Agonizing over whether to buy a 400mm 5.6 - GOT the 400..question though

[waterjug]

update: got the 400 5.6! Thanks for all the input....question though it's got this weird set of numbers on it towards the base. The manual says it's a 'depth of field scale'..Like what you see on the right of this picture. What is this?? The camera has autofocus but the numbers change when I manually turn the ring. Also, my camera changes the F stop....I'm confused as to what this is on the lens....I don't want to be trying to fiddle around with depth of field manually while trying to capture a fast moving target. What gives?

I've got a T2i and mainly take wildlife/bird photographs. I have the 55-250 IS right now, and for a few months have been hemming and hawing over whether to buy the 400mm. Obviously I'd get a lot more reach out of the 400mm, but I'm just not sure if the image quality is going to actually really be worth the money for the lens. Anyone have any experience here and can tell me if it's really that much of an upgrade, aside from the obvious extra reach with the 400?

 

[fralexandr]

the 400mm prime will have better image quality, but whether it's noticeable depends on your usage
http://www.flickr.com/groups/birdsphotos/discuss/72157629554391401/
at web resolutions it's pretty unnoticeable, probably noticeable if you're making large prints though (especially if cropping the 250mm)
my pentax k100d 6mp is terrible when cropping even for web resolution due to the low pixel count :\

no <3 for the sigma bigma (50-500mm) single lens wildlife solution? (too bad it can't macro for insects and small flowers hah )
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-50-500mm...dp_ob_title_ce

KEH has the older APO (non OS HSM) for *edit:* $700 the lack of optical stabilization kind of makes it meh for handheld shots though
http://www.keh.com/search?store=cam...de=Class&grade=Grade&sprice=0&eprice=0&r=SE&e

KEH is an excellent place to buy used lenses as they are really strict on their ratings.
http://www.keh.com/help.aspx#pe19
basically bargain and up is optically and functionally excellent (dings and dents will be minor and not effect function)


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/497665
a thread comparing the canon 400 and the sigma bigma (old)
note: the new bigma has OS and HSM (optical stabilization and hyper-sonic/high speed af motor)


if you want a cheaper 400mm, the tokina 80-400mm is pretty decent as well.
they can be found for ~$300 used on ebay

 

[waterjug]

holy crap....never even knew that sigma existed

 

[jonny13]

I have the 400 5.6 and have loved it. The autofocus is by far faster than any other lens that I've used (70-200 F4 IS or 100-400 IS). Obviously, without IS, you'll need to keep the shutter speed up, but for birds and other wildlife, it's great. I've used it with a Canon XS as well as the 60D and it worked well on both bodies.

 

[microAmp]

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/167/cat/10
Pretty good for that Canon 400mm, when I compare it against other lenses I've looked into for very long telephoto.

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=31
Here are real world pictures.

 

[blurredvision]

holy crap....never even knew that sigma existed

I love my Sigma 105 macro for my Nikon. Sigma has some great lenses at affordable prices.

 

[swanysto]

Not a pro or anything so take this with a grain of salt, or two. I have rented a couple expensive lenses over the past couple months. There is definitely a difference in image quality, however for my money, I stay with the more inexpensive lenses. I have found that the expensive lenses save me quite a bit of time in photoshop and lightroom. But when I spend the time processing them, I get pictures that are very impressive. I have also found that when I get settings perfect(aperture, iso, etc) that it can be difficult finding differences in the lens' IQ.

Now with birds, it is a little bit different story. I don't attempt birds very often, mostly cause there is nothing around my area to get off the couch for. But I did test out the expensive lenses on birds, to see what the fuss is about. The AF on the big lenses(70-200L, 100-400L, and 70-300L) were superior to the 50-250 and 70-300. That had an impact on some of the faster birds. With the hawks and geese that more so glide than fly it didn't make a huge difference. So maybe it depends on what you shoot.

If I were going with an expensive zoom lens for wildlife, I would go with the 100-400 cause I prefer having the range. However, after reading fralexander's post, I would definitely look into that tokina. That is definitely more my price range.

 

[Madwand1]

Here's another review of the 400 f/5.6 L, with a comparison to the 100-400 L:

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

It seems to me that this lens has a good blend of characteristics for this purpose -- reach, weight, price and quality.

 

[RobDickinson]

I have the 400 5.6 and have loved it. The autofocus is by far faster than any other lens that I've used (70-200 F4 IS or 100-400 IS). Obviously, without IS, you'll need to keep the shutter speed up, but for birds and other wildlife, it's great. I've used it with a Canon XS as well as the 60D and it worked well on both bodies.

Ditto , use mine on a 7D.

Shooting at 400mm on a crop sensor needs technique and effort though.

I dont worry about the lack of IS, use it on a tripod or keep the shutter up remember you will need 1/400th - 1/1000th to prevent movement blur anyhow.

 

[foghorn67]

Awesome AF speed. Anything faster is priced like a small car.

 

[ElFenix]

something tells me i would never want to hand hold a lens named 'bigma'

 

[waterjug]

update: got the 400 5.6! Thanks for all the input....question though it's got this weird set of numbers on it towards the base. The manual says it's a 'depth of field scale'..Like what you see on the right of this picture. What is this?? The camera has autofocus but the numbers change when I manually turn the ring. Also, my camera changes the F stop....I'm confused as to what this is on the lens....I don't want to be trying to fiddle around with depth of field manually while trying to capture a fast moving target. What gives?

 

[fralexandr]

the screen at the base with ft & m is a distance scale
it gives you the distance at which your lens is focused for
it is more common on older film lenses, but is sometimes included on newer lenses as well

 

[waterjug]

the screen at the base with ft & m is a distance scale
it gives you the distance at which your lens is focused for
it is more common on older film lenses, but is sometimes included on newer lenses as well

your camera body will adjust aperature on that lens. you can set it to aperature priority mode (usually Av) or completely manual (M if you want to set aperature and shutter speed)

oooh, so when the camera autofocuses, the scale will move automatically?

 

[fralexandr]

yeah
that scale will move when focusing

 

[blastingcap]

update: got the 400 5.6! Thanks for all the input....question though it's got this weird set of numbers on it towards the base. The manual says it's a 'depth of field scale'..Like what you see on the right of this picture. What is this?? The camera has autofocus but the numbers change when I manually turn the ring. Also, my camera changes the F stop....I'm confused as to what this is on the lens....I don't want to be trying to fiddle around with depth of field manually while trying to capture a fast moving target. What gives?

Newer lenses might not have them, but older lenses usually had distance scales. I like them. They help you manually focus more easily, though frankly it is of less use on a telephoto lens since you will probably be using nothing but autofocus with it.

 

[RobDickinson]

Yeah disstance scale, will move when auto focused or when manually focused (at any time).

Its not hugely useful in the days of good AF and live view focusing.

Your camera will change the fstop when it wants to in auto mode for whatever reason, it shouldnt change the fstop in Av mode (or manual), it will in Tv mode to try and maintain whatever shutter speed you have.