400mm f5.6 best lens. No sweet spot anymore?

Hi

 

I'm after a general purpose lens for my newly found interest in Bird Photography. I know little about this area of photography but I want it to be able to do BIF as well as general birding use.

 

I settled on the 400mm f5.6 prime as everyone seems to love this lens. I know it has no IS and is obviously limited by it's fixed focal length but I'm good with both of these and also the weight which is important to me.

 

Anyway, I came across this review where he suggests it doesn't do all that well on cropped frame bodies and as I will be using a 7dmk2 I was interested. It seemed to contradict everything I believed about camera bodies and lenses because I was under the old belief that on a cropped frame camera the "sweet spot" of the lens was utilised. I'm a bit confused.

 

Now I'm wondering if I could do better than this lens. I'm also wondering what happened to the "sweet spot" theory.

 

Thank you for any advice you can give me on this subject.

It doesn't do that well on FF bodies either. I've only used it a few times, but I was less than impressed with the IQ of it's output. For a prime telephoto, while it was very consistent across the frame, it was consistently not great (IMO). Frankly, despite the advantages of weight and simplicity, the lens design dates back to 1993 which very well may be part of the problem.

 

You'll likely get better images and output from one of the new 150-600s. I'm not saying you shouldn't pull the trigger, but set your expectations realistically.

Interesting that you found that to be the case. I will certainly be having a good look but I have read so many glowing reports of this lens I was expecting good results, even on the 7dII. I'll need to test it carefully.

 

It does tick the boxes for me and though I could go for the 100-400mkII it's the weight that puts me off it. I have pretty painful arthritic fingers and wrist issue which makes it not viable. The 150-600 would be even worse re the weight for me which is a deal breaker. If I needed that 600mm reach i was hoping a 1.4 EX might do it for me, but obviously the IQ would plunge again.

 

Here's one review which was very positive about FF but less so on APS-C here:

 

 

I was really quite interested in the less good performance on APS-C sensors. Has the "sweet spot" idea bitten the dust?

Personally, I would not make too much of one web review. This lens is a great performer as has been demonstrated many times (see the Digital Picture review for example and compare test images). Some modern zooms apparently match it (Canon 100-400 II, Sigma 100-400mm etc), but the Canon is a rugged lens, probably with superior flare resistance and AF on a Canon body. Since the 400mm has good performance across the field, there will not be much of a sweet spot effect - which largely refers to the fact that an FF lens on an APS-C body will discard poor performing edges as they are not covered by the smaller sensor. The main issue with the lens is going to be holding it still: I suspect most "performance issues" are due to camera shake. 1/500th is not sufficient, for example, with a 400mm when handhold. Another factor are atmospheric problems - another common reason for problems with long lenses, heat distortion and haze reduce sharpness and contrast, so you need to pick your time of day and subject distance sensibly. A secondhand lens may be subtly damaged too and may require servicing. Having said all this, I think the 400mm f5.6 is a little overpriced these days given the price of good 100-400mm zooms with IS. IS is a real benefit. Personally I like its simplicity, ergonomics and optical and AF performance, but I still think it is a little too pricey given the current competition. This is a not uncommon issue now that zooms are so good across the board. Often the zoom makes more sense.

It appears to me that the main reason the lens didn't performs as well on a 20MP APS-C camera than on a 20MP FX cameras is simply that this is comparing apples to oranges. 20MP APS-C is the equivalent of 51MP FX - the lens may simply be more taxed with the demands of the higher-resolving sensor. Put the lens on a 5DS or 5DS-R and compare it then - may guess is that there won't be a noticeable difference then.

Agree, that is another factor to consider. However the lens performs superbly on the 5DSr as can be seen here, it appears to be as good as the 400mm f2.8II, so I really don't see how this would produce a poor result. Technique is more likely to blame.

Yes I noticed that site too and you're point is well made. It looks great on the high res camera and it looks a lot better on the 7d than the 60d too.

 

I have looked here and there and the lens seems highly recommended by just about everyone on a 7dmk II. Mind you is it likely his technique is that bad? Maybe so.

 

On a larger question, does the 'sweet spot" theory no longer hold credence?

