Thinking of buying this lens, just need a little push. I’d like to see a variety of shots to confirm its excellent IQ and any personal comments why you think its a good choice.
Regards
Carl

I am in the same positions will keenly watch this thread. Thanks Carl!

This lens is the reason I still shoot some Canon gear. Absolutely the best bang for the BIF buck
out there. Light, fast AF, gorgeous IQ wide open, nice built in hood....best $1000 I've ever spent.





Edited by trenchmonkey on Aug 21, 2008 at 01:08 PM GMT

trenchmonkey wrote:
This lens is the reason I still shoot some Canon gear. Absolutely the best bang for the BIF buck
out there. Light, fast AF, gorgeous IQ wide open, nice built in hood....best $1000 I've ever spent.

Thanks Trenchmonkey, Guessed you would post a reply. One concern I have is 5.6 enough for the UK light? I will be using on my 40D as well.

Regards
Carl

Most of my wildlife images on my flickr page are with the 400 f/5.6 and a 30D.

1. Light
2. Not too costly
3. Hand holdable
4. In-built hood
5. Comes with a tripod collar














Edited by kirry007 on Aug 21, 2008 at 05:10 PM GMT

Early mornings, last light I'm at ISO 800-1250 with this combo...no probs. Sure f4'd be better
but that DO will set ya back 5x as much. Check out Jody Melanson's stuff, he's the 400 f5.6 King! Mr. Zoom's no slouch either but he's a 500 f4 IS guy now.

Many thanks for those shots and the info

One concern I have is 5.6 enough for the UK light? Yeah it is a problem especially as we seem to have endless grey days lately. but as trenchmonkey says you can get a reasonable shutter speed at high iso. Sometimes on grey days if wildlife are in the trees or shade it can be difficult and i wish I had F4, but that would cost.

I would recommend it, very happy with mine.

trenchmonkey wrote:
Mr. Zoom's no slouch either but he's a 500 f4 IS guy now.

Ditto for GeneO.

It is closest you will get to Canon superteles without spending couple of thousands more. At $1100, it is a steal.

Gavin Sim wrote:
One concern I have is 5.6 enough for the UK light? Yeah it is a problem especially as we seem to have endless grey days lately. but as trenchmonkey says you can get a reasonable shutter speed at high iso. Sometimes on grey days if wildlife are in the trees or shade it can be difficult and i wish I had F4, but that would cost.

I would recommend it, very happy with mine.

Cheers Gavin, Some summer we've had I would love F4 or below but they are all silly money here as you know. It would be interesting to know how many other UK shooters use this lens.

regards
Carl

bobbyz wrote:
It is closest you will get to Canon superteles without spending couple of thousands more. At $1100, it is a steal.

Thanks, looks like positives comments only on this lens

regards
Carl

Even though I have the 600 now, I'll NEVER sell my 400 5.6. It's just too handy, too light, too sharp, and super fast focusing to ever sell. This one lens is the reason why I went with Canon to begin with. Holds its value incredibly well. Have you checked the FM reviews on this lens?

hfillmore wrote:
Even though I have the 600 now, I'll NEVER sell my 400 5.6. It's just too handy, too light, too sharp, and super fast focusing to ever sell. This one lens is the reason why I went with Canon to begin with. Holds its value incredibly well. Have you checked the FM reviews on this lens?

Many thanks, Yes I've checked about everything now, just using this thread to hopefully get a few shots and other points of view.

regards
Carl

I note you also have the 70-200 f2.8. I would definitely go with the 400 f5.6 to complement. Great value for money & you would be extremely hard pushed to find a post complaining of IQ or performance of this lens. I hesitate to say never but I've probably now opened a can of worms.

Here's a couple

carl haslam wrote:
Thanks Trenchmonkey, Guessed you would post a reply. One concern I have is 5.6 enough for the UK light? I will be using on my 40D as well.

Regards
Carl


UK light? Weather sealing might be more important given these last few weeks!

Seriously, if you can live without IS the 400/5.6 is a cracking lens.

I have only one word to say about the Canon 400mm f/5.6 - Great

Another 400mm f5.6L shot:

Here are some pictures when I got a chance to use a 400mm /f5.6 for a trip to San Diego. When we went to the zoo, the sky was overcast and we had a little drizzle of rain from time to time. My concern was that without IS or fast aperture, I would not get any good images. I need to trust my 5D more, as the camera and lens did just fine. The only problem I ran into was that with a 1.4x Teleconvertor, I could not get AF to work. This was expected, but it was worth a try!

I hope you don’t mind me posting so many pictures. Some of these aren’t very good, but at least it can show what the lens does in these situations. I was very surprised (and pleased) at how well sharp the images came out. The AF was fast (even in the drizzle) and the lens was a jewel. My goal is to test out the 100-400mm next. All these images were shot wide open (f/5.6).

1. (ISO 400 1/400th)

A very good piece of glass, especially for the money.
I was using a 300 2.8 L IS plus 1.4x for the longest time, and after trying the 400 f5.6L, I sold the 300 and banked the change.
The image quality of the 400 is amazing, wide open its superb.
If you can do without IS and the 5.6 max aperture, then there is no better lens @ 400 mm for the cash outlay.
I shoot heaps of motor-sports and even with the 1.4xII on a 1DmkIIn the results are superb and the focus is second to none.
pk

Arthur Morris,Birds as Art , said "The old 400 is still--IMHO--the best flight lens in the world."

No complaints.

A sweet lens, and a very good value.

All these are on 1.6x crop bodies.

400/5.6L with Kenko Pro DG 1.4x Teleconverter