My Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L review

[alexander_sukonkin]

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

I'm using EF EF 400mm f/5.6L USM lens for about a year now.<br /> I'm very happy with the results and want to share my experience. <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.alexsukonkin.com/reviews/Canon-EF400f56-L-USM_en.html">link</a> <br /> <br /> I would appreciate criticism, suggestions for improvement and other comments, so can I revise the review.<br /> Thank you in advance for comments.</p>

[richard_martin10]

<p>Even though there is a limited audience for this usage, I'll add that the lens is also fantastic for motorsports, AF is extremely fast, love the bokeh, there's nothing not to love!</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>I wish Nikon would come out with an updated 400 f/5.6. This is one of those lenses that makes me jealous of Canon shooters.</p>

[ukpa]

<p>I'm considering purchasing this lens. Thanks for the valuable information, Alexander.</p>

[isaac sibson]

<p>Strange, Canon shooters all wish Canon would come out with an updated 400 F5.6....</p>

<p>Alex - wonderful photographs. If only the lens were guaranteed to imbue talent like yours... It's posts like this that remind me why the 400 F5.6L has just made it onto my list, despite my having the 300 F4L IS already (hey, I can have both...). It just would be nice if they'd give it IS.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Alexander, thanks for an interesting hands-on review.</p>

<p>Your duckling picture shows a phenomenon that I reported in a recent posting, namely that very bright out-of-focus highlights show a ring pattern. A number of us discussed how this might be caused.</p>

<p>I believe I now know what the explanation is. Yes, it is a diffraction effect, but you need to go beyond the basic Fraunhöfer theory to understand it. The Fraunhöfer theory deals with diffraction of planar wavefronts, that is, diffraction of a beam of parallel light. We need to be able to deal with diffraction of spherical wavefronts, that is, diffraction of light coming to a focus or diverging beyond it. This is analysed in the Fresnel theory of diffraction. The calculations are substantially more difficult and in general lead to convergent series rather than closed-form expressions, which rather brought the ninetenth-century exploration of this phenomemon to a bit of a standstill. However, with some ingenuity it is possible to devise good numerical techniques that allow computer calculatons to be perfomed quickly. The Fresnel diffraction pattern in the plane of focus looks very similar to the Fraunhöfer pattern, to the extent that superficial treatments do not distinguish between them, or regard the Fraunhöfer pattern as a good enough approximation. We have to work with the Fresnel theory because we need to know what the patterns look like out of the plane of focus, and the answer is that they consist of concentric rings, number and size dependent on the parameters, and with the outermost ring brightest.</p>

<p>This leads to the conclusion that the out-of-focus part of an image is built from these patterns, not from simple discs of light. and may help to explain why "bokeh" can look so ugly. This is probably all very well documented somewhere (where?), but I have never seen it mentioned in any of the numerous discussions of bokeh I have read.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Great review Alex and wonderful illustrative images. I use my 400 f5.6 mostly on a tripod or braced against a tree, but I do occasionally long for IS. I also long for AF when my 1.4TC is mounted.</p>

<p>You can't argue with the sharpness and portability of this fantastic lens. Still, I wonder what a 400 f4 IS would cost. If it's right up there with the 500 f4 IS, then I suppose that the market would be very small, but if it split the cost difference, then that'd be another matter. That would get us over the threshold for a TC to work and make the lens manageable when shooting from a boat hand held.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[felix_mizioznikov]

<p>brilliant review. I have the 300 4.0 and love it. <br>

your 400 is a great lens at the price point that it sells for . nothing beats it. </p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>That was as outstanding review! I have the 200mm 2.8 and have been considering the 300mm f4 IS or the 400 5.6 for a long time. I keep leaning to 300mm but there's something about that crisp 400mm shot at 5.6 that's very appealing! I really like your statement about the extra weight of the 400mm being negated by the fact that it balances so much better on your camera than the 300mm f4. I'm curious if others have noticed this as well? Also, on your site, there's some impressive bird photos taken with the 200mm 2.8. Were these heavily cropped? Great photos and great review. Thanks again!</p>

 

[alexander_sukonkin]

<p>Thank you all for kind words!<br>

Robin, I think you are absolutely right, and it seems thats why prime lenses usually have much pleasent bokeh, than zooms.<br>

Jack, most pictures with 200mm lens were not heavily cropped, flying eaglaes are nearly full frames, they fly very close on Kerala coast. Some a croopped slightly for better composition. Only Turdus pilaris Linnaeus and Sandpiper on the rock were cropped heavily.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I might have missed it, but what body were you using, ie: full frame or crop?</p>

[alexander_sukonkin]

<p>I use it on Canon 40D camera body.<br>

Thank you Mendel, I corrected the review with this info. </p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Alexander, it's a great review, and closely aligns with my own experience with this lens. Your included shots are simply excellent! I can see I need to work on my technique. ;-)</p>

[kmhwildlife]

<p>I know that many desire an IS version of this lens, I doubt it will ever happen. Canon spent too much on R&D for the 400mm f4 IS DO lens to allow an IS version of the f5.6 to cannibalize it. Unfortunate, but there it is.</p>