Edited August 1, 2018 by jeremy_wakefield

Although looks miles better on the 1Ds Mk III

Like I said, I was underwhelmed. It was incredibly consistent (across the frame), which is likely why the ''sweet spot' theory doesn't really apply to this lens (in the same way it doesn't apply to quite a few other modern lenses), but it's crispness was substantially below what I was expecting from an L prime. In fairness though, that same consistency across the frame is possibly why the sharpness is a step below other lenses. The design is 25yrs+ old, and in those days (as in these days to a lesser degree ;) ), compromises had to be made.... especially at this price point.

 

Given your description of the physical challenges you face though, it may be the best choice for you. Even if another significantly heavier lens has the potential to generate better IQ, you are the shooter, so a significantly lighter lens may very well give you better images.

Hi Marcus Ian. Yes my options are sadly limited a little bit by weight. It might be one of the few choices available. The only other item was the Tamron 100-400 but I felt sure the Canon would outperform that lens. I might be wrong of course

On a larger question, does the 'sweet spot" theory no longer hold credence?

It's still true that the center performance of most telephotos made to cover 24x36mm will be better than the edges, given vignetting and all.

 

However there is a very real issue that the pixel count has got to the point on some cameras where even the center performance of many lenses may not seem sharp at nose-to-image 1:1 views.

 

"Sharpness" and Depth of Field," in any case. have more to do with human perception of the results than with optical science, pure and simple.

Hi Marcus Ian. Yes my options are sadly limited a little bit by weight. It might be one of the few choices available. The only other item was the Tamron 100-400 but I felt sure the Canon would outperform that lens. I might be wrong of course

 

You are not wrong. @400mm, the 400/5.6 looks like it optically outperforms the Tamron 100-400 @ 400mm (f6.3 - WO). I haven't used the Tamron, so I can't contribute helpfully other than to look at the digital picture's comparison chart... which is fine... and, if you take pictures of test charts all day @ 400mm, you will def be served best by the 400/5.6L.

 

However, as you are taking pictures of birds, not test charts, the Tamron honestly may be a better choice. It has VC, which, if you are working in marginal light is going to make a helluva difference. Keep in mind that 1/fl has you shooting at a minimum of 1/640 - 1/800 sec. For a lot of birding, that's a tall order. And in a forest, you'll be hard pressed to get ss that high without cranking your ISO all the way up. Given your physical challenges, I honestly think you may find that having a VC / IS lens is going to make a HUGE amount of difference, is going to be worth it's weight in gold for your keeper rate, and is going to be worth sacrificing a small amount of optical clarity/contrast/sharpness.

About the IQ of crop vs FF with a lens, lets try this.

 

Imagine a 3"x3" square made of 1" squares.

Each of the squares can resolve 4 lines per inch. So with 3 squares on a side, 3 squares x 4 lpi = 12 lines.

 

If you only used the 1 square in the center, you only have the 4 line resolution of that single square.

Even if you have 2x the resolution to 8 lines, you are still less than 12 lines of the entire 3x3 square.

 

This is a very simplified explanation of using the center of the lens.

 

So the lens may be good for FF, but it might be just OK or poor for a crop sensor.

This is because the crop sensor needs more resolution out of the center of the lens than the lens was designed for.

 

If you go to DXOmark, you can see where the same lens is put on a FF and crop camera of the same MP sensor, the sharpness results are different, and lower on the crop camera. Some lenses suffer more than others when this is done, others seem to handle both fine.

You are not wrong. @400mm, the 400/5.6 looks like it optically outperforms the Tamron 100-400 @ 400mm (f6.3 - WO). I haven't used the Tamron, so I can't contribute helpfully other than to look at the digital picture's comparison chart... which is fine... and, if you take pictures of test charts all day @ 400mm, you will def be served best by the 400/5.6L.

 

However, as you are taking pictures of birds, not test charts, the Tamron honestly may be a better choice. It has VC, which, if you are working in marginal light is going to make a helluva difference. Keep in mind that 1/fl has you shooting at a minimum of 1/640 - 1/800 sec. For a lot of birding, that's a tall order. And in a forest, you'll be hard pressed to get ss that high without cranking your ISO all the way up. Given your physical challenges, I honestly think you may find that having a VC / IS lens is going to make a HUGE amount of difference, is going to be worth it's weight in gold for your keeper rate, and is going to be worth sacrificing a small amount of optical clarity/contrast/sharpness.

 

I am also wondering if the AF on the Tamron would be up to the Canon's standards. It seems IQ is pretty good but my experience with 3rd party is that the AF often lets the side down a bit. Might be fine with the Tamron. Some reviews suggest it is, whereas others say not.

