400mm f/5.6 L usability

[panos_voudouris]

Hi all,

 

I am looking to buy a long telephoto, particularly the 400mm f/5.6

L. I want to use the lens for some super-tele shots in town,

landscapes and I would like to venture into large animal

photography in the outdoors.

 

The questions:

 

1) Usability: Given the lack of IS, I will need either a bright day

with 100 film or 800 film on an overcast day to handhold this lens

wide open. Can it generally be hand-held? Or is it purely a

monopod/tripod lens?

 

2) How about a monopod? I have one but never used such a long

telephoto with it. How many stops can I expect to gain? I can manage

2-3 stops with my current lenses, would it be worse with a 400,

say only gain 1 stop?

 

3) AF: Since I will be using it on a EOS 30 (Elan 7) would the AF

still be quick. I read that the 400/5.6 is one of the fastest

lenses, I am just wondering if that is limited to EOS 3/1 series

cameras, as f/5.6 is right at the cut-off point for the EOS 30's AF.

 

4) Given a tripod, has anyone used this lens for portraits?

Obviously the distance will be quite big between the camera and

subject but just for fun, is it a good lens for posed portraits

(bokeh)?

 

I have considered the 300mm f/4 IS + 1.4x TC too, but given that I

will be getting a 200mm f/2.8 as well, 300mm is not so much of a

difference and 400 I read is the minimum for wildlife photography.

 

Finally, would extension tubes and/or a 1.4x TC increase

magnification of the 400/5.6 to get photos of large insects? Has

anyone done it and do they have some samples?

 

Sorry for the long post, but the 400 is right at the very top of my

budget (adding the 200/2.8 and the TC) so I want to get as many

opinions as I can. Obviously I'll try to find one in a shop, but 10

minutes in the shop won't tell me how it handles outside in the

fields.

 

Many thanks!

[mbb]

I handhold this lens all the time - never on tripod. In my portfolio more then half photos was taken with this lens (usually with 1.4X converter). Other part was taken with 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 IS and 500mm f4 IS.

[mark_chappell]

1, 2: see Mark B's post above

 

3: it should AF. Not sure how fast.

 

4. Probably would work fine -- background will be very blurred if it is any distance from

the subject

 

5. Maybe. Probably with tubes, and definitely with a 1.4X TC, you're going to loose AF.

Practically speaking, neither one alone will give you a high reproduction ratio (remember

that reproduction ratio approximately equals extension/focal length, so to get to a 1:2

(1/2 life size) reproduction you need 200 mm of extension. Even to get to 1:4 --

probably the minimum for large insects -- you need about 100 mm of extension. The

native closest-focus magnification of this lens is 1:8 (1/8 life size). A 1.4X TC will change

that to about 1:5.7. One option is the Canon 500D close-up lens, which will retain AF

and yield a focus distance of about 1/2 meter and a reproduction ratio in the vicinity of

1:1.5 or so -- but your focus range is extremely limited with that option.

[rob_murray]

Google for Art Morris birding website, I think he likes that lens a lot. Has some info on his site about it.

[ralph_jensen]

Reichmann likes it too:

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

 

(delete the spaces, if any, in that URL)

 

For Morris's opinion, just google < 400mm 5.6 site:www.birdsasart.com >

[alfarmer]

I couldn't hand-hold it and get decent pictures, so I traded for the 300mm f/4 IS. If you have trouble hand-holding a 200m or 300mm lens, you'll have major problems trying to handhold this one. It's a fine lens, though, so a monopod may be your answer.

 

Regards,

ALF

[ray robertson]

I wouldn't like to use this lens with film. For sharp hand-held shots I generally find the 1/FL rule inadequate with long telephotos. If shooting wildlife, the subject matter is often in the shade or partial shade. I think you'd probably need to use ISO 1600 most of the time with this lens. The IS on my 100-400 is supposed to give the equivalent of a couple of stops extra speed and I find myself using ISOs 400 and 800 most of the time with this lens at 400mm on my 20D which is relatively noise-free up to ISO 800.

 

By the way, I once bought the 400/5.6 prime expecting it to be noticeably sharper than my 100-400, as in Michael Reichmann's review.

