I’m a Nikon user who is now contemplating buying a d1x miii, and your video has given more insight into the lenses than the guy in the shop. Keep em coming 😎
An interesting wrap up to the series, Duade - even for non-Canon shooters 👍👊. p.s. - I absolutely loved the duck and duckling shot with duckling on the rock
Last year I told my parents I wanted to buy my first serious bird photography lens and since I knew I wasn't going to convince them to let me buy multiple lenses, I landed on the 100-400ii and I love it dearly! It's incredibly sharp and pairing it with my new M6 Mark.ii has been great. Planning on getting the 1.4x iii converter this year to add the additional reach since I've found I photograph primarily small birds.
Congrats on the new that is a fantastic one, good luck photographing birds. Just be sure to stop down the lens if you get an extender, f11 will likely be the sharpest aperture with a 1.4 converter. Cheers, Duade
This is one of the best reviews on this subject I have seen. Thank you very much. I knew stopping down increased sharpness but seeing is believing. This is going to make me rethink my next lens purchase. Thanks again...
More UA-camrs need to watch and learn from Duade's videos. Everything about your videos is excellent and I learn so much every time. I'm a MFT shooter looking to upgrade to full frame and am considering Nikon Z6 II, is there any chance you'll get your hands on one for testing?
Thank you so much for your kind comment, I appreciate it. I have a good friend that is likely moving to the Nikon mirrorless and I will try and catch up with him and see how it performs. Or if Nikon are reading I am happy to test it. 😀👍 Cheers, Duade 👍
I'd get a z6 II or z7 II but I'm worried about the "blackout" and tracking being behind canon/sony, been hesitation for a years already for a d7500 upgrade.
Wilfried, it is a great lens, just be aware of the lack of IS which means you really need a SS higher than 1/400th handheld otherwise you do get a bit of motion blur in your shots. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade Thanks. I'm aware that it's a specialist lens. I've been using similarly long manual focus lenses already before, so I think I can handle it. The Canon 400/5.6 L seems to be one of the best birding lenses out there (the low weight is an important factor for me, since I want to take it with me on hikes). The new RF lenses could be interesting too in combination with an RF camera, but I'm not yet ready to buy an expensive new camera. I'm getting the 400/5.6 second hand, so I think it won't be a problem to sell it off without much loss whenever I decide to step up to a FF mirrorless system.
@@wwelti Great to hear, it was a game changer for me to be honest. It was just light, fast and sharp which is what we all want. I just wish Canon had made a 500 or 600 version. Cheers, Duade 👍
@@Duade Thanks! Yes, just my thoughts. However... I think Canon did, in a way... The 600/11 and 800/11 are both affordable and very interesting. They require a mirrorless full frame Camera from Canon's RF system though. These cameras can happily autofocus even at f/11. Sure... it's a shockingly dim aperture value and these lenses can't even stop down. But... do they really need to? All we want is nice images of the subjects we love. In this case, birds... These lenses give us what we need: They are lightweight, sharp and LONG. Easy to backpack, easy to handhold, and even image stabilized. So am I tempted? Yes, but not enough to change my system right now. The time may come, eventually.
I’m planning to attend a 10-day photography workshop in Svalbard aboard a small ship in August 2025, with only 12 photographers. A friend who just returned recommended renting the Canon RF 600mm f/4 to pair with my R5 for the trip, but I want to make sure I’m making the best decision for such a significant journey. I currently own the RF 400mm f/2.8, which would save me over $1K if I used it instead of renting the RF 600mm. With the 1.4x extender, I'd get 560mm at f/4 or 800mm at f/5.6 with the 2x extender. I know more glass can affect light transmission, but I’ve heard that the RF extenders don’t degrade image quality like the EF ones did. I’d appreciate your thoughts on whether it’s worth renting the 600mm or just using the extenders with my 400mm. Thank you!
Excellent review. I chose the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II + 1.4 attached to a 7D II as my walk-around setup. It is lighter and less expensive than the 2.8 with similar image quality. If you get a chance to look at one I suggest you check it out. Hope to upgrade to an R5 at some point.