I have used this lens for six years now and I think the quality is outstanding, even on crop sensor camera's. In my portfolio you can see several photos made with this lens and a crop sensor camera. No doubt the newest version of the 100-400 mm will give you more (as in quantity) sharp images, as it has IS, which may be what you need given your arthritis, but it is considerably heavier and more expensive. With the 400 mm 5.6 you get a reliable and very fast-focusing lens that is really hand-holdable (although I still mostly use a monopod) and delivers very decent images when you get used to it.

I am also wondering if the AF on the Tamron would be up to the Canon's standards. It seems IQ is pretty good but my experience with 3rd party is that the AF often lets the side down a bit. Might be fine with the Tamron. Some reviews suggest it is, whereas others say not.

 

I think that you won't really notice a difference (though it's possible there is a split second difference in focus speed), this isn't a Tamron (or Sigma) of yesteryear, or one of their DC motor offerings. Both Tamron and Sigma have versions of USM focusing (USD and HSM respectively) - IME, they perform on par with the best (fastest) AF systems Canon offers. ie, I cant generally perceive a difference in AF speed - though I haven't used this lens. Of course the actual focus speed is also determined by the complexity/weight/gearing of the focusing element(s) - not just the driving technology - so a significantly heavier focusing group would predictably be slower. That said, the Tamron is (overall) lighter than the 400/5.6L. The Tamron is a lens which was new this year, and equipped with the latest greatest USD and VC (mode 1 & 2). In a nutshell, I would be surprised if there was a perceptible difference in AF speed with this lens - though in all honesty I can't say that from personal experience.

 

Another thing to consider (which is in the same class, but with better optical performance) is the Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 OS HSM C It weighs in at about the same as the other two (400/5.6L : 1250g, Tamron 100-400 : 1135g, Sigma 100-400 C : 1160g), and also has OS (optical stabilization) and HSM focusing...

 

It is of course your decision, but I would at least handle something @ 400mm (640mm on your 7D2) w/ and w/o IS/VC/OS (or at least turned on and off) before you make a purchase. I'm serious when I suggest that a lack of it may significantly decrease your keeper rate. I *don't* have arthritis, or any other conditions which affect the steadiness of my hands, but when I'm shooting at 400mm+, especially at marginal shutter speeds, IS/VC/OS is a huge feature...

Jeremy,

I own the Canon 400 f5.6 and think it is a fine lens. I've used it on an XSi, 7D mk1 and 2, as well as the full frame 6D. I use it mainly for bird photography and it serves me well. It will probably serve your purpose also.

 

I strongly suggest you rent any lens under consideration for a week and see how you like it, as well as the images you take. Get a feel for how well the lens balances on your camera and how well it fits in your hands. You can drive yourself crazy reading different opinions and reviews. If you rent the lens you'll find out all that you need to know. Consider the expense of renting as an investment in personal research. It will pay off in knowing that you have the right lens for you.

 

You will likely need to work on your own skill level with holding a long lens as well as tracking the subject. It takes time to learn this. For BIF you will most often turn off the VC, so that becomes a non issue. Some may argue this point, and that's fine. Others will agree with me. Bird photography can take many forms and, if you stick with it, you'll probably acquire other gear. A lens is just the beginning. Best wishes in your journey of choices.

Good advice, Laura. Thank you. I will try these out and make a decision then. Marcus, you make a good point about the Tamron which I had more or less discounted. I will try that out as part of the process.

Actually one thing I haven't considered but perhaps should is how well each of these will take a teleconverter on a crop frame camera like the 7dmk2. I guess I could rent one of these too but I'd be interested in anyone's view of the Canon 400 with 1.4EX II on crop frame

Actually one thing I haven't considered but perhaps should is how well each of these will take a teleconverter on a crop frame camera like the 7dmk2. I guess I could rent one of these too but I'd be interested in anyone's view of the Canon 400 with 1.4EX II on crop frame

 

I've used this combo on both 7Ds as well as my XSi.I would advise renting the TC and using it.

 

It works with limitations. I prefer to get closer to the subject when possible. Now, I have an older teleconverter. The newest version will probably yield better results Check the 7Dmk2 manual for limitations imposed by the combination such as focus points available and autofocus (I think you'll have autofocus with the newer ones....do check). Also, with the TC, you'll be at f8. Low light situations will require adjustment in settings. You'll need to work with it.

