Nice cheap EF 400mm F/5.6 in BnS, how is it?
- Thread starter dRebelXT
- Start date
- Status
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.
Sure its nice. But do you have a use for it? What would you be using it for?dRebelXT said:It must be nice to own one of that. And it's only 1200g, lighter than my EF135-400.
If somebody buys mine, it's likely I will pick up this 400mm prime.
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.
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.
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 said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Identify your needs and preference then make your choice.
....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.
Danntbt said:
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.
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
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
Wai said:
Er, at 2.6kg, this monster is at a different category leh. It is in the Canon 300 f2.8 category.
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.
Terence said:
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
Similar threads