 

But it wasn't even as sharp. I'd probably been given a lemon. However, it looked brand new in every respect. Of course I returned the lens with a CD full of comparison images and got a refund.

[yakim_peled1]

When I was searching for a longer tele than my 200/2.8 I eventually got the 300/4 IS + 1.4X TC.

 

I rejected the 100-400 for it's pull-push design (I hate it but regular users tell me you get used to it finally) and not-so-good performance at 400mm wide open, the 400/5.6 for it's lack of IS, the 300/2.8 IS and 400/2.8 IS for their weight and price, the 400/4 DO IS for the price and the Sigma lenses for fear of dealing with future incompatibility problems. So, by elimination, that left me with the 300/4 IS + 1.4X TC setup. More expensive but more versatile. I have two focal lengths, IS (which I think is invaluable in long lenses for a non-tripod user like myself) in both focal lengths, faster aperture in the 300 range, closer minimum focusing distance and still have top-notch optical quality.

 

I think that IS is invaluable in long lenses. I could hand-hold my 200/2.8 only at a minimum of 1/180 but easily reached 1/60 with my 300/4 IS and 1/90 with my 300/4 IS + 1.4X TC. Yes, I have a monopod. Yes, I like it a lot but most of the times it stays at home. I know, I know. I should always use a support and a monopod is a bare minimum but I am too lazy carrying it with me all the time :-( Thus, as fine as the 400/5.6 is, I will never buy it.

 

Naturally, YMMV. HTH.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[dk.]

It needs to be a sunny day for the 400mm unless you use a monopod or tripod and I do not like to use ether.

I have the 200mmF2.8L, 300mmF4L IS and 400mmF5.6L

(IS is a great thing to have in a lens 300mm on up)

 

If I could only pick one of the 3, I would pick the 300F4L IS, it's a great around lens and very sharp, its good for macros too. The 400mm is great on Sunny days when you need the reach and even on sunny days I make sure that the ISO is set at 400 I might even make it 800ISO if there are clouds out but then again if it's a cloudy day I use the 300mm. I also have the 1.4TC but I find I like the 400mm better then the 300mm and TC together.

 

By the way my 200mmF2.8L is mint (I still have the box it came in too) and less then a year old, I don't use it much I bought it before I got the 300mm and 400mm so if you or anyone wants to buy it let me know. :o)

 

Take care.

 

DK.

[rob_murray]

The 300mm F4 with the 1.4x converter works great too even wide open and would give you 2 lenses 300 and 420mm. IS with the newer model

300 lens too.

[panos_voudouris]

Hmmm, some interesting opinions.

 

It seems that I'll have to resort to the monopod most of the time. Not a bad thing, I do

carry the monopod whenever I know that I will need it. Well, I'll have to carry it more often!

 

I did a lot of thinking, between the 200/2.8, 300/4IS, 400/5.6 and even the Sigma 150/

2.8. But I think that 400 for what I need will be a good starting point. The 300 looks like a

brilliant lens, but I want the reach, and with the TC (ok, no AF there with my EOS 30) will

make a very interesting option.

 

I think my Xmas list is complete! Thanks everyone!

[jnicholson]

Lot's of great feedback above. I bought this lens because I wanted a long, light lens for handheld bird work. For this purpose it's a fantastic lens and IS isn't much use anyway. Like Mark B. many of the pictures in my portfolio are taken with this lens.

<p>

I've used this lens with the 500D diopter a few times. Since you asked <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3495606">here's one example</a>. Not the best picture in the world but it'll give you an idea of what you can do with the 400 and the 500D.

<p>

Not too sure how useful this lens would be for portraits. All the best.

[mark_chappell]

Jamie: Unless that's a honkin' big wasp, you got more magnification out of the 400 mm +

500D combination than I would have expected (more than I get with a 100-400, at 400 mm,

with the 500D). Were there extension tubes or a TC involved as well?

 

Pretty impressive.

[andrew robertson]

I also considered the 400 f/5.6 L, but like many others decided on the 300 f/4L IS + 1.4x

TC instead. It's a much more versatile combination in my opinion.

[ray robertson]

Nevertheless, discounting the usual quality control variability issues, I'd wager that the 400/5.6 with tripod would be sharper and more detailed than the 300/4/1.4x. By how much I wouldn't like to say since I've never seen comparison shots.