 

This is where you need to explore your options and decide what will work best for you overall. A big zoom might have a variable f stop, and you may stop down to f8 to get sharpness across the frame anyway. It's all a balancing act. Your own technique will be one of the most important factors. You can start practicing now on panning and focus acquisition with your gear in hand. Any fast moving subject will do. Geese and seagulls are very good for beginning bird photography.

 

There is always a subject that is too far away, no matter how much reach you have. Find something that works for you and fills your wants and desires. Live with the limits of that reach and enjoy your toys.

Thank you for your helpful advice. I am pretty new to this type of photography so it is most welcome. I went out the other day and found getting BIF in focus extremely difficult. As you say, I need to practice. I imagine using a TC will bring it's own set of problems so for now, I'll stick with whichever lens I end up with and keep at it until I know what I'm doing, then I can look at adding to my gear.

Thank you for your helpful advice. I am pretty new to this type of photography so it is most welcome. I went out the other day and found getting BIF in focus extremely difficult. As you say, I need to practice. I imagine using a TC will bring it's own set of problems so for now, I'll stick with whichever lens I end up with and keep at it until I know what I'm doing, then I can look at adding to my gear.

 

Start with the easy slow moving ones, then as you get better move to the faster moving ones.

 

Trick to learn panning/tracking.

 

 

This may take weeks of practice, to train your muscles to move, to be able to track the cars.

 

The reason for this trick is that there are more cars to track, than wait for the infrequent bird.

Thanks Gary. Good tip.

 

I am going to try the 400mm f5.6 next week and also the Tamron 100-400. According to images on the digital picture site, the Canon beats is easily on FF 5ds R but on 7dmk2 there is little difference at 400mm. Interesting so I might end up saving myself some cash. Thanks for everything and I will update you on progress.

Hi

 

I'm after a general purpose lens for my newly found interest in Bird Photography. I know little about this area of photography but I want it to be able to do BIF as well as general birding use.

 

I settled on the 400mm f5.6 prime as everyone seems to love this lens. I know it has no IS

 

Now I'm wondering if I could do better than this lens. I'm also wondering what happened to the "sweet spot" theory.

 

Thank you for any advice you can give me on this subject.

 

Wow, 400mm and no IS. Not sure if I am cool and steady enough to handle that without a tripod. But I imagine being a prime, it should be sharp provided you are not shaky. And if going for birds in flight, keep the shutter speed up to 1/2000 sec plus, maybe it could perform with practice.

 

I used to have the original Canon 100-400 which rocked on my 40D and was OK on my 7D, 6D, and 5D MK IV but was a bit soft on the higher resolution cameras.

 

I picked up a used Sigma 150-600 C for $700 and used it a few times on my old 7D and 6D before I sold them, and still use it on a 5D MK IV and on a Sony A7RIII with Metabones MK V adaptor. The lens is pretty sharp, probably not Prime sharp but I like it. It has stabilization, but it is heavy, I need to go to the gym more, hand holding out at 600mm and keeping it steady is a challenge. It can be done, but after walking around for an hour or more hand holding this, there is some muscle fatigue. I do all the usual hand-holding techniques to keep a long lens steady, lean on a tree to steady the camera, etc. I also use it with a 1.4 extender and it works fairly well with the 5D MK IV. With the straight 150-600 and no extender, it is pretty solid.

 

A monopod can be helpful. No IS, what were they thinking? Zen calming of mind and body, shoot only after exhaling...There are other options.

 

You may get good results with the 400 Prime and a monopod though. keep your shutter speed high for BIF. The no IS bugs me at 400mm, but with Canon delving into the Full Frame mirrorless game soon, maybe we will see an image stabilized sensor. It is pretty cool using the Sony with my old Non IS Canon lenses and I now have image stabilization. It is like all that old glass got upgraded.

 

Let's hope Canon steps up on this next generation of cameras and starts adding these new features.

Mark

Go to a Micro 4/3 system. You can go long with IS and light at the same time :)

Panasonic has a 100-300 with OIS. (200-600mm FF equiv).

Olympus does not have OIS on their 70-300, so you only have IBIS.

 

Though admittedly the m4/3 fast tracking AF is not as good as many dSLRs.

And you have to be really selective about which m4/3 camera you get, to get the better AF.