Great vid mate. I thought the 2.8/400 was a tad smoother in the background than the 5.6 when both are stopped down. The trees and dark spots seemed smoother.
the f/5.6 is a tad closer and slightly different framing; plus the sun or clouds may have moved but for all intends and purposes there is no 8K difference in the quality of the bokeh :-)
Thanks mate, yes I suspect the 2.8 just had better quality bokeh, but the test shows how important focal length and distance are to getting nice backgrounds. Cheers, Duade 👍
Hello and great video. I am looking to purchase a Version I because I am also invested in new camera bodies. I wanted to ask if you could help me understand because from the Reserch I have done I hear the main difference is mainly weight and that the image quality is pretty much the same. I don’t plan on using converters but just the lens for night games. Would you be able to tell me if image quality is Farley the same from version I, II or III ? Thank you
The IQ will be similar but the version II did see a bit of a jump, along with the weight savings. You also don't get the full fps in mechanical on the R5/R6 with version 1. They also do not repair or support version 1 anymore. But in saying that the IQ and speed of 2.8 is great. I will say the weight really cannot be underestimated 5370 g (11.84 lb) is very hard to handle long term and if you have not shot a game with one I would suggest hiring one first. Cheers, Duade
Another fantastic review and your lens chart contained the dream lens 200-400!!. I’m more into sports and would fancy the 400DOii but who knows what the future holds. Maybe touch on the blade count between lenses as they influence the blur too. You mention 500/600 is more ideal with the better reach and I know you have done a great vid on the rf800/11 any plans for the rf600/11 version?
For African wildlife. Would you rather go with a 400 2.8 or a Sigma 60-600? The fast lens with 2.8 is nice but if you step down anyways wouldn’t be a sigma zoom a better choice? A used mark 2 400 is more or less the same price as the sigma. Thanks!
Hello Daude, As always very detailed video really helps us make appropriate decisions based on our requirements. The way you consolidate all the right set of information in the review along with reference images is just so commendable. Looking forward for more learning from you. 😊
The outtakes!🤣. Thanks for taking the time for the clear and fair review! Liked seeing the crop and DOF comparisons Currently shooting with a Tamron 5.6 150-600 G2. Sometimes I’m looking for more reach but it works for now.
G'day Elaine, yes I wonder how I put together a sentence at times.😂 You have a great lens and don't worry I think we all want more reach at times. Cheers, Duade 👍
Love your videos and the photos you show! I think that it's important to remember that the most important contributors to the depth of field are the focal length and distance to the subject because it's a quadratic dependency, and f-stop is a linear dependency. DoF = u² × 2 × N × C / f². Get 2x closer to a subject, and you get 4x more narrowed depth of field. Going from 400mm to 600mm has a 2.25x impact on the depth of field. Combined these factors together, and its 4 * 2.25 = 9x more narrowed depth. It means that 400mm f/2.8 gives you roughly the same depth of field as 600mm f/6.3. It's could have been interesting to do the math regarding the DoF for f/2.8 and f/8 from your benchmark. Every lens doesn't demonstrate its maximum sharpness at the widest aperture, but it could have been not the only contributor. It could have been a problem because the depth of field was too narrow. Sometimes I don't like when a lens obliterates a background too much. Laser distance meters can be useful to get the depth of field that you want in order to get the correct parts of a subject in focus, but the eyes + a calculator can do a good job as well.
As a pro motorsport photographer I swapped my 500mm f4.5 [1990s] for a 400mm f2.8 for the extra light it brought, often using it wide open in the rain. Now I am doing a lot more birding I wouldn't mind a 600mm. Do you think there is much difference in quality between my Mk1 non IS and the lens you tested?
I think the big difference is the weight reduction and the improved IS enabling slower SS if needed. It is a quality lens for sure and takes converters probably better. I assume the AF will be faster than the original as well. If I had a choice between the 400 and 600 I would go with the 600 for birding but the 400 would be better for motorsport, sport etc. Cheers, DUade
Super review/ teaching video! Suggestion you could name the prop owl "Warby". I've made a decision on what lens to purchase. Camera body a Canon 5D Mark IV, lens Canon 100 - 400 4.5/5.6 IS ll. Your videos and others have been a great influence on my purchase choice. God bless/ Cheers! thank you for your time and efforts.
Great video. On a mirrorless body the 300mm f4 IS canon is amazing, with the lowest minimum focus distance. The fact that it's so light makes it a pleasure to use and is sharp wide open.
Thanks Carl, yes it is fantastic for low light, sports etc but I think as you say the 5 or 600 are the better options for birds. Mind you I was impressed with how it went at 800mm. Cheers, Duade
Duade The Owl name Hootie sounds good to me . I am using a 55- 300 WR PLM weather sealed lens on a Pentax body the lens is a 4.5 -5.6 with electronic fast autofocus I am looking into a extender at this time. Pentax cameras have very few focus points and can be challenging on moving objects. Such as birds in flight , not a problem for stationary birds and my pictures crop well on stationary wildlife
Mine is brilliant at f/2.8, and I think you're missing out. To me, even at f/2.8 the photos are pin sharp, even when I used it mainly on my 250D. The only real obstacle, is that if you are slightly out of focus, the subject is more often way out of the DOF, or the part you focused on is no longer in it because either of you have moved a tiny bit. I've had mine for nearly 2 years now, it is a fantastic bit of kit. I now use it mainly with my 6D II.
