p.3 #1 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
In addition to bird photography lens, it also makes a great "ride-along" lens in your vehicle when used with a crop sensor camera. You'll get an excellent 640mm/f5.6 lens that's hand-holdable (the lighter weight is especially nice to use shooting out of the passenger side window), and the minimum focusing distance is generally not an issue shooting from the road.
p.3 #2 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
alundeb wrote:
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.
And still the Sigma is not even close in image quality, focusing speed and especially manufacturing consistency... I'd buy the 400 f/5.6L USM rather than any of the other choices in the 400mm covering range. Take a look at the lensrentals blog about these focal lengths...
p.3 #3 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
charlyw wrote:
And still the Sigma is not even close in image quality, focusing speed and especially manufacturing consistency... I'd buy the 400 f/5.6L USM rather than any of the other choices in the 400mm covering range. Take a look at the lensrentals blog about these focal lengths...
Yes, almost identical MTF between the Sigma C at 400 and Canon 400 5.6.
For 50 lp/mm: Center 0.55 for both, corner 0.5 / 0.3 vs 0.6 / 0.33.
p.3 #5 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
charlyw wrote:
And still the Sigma is not even close in image quality, focusing speed and especially manufacturing consistency... I'd buy the 400 f/5.6L USM rather than any of the other choices in the 400mm covering range. Take a look at the lensrentals blog about these focal lengths...
As owner of both I call BS. You might have had a dud, but mine certainly stands up well, being at least as good as the 100-400L v1 and 400 f/5.6. The Sigma C is capable of very sharp images and I've seen no issues with build quality. I would have sold the 400 f/5.6 in a heartbeat after getting the Sigma C if I had not already done so.
p.3 #7 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
As owner of both I call BS. You might have had a dud, but mine certainly stands up well, being at least as good as the 100-400L v1 and 400 f/5.6.
Well if you look at the MTF then you should know that the 400 f/5.6 outperforms the 100-400L II and all of the 150-600mm (by a larger margin) in one aspect and that's the divergence between sagittal and meridonial resolution and how the two diverge over the field of view. There the zooms don't fare too well and even the theoretically best zoom doesn't even come close to a so/so copy of the prime. This has dramatic influences on the results as soon as you got something in the background of the subject that isn't miles away. So stop insulting people and accept the facts...
And yes before you yet again endeavor to insult me: I have some of the lenses in question and the one that really stands out at 400mm is the 400mm f/5.6. Not in terms of sharpness, not in terms of contrast but in terms on how it handles the environment of the subject and in terms of focusing speed.
p.3 #8 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
alundeb wrote:
Yes, almost identical MTF between the Sigma C at 400 and Canon 400 5.6.
For 50 lp/mm: Center 0.55 for both, corner 0.5 / 0.3 vs 0.6 / 0.33.
And maybe you shouldn't boil down the MTF chart to a single number. Because that doesn't tell you even part of the story. It's as if you got the first and last sentence of a detective book. You can't tell if the book is crap or the next bestseller by reading those two sentences. Look at how differently the sagittal and merionial resolution measurements diverge - while the absolute divergence is in the same ballpark when reduced to a single number, look at the intermediate points, they tell you that the rendering of anything just outside the DOF will be quite a bit different to the point of ruining the image on the Sigma while the Canon prime has a much more benign characteristic...
p.3 #9 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
I have owned the 400 5.6L and didn't think the bokeh was particularly good. It also had some longitudinal color, something I find the 100-400 L IS II better at. In fact, I liked the focus transition and longitudinal color of the 70-200 2.8 L IS II with 2X TC II better than the prime. I also find the 100-400 II zoom better with teleconverters than the prime.
p.3 #11 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
charlyw wrote:
Let me guess, you were using a protective filter on it - in my experience this will ruin the bokeh on that lens quite comprehensively...
No, I am in the "Never use protective filters" camp
p.3 #12 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
alundeb wrote:
No, I am in the "Never use protective filters" camp
As am I - that's why the poor performance of the prime puzzles me because I have compared about 20 different lenses (multiple copies because I have checked with friends) that go to 400mm and the one that stands out in this department for me is the 400mm f/5.6L USM...
p.3 #13 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
charlyw wrote:
As am I - that's why the poor performance of the prime puzzles me because I have compared about 20 different lenses (multiple copies because I have checked with friends) that go to 400mm and the one that stands out in this department for me is the 400mm f/5.6L USM...
