Canon 400mm F/5.6 USM

[Mitchell]

I just rented this lens, And i just LOVE THIS THING! just got it this afternoon.
I rented this lens for the opening of yellowstone this friday to shoot all the new born animals
its alot bigger than i thought it would be but its not bad, compared to my 70-300 its like a giant.
I love the USM focusing, its so fast!
it would be nice to have a lower F stop but dont really want the weight of the other version
This is definitly a lens im saving for, it will definitly be worth the $1200

BTW rented from http://www.lensrentals.com

[bob_r]

Mitchell,

Before you buy a 400, you might want to try renting the 100-400 for comparison. I've had both and kept the 100-400. Even though the IS on the 100-400 is an older version, it still makes a hugh difference in poor light. Even though I use my 100-400 at 400 most of the time, it's nice to be able to zoom it back when necessary.

[gldiana]

I back Bob on this one. The 100-400 lens is super sharp and has an IS that rivals newer versions.

[Mitchell]

while looking for reviews on bolth lens i found this guy who uses both and did a 100% crop of two pictures he took, And that mad up my mind right there. IS would be nice but at 400mm i would still need a tripod, the only way i would consider the 100-400 is becuase of the zoom but after this comparison theres a big diference..

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... -400.shtml

[bob_r]

IS would be nice but at 400mm i would still need a tripod.....

That's what IS is all about - you don't need a tripod. You also don't need a tripod with the 400L when you have decent light. Most of the shots I've taken with both the 400 and the 100-400 were without a tripod and many were with shutter speeds way less than 1/100s. My keeper rate on handheld shots with the 100-400 was much higher than with the 400, but it's possible to get low-light keepers even with the 400 and no IS. While the charts may show a difference in IQ for these lenses, in real life, my results did not show a discernable difference. To me the additional benefits of the zoom and the IS far outweighed any slight difference in IQ.

This shot was taken handheld with a 30D and the 400L with a shutter speed of 1/50s.



This one was taken handheld with a 30D and the 100-400 also with a shutter speed of 1/50s.
The ISO setting was higher on this shot and it was also cropped much more than the one above.

[Mitchell]

i just dont want to spend alot more money and get less quality of a lens even if it has IS.
if the 100-400mm was like F/2.0 or somthing at 400mm then it would be worth it i think.
not saying the 100-400mm is a terible lens or anything just saying i would rathe have the 400mm

[bob_r]

i just dont want to spend alot more money and get less quality of a lens even if it has IS.
if the 100-400mm was like F/2.0 or somthing at 400mm then it would be worth it i think.
not saying the 100-400mm is a terible lens or anything just saying i would rathe have the 400mm

No problem, Mitchell. It was just a suggestion based on my experiences with both lenses.
One other thing I might mention is that when the 100-400 lens first came out, a lot of the units produced soft images.
It appears that Canon corrected that problem in the ones manufactured in the last few years. I don't know how
old the one your reviewer used was, but that could have had a bearing on his results.

I'm looking forward to seeing your pics from Yellowstone. Hope you have a great time and capture some masterpieces!

[gldiana]

while looking for reviews on bolth lens i found this guy who uses both and did a 100% crop of two pictures he took

Mitchell,
I read that review too a few months ago when I was researching the 100-400. All I can say is: don't make judgment out of a single review from someone you don't know. At the end, the choice is yours and so is the money. The best advice I can give you is to rent both and compared them yourself.
But just to add a little more, this is a photo (you guys saw it before when I posted it last October) taken with a 100-400 at 400mm, no tripod, no sharpening and it's a 100% crop: (I post it as a URL because the forum doesn't allow the display of an image of this size)

http://www.lucadiana.net/forum/seagull01.jpg

[Bonish Photo]

Oh Come on! Just sell your car like I did and buy the dang 400mm f/2.8! It's so fast it's scary and I dont need to go to the gym anymore either!

[bob_r]

.... and I dont need to go to the gym anymore either!

That's because Cindy carries it for you!

[Mitchell]

(Oh Come on! Just sell your car like I did and buy the dang 400mm)

but then how do you get around to take those pictures

That's because Cindy carries it for you!

LOL!!


on my way to cleaning cabins today i found these two moose,
heres the photo's..
This is my first real try on taking any pictures with this lens so far, i dident have my tripod with me this time so most of them dident turn out but it was still pretty fun..

[Mitchell]

OH woops! totally missed two posts here.

i just dont want to spend alot more money and get less quality of a lens even if it has IS.
if the 100-400mm was like F/2.0 or somthing at 400mm then it would be worth it i think.
not saying the 100-400mm is a terible lens or anything just saying i would rathe have the 400mm

No problem, Mitchell. It was just a suggestion based on my experiences with both lenses.
One other thing I might mention is that when the 100-400 lens first came out, a lot of the units produced soft images.
It appears that Canon corrected that problem in the ones manufactured in the last few years. I don't know how
old the one your reviewer used was, but that could have had a bearing on his results.

I'm looking forward to seeing your pics from Yellowstone. Hope you have a great time and capture some masterpieces!

i never thought about the fact that it might be an oder version lens.. hmmm, thanks!

while looking for reviews on bolth lens i found this guy who uses both and did a 100% crop of two pictures he took

Mitchell,
I read that review too a few months ago when I was researching the 100-400. All I can say is: don't make judgment out of a single review from someone you don't know. At the end, the choice is yours and so is the money. The best advice I can give you is to rent both and compared them yourself.
But just to add a little more, this is a photo (you guys saw it before when I posted it last October) taken with a 100-400 at 400mm, no tripod, no sharpening and it's a 100% crop: (I post it as a URL because the forum doesn't allow the display of an image of this size)

http://www.lucadiana.net/forum/seagull01.jpg

that pretty good for a 100% crop!

[Bonish Photo]

My wife, the Sherpa

[bob_r]

Pat,

That's the shot I was thinking about when I posted.
We know she has the beauty and the muscle in your family, what did you bring to the table?

[Bonish Photo]

She doesnt know Photochop as good as I do

We just had an argument yesterday because she says "Why cant you make your own lunch?"

She says this to me while I'm on the computer editing some hundreds of pictures she took while exploring the cemeteries in New Orleans.

So I say back to her "Fine, I'll make my own lunch, you edit your own pictures from now on and upload the galleries!"

She was out of her seat in about two seconds working in the kitchen. She hates working on computers, so when we go out taking pictures, she just waits till I clean the cards, then browses through her shots deleting what ever she doesnt like and tags ones that she does. I do the rest. I joke with her that she's as close as it gets to a true professional. She has her own editor who does all her post processing work for her.

In reality, we have the system worked out pretty good and both like it that way, so dont get me wrong, it wasnt an argument, more or less just two people who live in a 25' camper letting off steam.