I agree, these lenses are sharp wide open and I have had the pleasure of using the 300 2.8 which is also pin sharp. I think for me the narrow DOF becomes and issue the closer you get, parts of the bird/subject become OOF very quickly and I would prefer the entire bird sharp if I can. So I tend to shoot at 7.1-9 even with a very fast lens. If I don't have light sure I will shoot lower but it really depends on the situation. Cheers, Duade
@@kaib718 I currently shoot a 7d and a tamron 150-600 with a decent gimbal head on a sturdy tripod. I do get some sharp shots but often would like to have something sharper. I was thinking about the 400 5.6 because it is quite affordable but still has great quality glass. Any other suggestions for about £800 Uk or $1500 Aus? would be very appreciated
I have 200-600mm from sony and looking around for faster stop len for low-light, owl thing. Your video make me happy when i picked the nikon 300mm f2.8 for smaller, lighter weight. I can add on the converter and then let high megapixel bodies camera do the work. I feel like the 300mm better then 400mm now.
G'day Duade, I am very interested in photographing birds and snakes and was contemplating purchasing the Canon 400mm lens: after watching your video I will need to rethink what I purchase, Thank-you. What range were you recording this video, I replayed it a couple of times but couldn't understand what you said, not your fault I've got industrial deafness.
Dennis, I would consider looking at an R5 and an RF100-500, that combo is very light but very sharp and would be fantastic for birds, reptiles due to the minimum focus distance. Sorry you are having trouble hearing the video, I believe they have subtitles available if that helps. Cheers, Duade
G'day Andrew, no I didn't try that when I had the lens. I think the IQ and AF would start to suffer f8 on certain DSLRs but is an option if you need reach. Cheers, Duade 👍
@@Duade it does. I’ve tried it with my 1DX but just messing around. Curious if it’ll look decent at F11. Just got the R7 and May give it a try. Crazy reach with that combo. Haha
Have you considered getting an R5 sometine Duade? Its a huge upgrade for bird photography. The eye AF makes shooting such a different experience, it literally takes the hobby to a new level. Just curious.
G'day Mark, I will be upgrading to mirrorless at some point. The R5 will end up costing me around $7500 Australian which is a lot of money considering I will probably be lucky to get $1700 for my 5d4. No doubt it is worth the money but unfortunately I cant justify it at the moment. Hopefully the price comes down or more info about the R7 comes out. Cheers, Duade 👍
@@Duade like you said in the video though, the 500mm f4 is a much better sweet spot. That 600mm f4 is just a shade under 4kg btw - a full kg heavier than your 500mm (and the same weight as my 500mm). That 500 is just the sweet spot for focal length, weight and min. aperture. All good re: email mate, no rush.
G'day Diego, yes it should focus at f8, my 5D4 worked at f8. Cheers, Duade 👍 I will note that the version 3 extenders are much better for AF. Cheers, Duade 👍
An interesting choice, I have not used the version 1 300 2.8 so its hard to judge. 300mm is too short so a 1.4x will give you 420 f4 or 600 f5.6. The only issue with the older lenses is they do not get the full FPS on the R7. The weight is also a major factor with the 300, the 400 5.6 is super light at 1.2kg. I have a video coming in a week or so testing a number of lenses including the 400 5.6. Cheers, Duade
Well, you for sure get more depth of field as you close down, but you said said something about lens being sharper at 11 or 16, and that is just not the case. For almost all lenses, their sharpest is 2 stops from wide open. I enjoy your content. Merry Christmas!
Thanks Ron, perhaps I was referring to the 400 with a 2x attached so 800 5.6, 8, 11 so two stops down? I can't recall it was a long time ago 🙂. Cheers, Duade@@ronalvey103
Great video Duade , I'd choose the EF400 f/4 DO mark ii myself if I had enough money as it's the only supertelephoto light enough for hand holding for Birds in Flight Cheers Noel
Waiting for my 400mm F4 DO mark ii. I have a very good deal on E-bay. only $ 4,000 in excellent condition. For the last 10 years, I have discovered that 400 mm is the sweet spot for wildlife. With 4 stops IS is good even in low light conditions. The weight is another big plus only 2100 grams. Can be used with teleconverters for birds. My question is how well does the lens with the extensions perform? What camera do you use with this lens? I will use a Canon 5DS 51MP camera. I like this camera, I can crop the image a lot if I have to. Of course, the Canon 5D mark IV has better autofocus points in the F8, but it's only 30.4 MP and I don't think that's enough for a full-frame camera, especially for birds at a distance and distant objects. Thanks!
