Is 400F5.6L USM a good prime lens??
- Thread starter cherkel
- Start date
- Status
+evenstar
Senior Member
you have to stop down to about f8-f11 to get the quality...
Wow...that much? Cheez...no wonder no one speaks of this. Than it would appear that the 100-400 would be the better choice.
Yes Deswitch, keep the 100-400. In fact u should own both haha
Aihz.... I do miss my 100-400.
I have use Sigma too 50-500, so I'm actually changing from 50-500 to 100-400 then 400mm.
50-500 zooming is really sucks. I prefer 100-400 so much easier to zoom. This is just my personal opinion. Dont takea me seriously
Here is sample of 100-400 Handheld
Sorry Mate, you're not getting it back from me
I would like to own the 400mm f5.6 for it's sharpness wide open, but opted for the 100-400mm zoom for the versatility while I travel with the family. So it's up to the individual's requirements.
cheers,
ptlee
Sorry Mate, you're not getting it back from me
cheers,
ptlee
:mad2: :mad2: :mad2:
Wah...very nice shot. :thumbsup: This is a Fairy Wren or something like that right? Yes the 100-400 IS is a good travel lens and quite versatile.Sorry Mate, you're not getting it back from me
I would like to own the 400mm f5.6 for it's sharpness wide open, but opted for the 100-400mm zoom for the versatility while I travel with the family. So it's up to the individual's requirements.
cheers,
ptlee
Sonix: see lar...who ask u to sell. :blah:
That appears to be the case in some of the tests I've seen, and they show the 100-400mm to be sharper at the 400mm end compared to the prime plus TC. But like I've said before, there's quite a few others who will tell you otherwise. I've never had both side by side and hence cannot comment about it. I've attempted the TC on the prime for some test shots and I'm actually surprised that it somewhat seems to improve quality.
Here's a few crops just to demonstrate. Not scientific, but if you're bored, please feel free to look through them. The TC seems to improve definition and marginally reduce CA. All shot indoors on tripod, remote release, and wide open (f/4 or f/5.6 with or without TC respectively):
Without TC:
With TC:
Without TC:
With TC:
For what it's worth, the results I got are actually more in line with what Canon publishes in its MTF graphs in the EF Lens Work book, which shows that contrast at max aperture actually improves with a TC while resolution stays roughly the same.
Another word of warning about the 300mm f/4L IS...I found that using a UV filter as protection dramatically reduces image quality. The lens itself already has a protective glass, so it may be wise to avoid using a filter entirely. I only found this out after having already bought a filter for my lens.
Anyway, so much for the rubbish. In the end, unless you're going strictly for birds, you'll probably be happier with a 100-400mm. The zoom range will come in very handy, and the lens is remarkably versatile. It is perhaps the ultimate Canon zoo lens at this time and it'll probably do extremely well on safari.
:bsmilie: :bsmilie:
Yup, it's a Splendid Fairy Wren, taken just outside the cottage I was staying. Thanks.
cheers,
ptlee
Thanks fWord, very informative as usual. Trust you to be an expert in this zoom lens
:embrass: Nah, don't say that. I enjoy trying different things to see how they work, and to get a feel for it myself. There's always lots of 'for' and 'against' for some lenses, and nothing beats trying it out for yourself. If it feels right, it'll stick for sure. :bsmilie: These L lenses hold their value pretty well. If you buy used, don't like it and have to sell it, the loss (if any) will be very minimal...just be sure of how much you want to pay and don't pay too much.
For reference, I found this list a while ago...not been updated with the recent releases though. Weatherproofing requires a filter to be fitted and note that even though some of these lenses do extend when zooming (e.g. 24-70L), they are weather proof. All less relevant if you don't have a 1 series body though.
16-35 2.8 L
17-40 4.0 L
24-70 2.8 L
28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS
70-200 2.8 L IS (the non is not weather proof)
300mm 2.8 L IS
400mm 2.8 L IS
400mm f/4.0 DO (Diffractive Optics) IS
500mm 4.0 L IS
600mm 4.0 L IS
The Canon 2x II Extender EF and Canon 1,4x II Extender EF are also sealed. Note that only the second version of the extenders are sealed.
Speaking of these extenders/ teleconverters. There are some Mark I versions swimming around the B&S on some occasions. How do they differ from the new MKII versions other than the lack of weather sealing? Would optical quality be the same?
Optical quality on the Mk II versions is reputed to be better than the Mk I though I have yet to see actual test results comparing both.
The latest L series lenses from Canon also seem to be weather-sealed.
EF 24-105mm f4L IS
EF 70-200mm f4L IS
EF 50mm f1.2L
Thanks. Reason why I was interested to know is because I have the chance to get hold of a Canon 2X TC MKI, and was thinking about stacking it together with a Sigma 1.4X TC on a lens, just for fun and to see what shots I can get with that kind of reach.
Additional problem here is that I don't know if I can even stack the two TCs together, or whether I'd need something else in between.
You might need an extension tube in between the two TC's as the Canon TC has a protruding element. Depends on the order of how your stack it...coz depending on cam body, the cam body normally detects the TC attached to the lens and hence reports the aperture of that TC + lens. So e.g if its cam body -> 2xTC -> 1.4x TC -> Lens, the aperture might be reported to be at f5.6. (if you are using a 300mm f4 IS lens).
Can try experimenting to get best results. But stacked TCs normally results in overall poor image quality.
Yes...just as I fear. Not sure how accurate the diagrams in the book really are. I'm only guessing so far that I might be able to stick the 2X TC to the lens first and then affix the 1.4X TC before hooking it up to the camera. The Sigma 1.4X has a protruding front element as well, though it is not pronounced and doesn't go beyond the lens mount.
I know I'll probably lose AF whichever way I see it, but I wouldn't be doing any action shots with such a setup, but will probably go for just the big sun/ big moon effect. In this case, poorer image quality might even make the image more evocative. :think:
For the 1.4X the optics for the Mk I and Mk II are the same.
For the 2X, the Mk II optics are different from the Mk I and are supposed to be better.
Some users say much better, some say no difference. However, for 2X TC, the performance is highly dependent on the lens being used so a fair comparison is difficult. For most lenses I think a 2x Mk II might only be marginally better.
I do not have both versions of the 2 TCs so I can't say for sure. Hope that helps.
Thanks.
Talking about these versions of the TCs really reminds me of the kit lens that came with the 350D. Some said it differs optically and is improved from the MK I version sold with the 300D, others say it's optically identical but cosmetically different. :bsmilie:- Status
Similar threads
