NOTE: Photoshop CS spits out a warning due to some sort of currency detection system. I was unable to open these files directly in Photoshop, unless only part of the bill was in the frame. I had to use MS paint and select an area then copy-paste that area in photoshop. (Even pasting most or all of the bill image generated the warning).

I shot in RAW at ISO100, used Canon's software to convert the RAW to JPEG (and do white balancing), then cropped them in Photoshop. Awesome results wide open at 5.6. I can't wait to try it out on a star field to evaluate its astro-worthiness. Looking at these images I image it will have excellent star sharpness with little to no CA. Mirror lockup (MLU) and a shutter release cable were used, and I took 2 of each pic to test focus (and manually throwing it out of focus beforehand both in and out to test autofocus).

Shots at f/8:


I then added my Sigma DG APO 1.4x teleconverter. Apparently this lens actually tells the camera the f-stop, so autofocus didn't work and the LCD back reported f/8. When I use my sigma 70-300mm DG APO f/5.6 lens, it still reports f/5.6 when I have the TC on it and it will still autofocus (although not that effectively). The image stayed tack sharp IMO.


I then tried my $65 Bower brand 2x teleconverter (camera reported f/5.6 but autofocus just hunted in my dim indoor light) for a focal length of 800mm and effective f/11. The image was a bit softer, much noisier due to longer exposure (around 13 seconds @ ISO 100).


And finally, for grins I stacked both TC's for a focal length of 1120mm and f/16. Forced to manually focus and it was tough, but got it on one of the tries. Exposure was 15" and noise was visibly increased, but it still remained useable.


In all, I find the resolution of this lens to be excellent edge-to-edge. The USM autofocusing is super quiet and really, really fast compared to consumer lenses I've used. The lens is light enough to handhold and walk around. It's definitely easy to see why birders like this lens, especially for birds in flight (BIF). The solid build quality shows this lens will take a licking and keep on ticking.

If you are looking to step into the super telephoto market of prime focus lenses, give the 400mm f/5.6 L lens a serious look. It's a good value for the money.



Mar 16, 2007 at 03:06 PM
foghorn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


Nice review, seems very thorough. Reads well too.


Mar 16, 2007 at 04:46 PM
jcw1982
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


I agree, very good review. Thanks.


Mar 16, 2007 at 04:59 PM
nburwell
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


Very nice review. Thanks!

I've been debating on whether I should invest money in the 400 prime or go with the versatility of the 100-400. I'll mainly be photographing birds for the most part.

I keep going back and forth on my decision. Right now I'm leaning more towards the 400 prime.

Again, I appreciate your review, Andrew. It certainly helped me.



Mar 16, 2007 at 05:02 PM
Andrew Welsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


nburwell wrote:
Very nice review. Thanks!

I've been debating on whether I should invest money in the 400 prime or go with the versatility of the 100-400. I'll mainly be photographing birds for the most part.

I keep going back and forth on my decision. Right now I'm leaning more towards the 400 prime.

Again, I appreciate your review, Andrew. It certainly helped me.

Glad to help. Everything I've heard from bird photographers is that this lens is "better" because you'll need the 400mm most of the time anyway (and for some it's not even enough reach). There is anecdotal evidence (and Canon's official MTF charts) that indicate this lens is optically sharper than the 100-400. I don't want to start that debate here however I say just let the evidence here speak for itself, and weigh the optical sharpness against the versatility of the zoom and IS.. and look at what other birders use (most have this one and claim it's excellent for BIF shots).



Mar 17, 2007 at 03:45 PM
VanIsle
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


There are a *lot* of Bird shooters who prefer the 100-400 for its IS, and the ability to zoom a bit wider when needed.

I have the 400/5.6 prime, and love it very much, but you definitely need god light and excellent technique to get the most out of it.

The biggest benefit of the 400 prime for me is its exceptional ability to take a 1.4x converter with essentially no noticeable dropoff in IQ. And it even AFs with a converter on the 1 series with TC.

I debated heavily whether to get 100-400 (or 300/4IS for that matter). If it werent for the fact that I rely heavily on a TC, I would have gone with the zoom. I have seen countless excellent examples from it, and in my opinion, the *slightly* less impressive sharpness at 400 is easily outweighed by the existence of IS... except when youre like me and want a TC on it often.



Mar 17, 2007 at 04:54 PM
jeskata
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


Surprisingly good with the cheap 2x TC!


