p.2 #1 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
dehowie wrote:
Given the brilliant quality of the new 100-400II i doubt Canon could really get much better from a small lightweight prime anyway. And seriously think Sigma will be challenged to find a market for a lens which will even if excellent be limited in flexibility compared to the 100-400II.
If it half the price and manages to be as good from an IQ point i woukd still pay double for the flexibility AND quality of the Canon zoom.
Sigma will do ok on cost alone. I suspect they can offer the 400 OS for around $1K (hopefully they don't make it a 6.3) and at probably 40% less weight would be popular. I'd hope they could do much better than the 400 primes woeful mfd. But for me the zoom is so good if I get a 400 prime it will be the 400 f/4 DO II to replace my 300 f/2.8.
p.2 #2 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
I was somewhat surprised to see the small maginitude of the weight difference between the 400/5.6 and 100-400 v2, 1.25 vs 1.57 kg respectively, about 25% increase for the zoom...
p.2 #3 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
AJSJones wrote:
I was somewhat surprised to see the small maginitude of the weight difference between the 400/5.6 and 100-400 v2, 1.25 vs 1.57 kg respectively, about 25% increase for the zoom...
A 400/5.6 DO that is lighter in size and weight than either would make sense.
p.2 #4 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
EB-1 wrote:
A 400/5.6 DO that is lighter in size and weight than either would make sense.
EBH
Make sense to who? At a probable price of 3 to 4 times more than the existing 400, very few would buy it just because it would be lighter. A cheaper Sigma, even with f6.3, would outsell it by 100 to 1.
p.2 #5 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
Another thought. You could get a 300/4L, either with IS or the older model without IS,* and a Canon 1.4X teleconverter. This would give you a little more flexibility, allowing you to shoot at 300 mm without the TC, or at 420 mm with the TC, though it would likely focus slower with the TC than the 400/5.6 does without a TC.
* I have one of the original 300/4L lenses (without IS) and in careful comparisons it delivers the best contrast and sharpness of any 300 mm Canon option I have tested it against. Noticeably better than the later IS version, and the 100-400 Mk II at 300 mm. However both of those other options offer IS, which can make a difference in your images depending on the shooting situation.
p.2 #8 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
moondigger wrote:
Another thought. You could get a 300/4L, either with IS or the older model without IS,* and a Canon 1.4X teleconverter. This would give you a little more flexibility, allowing you to shoot at 300 mm without the TC, or at 420 mm with the TC, though it would likely focus slower with the TC than the 400/5.6 does without a TC.
p.2 #9 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
AJSJones wrote:
I was somewhat surprised to see the small maginitude of the weight difference between the 400/5.6 and 100-400 v2, 1.25 vs 1.57 kg respectively, about 25% increase for the zoom...
Yeah, imagine if the 70-200 2.8 IS II was only 25% heavier than the 200 2.8 II....
Seems like the weight penalty for a zoom lens is worse for larger aperture than for longer focal length.
p.2 #11 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
The 400 5.6 L is Canon's lowest priced 400mm lens, but I would say the price is still not in bargain territory for an old prime lens of this aperture without IS, if you buy new. It practically costs as much as the 70-300 L, and that is a rather steep entry price. The Sigma 150-600 C can be had for quite a bit less.
p.2 #12 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
I think the 4oomm 5.6l lens is a great lens still. I honestly dont see a sharper image then my new 100-400mm version 2. Other then the IS and closer focusing and the ability to zoom I think the sharpness is the same to my eye. Tufted titmouse by rgollar, on Flickr Red-bellied woodpecker by rgollar, on Flickr Black capped chickadee by rgollar, on Flickr
And this one is with a 1.4 extender and I find it still sharp Coopers Hawk by rgollar, on Flickr
p.2 #13 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
alundeb wrote:
Yeah, imagine if the 70-200 2.8 IS II was only 25% heavier than the 200 2.8 II....
Seems like the weight penalty for a zoom lens is worse for larger aperture than for longer focal length.
There is something to it. I also get the impression that newer shorter lenses, excluding the MkII supertelephoto ones, are bigger and heavier.
While 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is a relatively hefty lens, I think it is a small price to pay for its goodness. Yet, that makes the older lenses such as 135L and 200 f/2.8 even more of a bargain.
Going back to 400 f/5.6, I have found that a good copy of 100-400 MkI can match its IQ. Furthermore, while the zoom is inferior wrt its AF drive speed, it beats the prime re MFD, IS and, obviously, variable FL is a big asset too.
IMO many people on photography forums have way over-hyped 400 f/5.6 as a BIF lens. True, the lens has a zippy AF drive, however, there is more to a BIF lens than that, and I have seen only a handful of people who have consistently shot top notch BIF pictures with that prime. I suspect those same folks would have done at least as well if they used 100-400 MkI instead, because the key to their good results was years of practice and the resulting skill developed, and not the lens choice.
p.2 #14 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
Imagemaster wrote:
It has an ON/OFF switch.
Yep and that's where I put it - off. It's a beautiful lens, f4 and short MFD, so I have yet to sell it and don't have plans to do so. My 1st wildlife lens that I got for $250.
p.2 #16 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
deepz wrote:
Thank you all for your honest review ...based on the above pics it surely is a real winner and i will stick to my decision to buying a 400mm f5.6 since it would be purely for birding.
Is buying a used from BnH or Adorama better than ebay since they offer a 30 day return and are reputed sellers ? Are there any sites where i should look for ?
Adorama also offers a 180-day warranty on all used lenses excluding V, G and F conditions which have a 90-day warranty. [X condition items are final sale, for parts only, sold as is, no warranties or returns]
p.2 #18 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
Terrific images rgollar!
400/5.6 is one of those low element count lenses that many people like the "look" of. It's light with a built in hood, sharp wide open, with fast AF at a reasonable cost. I could easily see Canon keeping it around for a while as a high IQ entry level to 400.
Updating it will invariably put it close to $2000 or maybe more and it would lose all its appeal compared to the mk2 zoom.
I would rather see Canon create a 500/5.6 in the $2500 range.