<p>Even without IS the 5.6 is still a brilliant tool. </p>

[isaac sibson]

<p>I strongly disagree. That's like saying that the BMW 135i is cannibalising sales from the 750i because both do 0-62 in 5.3 seconds. The price differential of the BMWs is smaller though (2.3X, compared to 5X for the lenses). If DO's promise of cheaper large lenses had been fulfilled and the 400 DO came in at less than 2X what the 400 F5.6 does then I would probably agree, but at 5 times the price, I don't think so. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>There's also the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS to consider at a very reasonable price.</p>

<p>A lesson to others, I seriously considered the 100-400 when I bought the 400mm f5.6L. I went for the shapness of the 400mm but miss the IS for may handheld shots, particularly when the subject is moving and/or I can't find anywhere to brace. Now that I'm contemplating a boat trip into the North Florida/South Georgia swamps I'm regretting it more.</p>

<p>On the tripod, braced and handheld under good conditons, the 5.6L is a superb lens that makes me very happy, but a couple of stops of steadyness would be nice from time to time. I'm afraid that'll I'll get nothing useable from a small boat. Maybe I should start a new thread on that topic.</p>

<p>A 500mm f4L IS is in my future. I guess I'll need to save and speed that purchase up before my Florida trip. I'd rather have that than the 400 f4 for around the same money.</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>After reading many comments on these lenses over the years, I've notices several things. Sure there's those who have complained about the 400mm 5.6 not having IS and about poor MFD, but I can't ever recall seeing one comment negative about its sharpness. Everyone seems to rave about this, and not just stopped down, but at 5.6 as well. Whereas comments about the 100-400mm zoom vary greatly, from very sharp, to decent sharpness to soft. And on the opposite end, I can't recall seeing any comments about the 400mm 4.0 DO that raves about its incredible sharpness, and I've seen plenty that are disappointed after spending the big bucks. Seems that if you looking for a 400mm lens and sharpness and IQ is by far your main concern, this is a very easy choice.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>I agreed with the review right up to the comparison with the 100-400mm where it said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Optically prime is in the different league</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My 100-400mm is <em>every bit</em> as sharp as (or to put it another way, is capable of providing images just as sharp and detailed as) those presented in Alexander's review.</p>

<p> </p>

[dcstep]

<p>Despite my longing for IS, I bought the 5.6 for its sharpness. I've never been disappointed in that regard and I very typically use it wide open, maybe 99% of the time. Once in a blue moon I stop down for more DOF, but seldom. (I tend to shoot early and late.) I'm sure that the 100-400 CAN produce great images, but the reviews DO indicate cause for concern, in my view.</p>

[alexander_sukonkin]

<p>Thank you all for your comments!<br>

Keith, I agree that this statement may be too bold, so I updated the review. May be you have very good sample of 100-400, but from my experience, prime is sharper wide open, has virtually none CA and smoother bokeh. Difference in bokeh is noticable when you have busy background under bright light.</p>

 

[kevin_price3]

<p>I have been considering buying this lens as well, and almost did about a month ago. I have been reading reviews on it and going back and forth on whether I needed it or not. Your very good review helped me decide that it is a lens I can use for what I would do with it.</p>

<p>Thanks for the review! </p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>It was a pretty good review until the comment about prime lenses at the end. The inherent optical superiority of primes is not a matter of natural law. Sure, there have been a lot of garbage zooms out there, but there have been garbage primes just as well. This really comes down to question of lens design and economics as primes will probably continue to be a bit lighter and cheaper, but not necessarily better in the IQ department. Repeating on old-wives tale makes a other wise very good review look unintelligent, so I'd rework your conclusions. </p>

[alexander_sukonkin]

<p>Thank you Kevin and Craig.<br /> Craig let me explain my point a bit more clearly.<br /> You are right about lens design and economics. Zoom lens with the same optical quality as a prime would always cost more and weight more. So when we compare lenses in a comparable price range, my statement is generally true.<br /> Sure, if you compare for example 24-70 2.8L or 17-55 2.8 IS with 28 2.8, zoom lenses are better optically.<br /> But if we compare lenses in the same price league I don't know any exceptions. Nobody will argue that 85 1.2 L , 135 2.0 L and 200 2.8 L are better optically than 70-200 2.8 L zooms at the respective focal lengths. The same is true if we compare 300 4.0 L IS and 400 5.6 L with 100-400 L at the respective focal lengths.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I <em>would</em> argue that the 135/2 is superior to the 70-200mm f4 at the same f-stop at 135mm.</p>

[alexander_sukonkin]

<p>Are you joking, Robin?<br /> 70-200 just can NOT take any picture at f/2.0 aperture, and for comparison at f/4 just<br /> try this links:<br /> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0">135 f2.0 vs 70-200 f4 IS</a> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=104&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0"><br /> </a> <br /> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=104&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0">135 f2.0 vs 70-200</a></p>

<p> </p>