 

Anyone like to provide some?

[les]

Have a look here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DXQp

 

I have made a comparison between Sigma 80-400, Canon 300/4 with and w/o 1.4TC, and Canon 400/5.6.

 

My conclusion is that on a 8Mp SLR (in my case it was 1D Mk II) the results are almost identical - which simply means that all the tested lenses outresolve the sensor.

 

The results on 1.6x crop sensor may be different, as pixel density is higher (smaller sensor with the same number of pixels will result in higher number of pixels per inch). So, some differences in sharpnes may actually be observed with a smaller sensor.

[mark_chappell]

<I>My conclusion is that on a 8Mp SLR (in my case it was 1D Mk II) the results are almost

identical - which simply means that all the tested lenses outresolve the sensor.</i><P>

 

That's one possibility. Another is that the lenses really are equivalent.

[andrew robertson]

Leszek, the Sigma is clearly behind the Canons in that 'test'. A better test would be one that

took advantage of the test chart more fully by having the chart take up as much of the

frame as possible.

[ray robertson]

Lesek,

Thanks for that link. The tests are interesting but I think you and others now realise what you've demonstrated in those tests is the resolution limits of current sensors and not much more, a point that was made in many of the comments.

 

I've come across this problem myself when testing lenses using test charts consisting of b&w lines. When I bought a Canon 50/1.8 a few years ago, I was curious to see how much more detail it could resolve than my 28-125 IS zoom on my new D60. I actually used the Norman Koren test charts.

 

Was I surprised to find this terrific value little lens with a Photodo rating of 4.2 (as opposed to the 3.5 rating of the 28-135 IS) didn't seem to resolve a single additional line. So I did a bunch of tests with different lenses, primes and zooms, but always matching the focal length and shooting from the same distance to the chart. Guess what! They all resolved the same number of lines, give or take one or two. The exception was the Sigma 20/1.8. At full aperture this lens resolved fewer lines in the centre and significantly fewer at the edges despite the 1.6 crop factor. From memory, by f5.6 it was resolving the same as the other lenses, confirming the view that cheap lenses really do have lousy performance at full aperture.

 

My own experience when shooting test charts is, stick a teleconverter on any lens of reasonable quality without changing the distance to the chart and you'll resolve more lines, which can be very gratifying. The problem is, real world scenes tend not to consist of high contrast b&w lines, but low contrast subtle changes in hue and shade, although often there are high contrast edges in parts of an image.

 

Comparing the 'quality' of the test chart lines in the 50/1.8 shot with the 28-135 at 50mm, it was apparent that the edges of the lines were cleaner. There's no doubt that real world images from the 50/1.8 have that 'sharper' look, although it is difficult to point to a specific detail, however small, that exists in the 50/1.8 shot and not in the 28-135 shot at 50mm.

[les]

Andrew,

 

"Leszek, the Sigma is clearly behind the Canons in that 'test'. A better test would be one that took advantage of the test chart more fully by having the chart take up as much of the frame as possible.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Well, I have to disagree here.

The test was set up according to recommendations, at 27x the focal length (for each lens). The chart was printed to the specified size.

 

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pdml-procedure.html

 

The 100% crops compare apples with apples. I would really be interested to see how the test might possibly benefit from "the test chart... take up as much of the frame as possible".

 

I recommend that you have a really close look at the USAF chart. The chart consist from progressively smaller and smaller identical patterns - the test distance is irrelevant (unless the lens displays different sharpness at different focusing distances, of course).

 

On 100% crop you will see the same thing (no matter what the distance to the target), the only thing which WILL change are the numbers identifying each pattern. I hope that I made myself clear this time.

[panos_voudouris]

"I've used this lens with the 500D diopter a few times. Since you asked here's one example. Not the best picture in the world but it'll give you an idea of what you can do with the 400 and the 500D. "

 

Wow! That is very impressive. I never considered diopters before as I have a macro lens, but maybe I should try them, especially with the 200 and 400 lenses.

 

What was the working distance in that shot? According to Julian's Lens Calculator the 400 with a 500D should give you 1:1 at 44cm. Is that correct?

[les]

Raymond,

 

'The tests are interesting but I think you and others now realise what you've demonstrated in those tests is the resolution limits of current sensors and not much more, a point that was made in many of the comments'

 

Isn't it exactly what I have said in my original post ?