Well these things are also subjective and depends on many things like what is in the background.
I am not saying that the 400 5.6 L is not a very good lens. It is. I am just saying that the price is in the same range as other lenses from Canon of the same size / weight, and that there are other lenses at lower price with added functionality. The potential loss of image quality of these alternatives have to be considered of course. I agree with your point about midzone MTF.
The 400 5.6 L is not a "bargain" IMO, it is a specialty lens with an average price tag.
p.3 #14 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
alundeb wrote:
The 400 5.6 L is not a "bargain" IMO, it is a specialty lens with an average price tag.
Let's say that this is highly subjective. For me the 400mm f/5.6L - as it is the fastest focusing 400mm in that price bracket - is the bargain lens for my use at F1 events...
p.3 #15 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
charlyw wrote:
Let's say that this is highly subjective. For me the 400mm f/5.6L - as it is the fastest focusing 400mm in that price bracket - is the bargain lens for my use at F1 events...
Then it is the best lens for you, and may be for others.
I appreciate discussing with you, and that we can do it in a civilized manner
p.3 #16 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
alundeb wrote:
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.
I'd take the 400 f/4.6L over any third-party zoom, especially for BIF shooting. Any day.
p.3 #17 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
alundeb wrote:
Well these things are also subjective and depends on many things like what is in the background.
I am not saying that the 400 5.6 L is not a very good lens. It is. I am just saying that the price is in the same range as other lenses from Canon of the same size / weight, and that there are other lenses at lower price with added functionality. The potential loss of image quality of these alternatives have to be considered of course. I agree with your point about midzone MTF.
The 400 5.6 L is not a "bargain" IMO, it is a specialty lens with an average price tag. ...Show more →
I own the 400 f/5.6L and the Tamron 150-600 G1. I think the Tamron was a big mistake. It now collects dust. The lure of 600mm with IS @ $1060 was strong, but it didn't pan out. It is heavier, slow to focus, and soft. Well, I could get good sharp shots up close at 300 mm...but that is not why I bought that lens. I wanted 600mm and fast focusing. I didn't get that. the lens does work better on a FF sensor camera, though.
The reason the 400 f/5.6L is a bargin at $1300 or so, is because it gives reliable performance, is fast, easy to carry all day, and is built like a tank. And despite what people say, I was easily able to live with the 12 ft MFD. I see people using this lens getting wonderful, professional level results on both crops and FF-sensor bodies, for only $1300 or even less, used.
p.3 #18 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
alundeb wrote:
Then it is the best lens for you, and may be for others.
I appreciate discussing with you, and that we can do it in a civilized manner
The problem for others is that they dumped their cash into a specific lens - and now seek confirmation that they didn't buy the wrong lens. I also have the 100-400L air pump and it's not bad at close distances (my best shots of lizards and puffins I have made with it) but at larger distances it's weakness regarding background rendition does rear it's ugly head... IMHO each of these lenses do have their strong and weak points... If you can live with a prime then the 400 f/5.6L USM still is a highly viable choice - if you need a zoom then the 100-400L II would now be my favorite, the old 100-400L still in the running if budget is tight - alongside the 150-600mm lenses from Sigma/Tamron although on these I don't like the fact that they are f/6.3 and thus outside the AF specifications for most of their zoom range...
p.3 #20 · Is Canon 400 f5.6 still worth buying for bird photography ?
alundeb wrote:
And I'd take the 100-400 L IS II over both the 400 f/5.6L and Sigma 150-600 any day, for any purpose.
Me too, as I own it. I don't like the fact that it only goes to like 380mm but I love its other features like fast AF and a limit switch set at around 10 ft or so. That, to me, makes it hard to ignore. The 400 f/5.6L is set to like 25 ft on the limit switch. With the zoom, I have gotten lots of birds which zipped by me close.
There is no perfect lens, unfortunately, but if you are willing to spend the money, you can get a set of lenses which cover every need.
If the OP could manage to stretch for the 100-400 mk 2, he/she would not be disappointed much. Combine it will the Canon 1.4x m3 TC and the 80D (for a group cross-type AF points at f/8) and that is just a swimmingly nice rig.
