Nice cheap EF 400mm F/5.6 in BnS, how is it?


Status
Not open for further replies.

dRebelXT

New Member
May 14, 2005
1,636
0
0
It must be nice to own one of that. And it's only 1200g, lighter than my EF135-400. :confused:
If somebody buys mine, it's likely I will pick up this 400mm prime.
;)
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
37
Melbourne, Australia
It's a nice lens, no question, but make sure it fits your needs. It's a very long prime lens on a 350D, so unless you always shoot at the longest end of your zoom in the past, this might not be ideal for you.
 

Garion

Senior Member
Nov 26, 2002
5,527
0
0
46
West side of S'pore
Visit site
dRebelXT said:
It must be nice to own one of that. And it's only 1200g, lighter than my EF135-400. :confused:
If somebody buys mine, it's likely I will pick up this 400mm prime.
;)
Sure its nice. But do you have a use for it? What would you be using it for?

The 400mm prime is a very specialised lens. Mainly it is used for shooting birds and other shy wildlife. Makes no point to purchase it if you do not use it for the above mentioned. Moreover, although its light, it needs a good support system, to get the best results from it, as it does not have the IS function.
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
37
Melbourne, Australia
Not to discourage you from buying it, but if I were in your shoes I'd consider the 300mm f/4L IS. Get a 1.4X TC, and you'll have two primes with IS. I've heard that there are marked differences in results with a TC though, and it seems to work well with the Teleplus Pro 300 DG (?).

It's agreed amongst many people (Canon users of course) that the 400mm f/5.6 is the best birding lens in the world with its sheer sharpness and the speed of the AF.
 

dRebelXT

New Member
May 14, 2005
1,636
0
0
fWord said:
Not to discourage you from buying it, but if I were in your shoes I'd consider the 300mm f/4L IS. Get a 1.4X TC, and you'll have two primes with IS. I've heard that there are marked differences in results with a TC though, and it seems to work well with the Teleplus Pro 300 DG (?).

It's agreed amongst many people (Canon users of course) that the 400mm f/5.6 is the best birding lens in the world with its sheer sharpness and the speed of the AF.
I see. Maybe can still save for 100-400mm. ;p
I have a bad habbit of whenever seeing anything nice I want to own it. :sweat:
 

dRebelXT

New Member
May 14, 2005
1,636
0
0
Garion said:
Sure its nice. But do you have a use for it? What would you be using it for?

The 400mm prime is a very specialised lens. Mainly it is used for shooting birds and other shy wildlife. Makes no point to purchase it if you do not use it for the above mentioned. Moreover, although its light, it needs a good support system, to get the best results from it, as it does not have the IS function.
Chasing animals like your avatar right. Prob not for me due to allergetic nose.
Once I sneeze, animals/birds within 100 meter radius start running for life. :bsmilie:
 

Garion

Senior Member
Nov 26, 2002
5,527
0
0
46
West side of S'pore
Visit site
dRebelXT said:
I see. Maybe can still save for 100-400mm. ;p
I have a bad habbit of whenever seeing anything nice I want to own it. :sweat:
That is known as the Buy Buy Buy a.k.a espn syndrome. :bsmilie:
 

Garion

Senior Member
Nov 26, 2002
5,527
0
0
46
West side of S'pore
Visit site
dRebelXT said:
Chasing animals like your avatar right. Prob not for me due to allergetic nose.
Once I sneeze, animals/birds within 100 meter radius start running for life. :bsmilie:
My general advice is: only buy it if you need it. Else, just drop the idea.
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
37
Melbourne, Australia
dRebelXT said:
I have a bad habbit of whenever seeing anything nice I want to own it. :sweat:
Ah well...that's normal. Everybody has the right to want something. It's only with specialized equipment that I think we should exercise more caution.

If you were hard-pressed, it might still be possible to do head & shoulders portraits with a 300mm f/4 for example, but with a 400mm f/5.6, it's less likely.

The 100-400mm is looking like a fine lens, and it is popular, but I wish the AF were faster. At least it's silent, smooth and very well-built...feels like I could bat somebody over the head with it and still take photos.
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,001
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
Yes, buy if you only need it as lens like these will burn a huge hole in yr pocket.
 

Terence

Senior Member
Nov 16, 2003
4,751
0
36
I'm a Llama!
I think the 400/5.6 is best used by birders as a flight lens, I don't see much other use for it. Sports? I'm not sure, I think you'd be better served by the 300/4 with a TC for sports.

It's image quality, while good, is not as good as the 300/4 and perhaps a tad better than the 100-400 at 400.
 

songandesther

New Member
Aug 12, 2003
291
0
0
47
SengKang
www.pbase.com
I have gone thru the process of deciding between the 400 f5.6, 300 f4 and 100-400. Dropped 400 f5.6 because it has no IS. Bought the 100-400 for its versatility over the 300 prime. Yes, I can slap a 1.4x on the 300 and vary between 300 and 420 but I find it slow and tedious, worst than changing lens. Not earning money from pictures so not too particular over the sharpness difference between the prime and zoom.

Identify your needs and preference then make your choice.
 

user111

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2004
4,702
0
36
the 400/5.6 cannot use in low light indoors events shooting. u will need IS. u can however carry it around, mmounted on a second body, just for show as a display accessory hehehe
 

Danntbt

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2004
3,173
0
0
Chestnut
dannytoh.multiply.com
....looks like more and more are being won over by 100-400IS. Glad I decided to hang on to it, been great in serving my sports shoots.
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
37
Melbourne, Australia
Danntbt said:
....looks like more and more are being won over by 100-400IS. Glad I decided to hang on to it, been great in serving my sports shoots.
For a lens in this zoom range, with the equivalent of IS and USM, I guess this is the only choice. I'd liked to have been able to consider third-party choices as well if they were much cheaper. The Sigma 80-400mm OS came close, but without HSM, I was worried that the AF speed would be too slow for faster-moving subjects.
 

Wai

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
5,270
0
36
41
South Pole with Penguin
singastro.org
how about Sigma 120-300 f2.8

having 300mm@ f2.8 is better than having IS

it also give u the flexibility of having a zoom lens (can easily replace the 70-200 f2.8 + 300 f2.8), add a 1.4x TC and u will get a 170 - 420 f4!!!

got HSM and sharp even at wide open

the only turn off will be its weight
 

songandesther

New Member
Aug 12, 2003
291
0
0
47
SengKang
www.pbase.com
Wai said:
how about Sigma 120-300 f2.8

having 300mm@ f2.8 is better than having IS

it also give u the flexibility of having a zoom lens (can easily replace the 70-200 f2.8 + 300 f2.8), add a 1.4x TC and u will get a 170 - 420 f4!!!

got HSM and sharp even at wide open

the only turn off will be its weight
Er, at 2.6kg, this monster is at a different category leh. It is in the Canon 300 f2.8 category. :)
 

Terence

Senior Member
Nov 16, 2003
4,751
0
36
I'm a Llama!
The 120-300, imo, is not that great. Extremely heavy and unevenly balanced, I don't think it's very sharp and AF is extremely slow when compared to the Canons. It's niche is its zoom at a constant f2.8, nothing else really. I hated that lens with a vengence and only kept it for a very short while.
 

Wai

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
5,270
0
36
41
South Pole with Penguin
singastro.org
Terence said:
I don't think it's very sharp and AF is extremely slow when compared to the Canons.
I have seen very good output from 120-300 f2.8 in other forums, some even say comparable with canon 300mm f2.8....while some pple return it after a short while.

probably this is due to Sigma's inconsistency in QC? :dunno:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.