 

No one is trying to prove that the 80-400 is sharper than 300 or 400mm prime. What I am saying that unless you shoot with 1DsII (or high Mp but small size sensor) the theoretical sharpness of the lens becomes a moot point (to a degree). If the lens outresolves the sensor, then it does not matter how sharp it is (at least for purposes of sharpness, not other lens properties).

 

Generally I think that people sometimes stress too much, pixel peep too much, quote second-hand opinions and inaccurate views etc. etc too much.

 

If I put some stuff on the forum - it is not to promote any brand (I have 6 Canon lens and 2 Sigmas) or get into arguments - it is just because people ask questions and I am trying to be helpful. I am also trying to be practical. My opinion is based on what I can see. If Andrew can see that Sigma is "clearly behind Canon in thas test" - I am not going to argue. I see what I see. Maybe my eyesight needs correction, maybe his - it is irrelevant. Someone asked about comparison of these 3 lens - I happen to have them all, so I performed a (maybe amateurish) test.

 

If people see what they want to see - it is their right. If they want to stick to the opinion that "the only righteous lens is the lens made by (insert your favorite brand here)" - fine by me.

 

In many cases the discussion about lens sharpness (with current generation sensors) is akin to discussing superiority of Christmas over Easter.

 

My advice to anyone is: get a decent glass, make sure that it is decent enough to out-resolve your sensor (current and possible the next upgrade), make sure that you like the bokeh or whatever it is that you like, go out there, take some pics, post them on PhotoNet, enjoy life.

 

Do not: get a heart attack over a dead pixel, dust on the sensor, sharpness of Canon vs Sigma, and whole bunch of other crap not worth discussing.

 

Ok, enough of this rant. BTW, Raymond, this was not directed at you, it was just a general mid-week rant.

 

Peace.

[les]

And (Raymond):

 

"stick a teleconverter on any lens of reasonable quality without changing the distance to the chart and you'll resolve more lines"

 

Not really. You will not resolve a single line more (with those rare exceptions when TC actually improves lens performance). You will just see that a smaller pattern resolved OK (with TC, as compared to the naked lens).

 

You need to take into account the magnification. In other words - when using TC, you need to re-calculate the results for different focal length (the actual x TC factor - 1.4 or 2 or whatever it is).

In which case the difference will be zilch (if the resolving power is still better than the sensor's).

[andrew robertson]

There are a few ways that the test might be more informative. Firstly, testing only the very

central portion of a lens is unlikely to inform much about the overall optical quality of the

lens, unless one only uses the equivalent central crops in real photography too. An

adjunct of this is that most lenses, even the crappiest ones you can mount on your EOS

camera, will perform well in a 3-4mm circle in the center of the image. Second, at that

distance, each lens nearly resolves the same amount of the test chart. It's not clear that

this would be true at closer distances. Third, sharpness isn't everything. Your test

informs nothing about CA or vignetting, for example. And finally, as I said even given the

rather uninformative nature of this particular test I can see that the Sigma has less

contrast at the limit of resolving power.

 

If you placed these charts so that one was in each corner of the image as well as having

one in the center, you could tell a lot more about the lenses that you tested other than

that they are sharp and relatively aberration-free in the dead center of the frame. As I said

above I would expect any lens made in the last 60 years to be sharp on-axis - even

drugstore disposables.

[ray robertson]

<i>You need to take into account the magnification. </i>

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. If you don't change the distance to the chart and you fit a teleconverter, you have increased the magnification. That's the whole purpose of using a teleconverter, to magnify the target, subject, whatever.

 

Lines that were spaced at 100 lp/mm are enlarged to 50 lp/mm (with a 2x converter). The sensor is not capable of recording 100 lp/mm, but it is capable (in the case of a D60) of recording 50 lp/mm, provided the contrast (MTF response) is good. Unfortunately, the addition of a teleconverter reduces contrast, reduces the MTF response, and therefore makes it unlikely that 100 lp/mm will stand a chance of being recorded. But 60 or 70 lp/mm, maybe. However, if you have 60 or 70 lp/mm that are not b&w but 128,128,128 against 138,138,138, then no chance.