Mar 18, 2007 at 03:08 AM
EOS20
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


Thanks alot, Now you made my decision between buying the 100-400 or 400 f/5.6 even more difficult!

Thanks for the sample pics, Looks like you got a really good copy!



Mar 18, 2007 at 06:34 AM
Andrew Welsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


jeskata wrote:
Surprisingly good with the cheap 2x TC!

I was a bit surprised as well. I have been pleased with the 2x TC I paid so little for.. it's not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it produces images better than digitally enlarging an image 2x... and for $65 USD I can't complain. I got a great bargain.... and it can be helpful in getting an image I otherwise couldn't even if it's not magazine-front-cover quality.

I can't wait to try this lens out on a clear night (if one ever comes) to give it the ultimate resolution test- a star field. Taking a tracked star field photo immediately shows all of the warts of any optical system (coma, astigmatism, spherical abberations, chromatic abberations etc). My desire is to use this lens for astrophotos and I hope it's up to the test.



Mar 18, 2007 at 10:10 PM
alexandre
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


Will this lens be enough to take nice moonshots with a 1.6 DSLR? With or without extenders?


Mar 18, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Andrew Welsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


alexandre wrote:
Will this lens be enough to take nice moonshots with a 1.6 DSLR? With or without extenders?

400mm doesn't fill the frame with the moon, but you can take some decent shots. I have had reasonable success at 300mm on my 1.6 DSLR, so this FL should be OK. The more the better.

To fill the frame with the moon on my 1.6 DSLR I need close to 2000mm of focal length, and at that length you need tracking to get a really sharp picture (i.e. use a telescope).

Personally, moon shots are most successful in either of two conditions:
- ~ wide angle shots including the moon in the foreground or as an element in the shot (100mm or less)
- telescopic views (2000+ mm) using a webcam or video cam to capture those brief moments of "good seeing" where the atmosphere is still, then stacking the images to decrease noise. An analogy here would be photographing something on the bottom of a swimming pool and waiting for the best still moment... it is much easier when recording a stream of frames than taking single snapshots with a DSLR and trying to get lucky. Some do tighter closeups (4000mm +) then mosaic, with stunning results.

Of course decent pics at 300-400mm can be had, but getting a "tack sharp" photo will be elusive, especially without tracking.

Hopefully I'll get a clear night around here so I can take photos of astro-objects and add to my review



Mar 19, 2007 at 08:14 AM
Andrew Welsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


I finally had a chance to do some astrophotography with this lens. In short, it performed superbly, with total sharpness and round stars edge-to-edge with no discernable chromatic abberation (purple fringing). Astronomers pay a premium for telescopes and eyepieces that have this feature!

I did not do 1.4x TC or 2x TC tests, and I have yet to process my f/5.6 images. Included are images taken at f/8.

Here's what the corners, edges and center look like, 100% crop:


And for pixel peepers or the curious, the full size image of the star cluster (M44, Praesepe or the Beehive cluster) can be seen here.



Mar 21, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Seth Tower
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


Yep, that's an incredible lens. Too bad it lacks IS. I'd get one if it wasn't for that.


Mar 21, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Andrew Welsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


And for completeness, the f/5.6 shot is here. Very similar results, although the diffraction pattern caused by the aperature blades is a bit harsh, and looks nicer at f/8.




Mar 21, 2007 at 03:46 PM
Alan321
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Review of Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens


Andrew, you haven't noted the shutter speeds and apertures for the bird photos, except for the one at 1/320 sec of the moving bird.

You'll typically need about 1/640 sec just to make a stationary scene sharp with the bare lens, and faster again if there is any subject movement or you are shooting from a moving base such as a boat or you are using a TC. Shooting on a dull day as you apparently did also does not help any.

You may want to consider getting a better beamer flash concentrator for your 580EX to assist with daylight shooting of birds even at long-ish distances. If they are really close then a Lumiquest SoftBox is quite useful.

It is not easy to get lots of light when shooting birds in a tree so you easily end up with blurry shots. That of course is why the IS lens is popular. Once the bird is flying the 400 f/5.6 L is by most accounts an excellent lens to be using, but the IS has advantages when the subject is stationary.

I made the mistake of getting a 300 f/2.8 IS and so I cannot convince myself to get a 400 f/5.6. My 100-400 is undergoing gradual testing after being serviced to improve the focusing. It had a problem but it seems impossible to get a detailed explanation from the Canon technicians. In fact, those guys are so hard to reach I'm not even sure they really exist.




Mar 26, 2007 at 01:01 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.