Focus Distance W/Canon EF 400/5.6L Telephoto Question

Hey folks,

 

No, this isn't a should I buy this lens thread. I DO NOT WANT suggestions about

other lenses, specification comparisons with other lenses, praise for this lens

or other lenses, etc...

 

My question is fairly simple... Of those of you who own this lens, or who have

used this lens, have you ever run into a situation where you lost a wildlife

photograph because of the long min. focus distance of this lens? If so, was it

on a full-frame, 1.3x, or 1.6x body, and do you think the higher effective

focal length on a 1.6x body will cause significantly greater problems?

 

I am aware that a small extension tube can often solve this problem...

And by wildlife photograph I mean a photograph of a small bird or animal, obviously I wouldn't expect to be within the close focusing distance of the lens from say, a moose.

<I> do you think the higher effective focal length on a 1.6x body will cause significantly

greater problems?</i><P>

 

To some extent the opposite should be true: for a given subject, you can fill the frame

from farther away on a 1.6X body than on a 1.3X or FF. Hence the 1.6x 'crop factor' (or

whatever you want to call it) will reduce the need to rely on extension tubes to fill the

frame with a small subject.<P>

 

I don't own this lens but there have been a few occasions when I missed shots of small

birds, lizards, etc. because I could not focus a 500/4 close enough (min. focus on that

lens is just a bit farther away than with the 400/5.6 IIRC). The subjects vamoosed before I

had time to mount an extension tube.<P>

 

If you anticipate having to focus close, a short extension tube can let a longish telephoto

focus closer AND still have a fairly long maximum focus distance (although probably not to

infinity). With a 12.5 mm tube on a 500/4, the maximum focus distance is on the order

of 100+ feet (would be somewhat less with a 400 mm, of course). Here the ability of

many internally-focused lenses to focus 'past infinity' is helpful.

Yep, there's a set of extension tubes in my camera bag all the time, for just this sort of situation.

 

In fact, there always has been a set of them kept close and handy in every system I've used for the past 20 years or so, ever since I figured out just how useful they are.

Yes, there have been instances in which I was too close to the subject. Namely, shooting small birds at the feeder from a window inside my house. Since this was a semi-controlled setup, I repositioned the feeder a little farther away (and set the focusing distance switch to 3.5 m - infinity). Otherwise, I'm usually at least 10-20 yards away most other types of subjects (birds, ducks, seagulls, etc) when using my 400 L.

Well, I suppose if it has happened with the 500/4, then I shouldn't worry too much about it.

 

Thanks for the advice everybody!

Looking at the Canon lens chart, only the 100-400 focuses closer than 9ft in the 400mm or longer category. I'll stop worrying about it. ;)

My wildlife photography has always been of larger animals which I cannot get closer to than the minimum focus distance of the 400mm f/5.6L lens.

 

I will usually, when shooting with the 400mm f/5.6L (either on a tripod or on a monopod) have a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on another body to use as a hand-held back-up in case I need a shorter focal length.

 

I keep the 70-200mm in a holster case clipped under my tripod on the ring that is used to hold a steadying weight. When using a monopod I will keep it in a soft bag large enough to hold the 400mm and body. When I want to switch lenses I switch cameras using the QR ststem on the tripod head. Each lens has its dedicated plate. I could just open the tripod ring and switch, but I am more comfortable using the QR system.

 

The combination of 70-200mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L is a great match and is one reason that I chose the 400mm f/5.6 over the 100-400mm L zoom. The other reason is that I detest push-pull zooms.

 

Now, for a close focusing tele lens; the 300mm f/4L IS beats the 400mm lens hands down. It focuses to 1.5 meters and with a 1.4x TC gives a focal length of 420mm with the same minimum focusing distance. I can use this lens for some great "pseudo-macro" shots.

 

I am testing the 300mm to see if I like it well enough as a 420mm f/5.6 lens with the 1.4x TC to change from my 400mm f/4L. If I find that they each have their own purpose, I will keep both lenses. I can envision using both in the way that I use my 70-200 and my 400mm.

 

The IS and constant f/4 aperture when used without the TC gives more capability in lower light levels than I would get with a 100-400L at 300mm.

 

I have been lucky enough to find both the 300mm and 400mm lenses in mint shape on the used market for just a bit over what I would have paid for a new 100-400L push-pull zoom.

My wildlife photography has always been of larger animals which I cannot get closer to than the minimum focus distance of the 400mm f/5.6L lens.

 

I will usually, when shooting with the 400mm f/5.6L (either on a tripod or on a monopod) have a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on another body to use as a hand-held back-up in case I need a shorter focal length.

 

I keep the 70-200mm in a holster case clipped under my tripod on the ring that is used to hold a steadying weight. When using a monopod I will keep it in a soft bag large enough to hold the 400mm and body. When I want to switch lenses I switch cameras using the QR ststem on the monopod head. Each lens has its dedicated plate. I could just open the tripod ring and switch, but I am more comfortable using the QR system.

 

The combination of 70-200mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L is a great match and is one reason that I chose the 400mm f/5.6 over the 100-400mm L zoom. The other reason is that I detest push-pull zooms.

 

Now, for a close focusing tele lens; the 300mm f/4L IS beats the 400mm lens hands down. It focuses to 1.5 meters and with a 1.4x TC gives a focal length of 420mm with the same minimum focusing distance. I can use this lens for some great "pseudo-macro" shots.

 

I am testing the 300mm to see if I like it well enough as a 420mm f/5.6 lens with the 1.4x TC to change from my 400mm f/4L. If I find that they each have their own purpose, I will keep both lenses. I can envision using both in the way that I use my 70-200 and my 400mm.

 

The IS and constant f/4 aperture when used without the TC gives more capability in lower light levels than I would get with a 100-400L at 300mm.

 

I have been lucky enough to find both the 300mm and 400mm lenses in mint shape on the used market for just a bit over what I would have paid for a new 100-400L push-pull zoom.

This new forthcoming offering from Sigma may turn out to be an interesting alternative:

 

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3347&navigator=3

 

120-400 f/4.5-5.6 OS HSM

 

Sort of a redesign of their 80-400 OS lens, but with much needed HSM and OS that allegedly provides a 4 stop advantage now. Oh, and minimum focus distance of 1.5m too.

No - I have never had that issue. When using the 100-400mm on my 20D, I am mostly shooting things that tend to be far away, or really really close. But then I use the 500D macro filter, and the things that I want to shoot with that setup isn't bothered by me being so close.

Mark U,

 

I'm not really interested in a zoom. I already own two zooms that get to 300mm, and I really don't want another in that range. Thanks for the suggestion, however.

The suggestion was based on the need for 400mm focal length and f/5.6 with a short close focus distance (and the advantage is the stabilisation, not offered on the Canon prime). Of course, we'll have to see how the lens performs. There is a good chance that it will be better than the Canon 100-400 at 400, and it may not be far behind the 400 f/5.6 prime - perhaps in practice (i.e. away from a tripod) giving better images due to stabilisation.