@@kirostar12 I don't own this lens but it's supposed to work excellently with teleconvertors. You will never get a sharp image of a distant bird with any camera/lens combination as the air layers/moisture/heat haze will always ruin the image. Very long lenses like 600mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6 and teleconvertors are to give larger magnification of small birds at a fairly close distance not for birds at a distance . Any more than 15-20m (50-70ft) is too far and ideally less than 10m (30ft) is better. The most important thing in bird photography if you want the best images is to get as close as you can without disturbing/upsetting the bird. The 5Dmark IV will get you more keepers than the 5DS because of it's faster frame rate and better autofocus but if you're too far away don't even bother shooting except to identify the bird. Thanks Noel
Of course you're right. For long distances, you can use a Nikon 2000 mm bridge camera, which can give you some good results in the right light conditions. I meant the average distance for birds and over long distances for some large animals or eagles of course summer heat waves are important, but if the object is not too far you can go between these waves because they are not constant. And in winter there are no such heat waves and we can afford long distances. The AF points on my 5DS are enough for me. I know there are cameras with better AF performance, but if you have the right technique, you can easily shoot with this camera. 90% of my photos with this camera are sharp and clear. Over the years, I've gone through all the camera manufacturers, including mirrorless technology. I went back to Canon for many reasons. One is the cheap high quality super telephoto lenses that I find second hand and the sturdy DSLR cameras that are designed to last. The lens arrives tomorrow, so I will test it and I hope my search will stop for at least the next few years :) Cheers!
sometimes you need the 400 2,8 (low light or bigger böörds( ;) ) ) sometimes you need more range 600 f4 /800mm .and sometimes you need the zoom. The question is whats your budget and how strong you are, because these stuff is heavy, also the newer and what do you want...
Totally agree, there is not one lens that can do everything and really does depend on your budget. For me a prime and a zoom is a great combo. Cheers, Duade
I went with the 300 2.8 and have the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders for when the birds are farther away. Works for me now ... but I may look for a 500 F4 when one comes up for a bargain. Cheers
The 300 2.8 is a lovely lens and gives you a few options with extenders. The 500 F4 II is excellent but does not come up for sale that often. Cheers, Duade
I have both the 400 and 600 but in the Sony range. I mainly use the 600 with a x2 at f8 and rarely take the 400 out. 400 is beautiful lens but I agree not ideal for birding. Thanks for a great, informative channel.
While this seems like overkill for wildlife, (or just not the best choice vs the 500 or 600 f4 IS) it is a fantastic sports lens. I have the version 1 of this lens and have shot sports with it for 10+ years. I do shoot nature from time to time and use a 1.4X or 2X converter. So in the oddball case of a sports shooter, who owns this lens, it's a fantastic choice vs buying another big while lens. My vote for owl name is: Ozzie. Because Ozzie Owl is hilarious and it sounds like Aussie.
Do you have any advice on picking one up second hand? There's 400mm 2.8 IS II that's popped up for $7k (flawless/MINT condition/original everything) and I'm giving it serious consideration. The lens itself suits my needs but I've always bought lenses new.
@@cdelviscio If its in great shape it sounds like a good deal. $7K is alot, but vs $12k for new it not. Use eBay "completed auctions" to see what they sell for. My guess is $5000-$7500 depending on condition. I do think the 200-400 f4 IS is the better lens. Also very hard to find, but I picked one up for $6200. It is my go-to at 90% of my events.
@@grahamfloyd3451 A quick check of my 2021 "keepers" taken with the 200-400 finds 1241 total, 431 < 350mm, and 393> 400mm. So about 1/3 are less than 350mm. And slightly less than a third use the teleconverter. Not surprising as I shoot sports with a 2nd body that usually has a 70-200mm on it.
Yes, there is a bit of a difference, the Mk1 is a lot heavier, AF is not as fast. It also does not get the full 12fps on the new mirrorless bodies. I would likely save for a Mk2 lens but I understand it is very expensive. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade Heavy yes. I have the 300 on a monopod and some days that is too heavy for my aching back. If he wants that much for it, I will probably pass. I am also looking at his 1Dx Mark ll. I have not heard back yet. Thx for the reply.
Also the problem with 500mm f4 is that when you slap in TC1.4 on a 400mm f2.8 you basically have 540mm f4 which gives you more reach. And you cannot widen the 500mm f4. I think 600mm f4 makes much more sense. When you digitally crop 500mm f4 image to 600mm you end up with f4.8 apeture and linear resolution decreased by 17%. That is disturbingly close to the f6.3 600mm zooms territory. I noticed that you almost always put on the TC1.4 on top of your 500mm prime which is indicative of it lacking the reach. To my understanding in terms of performance for wildlife (when you need max reach, max sharpness and max speed) with all other factors being equal it is always most efficient to choose the the longest lens possible at a given apeture. That is 400mm f2.8, 600mm f4, 800mm f5.6. Although Canon 400mm f2.8 II is actually two generations behind and for wildlife it would definately be a rare usecase lens.
I am considering swapping my D4 and 300mm 2.8 for the 1Dx iii and similar lens, I still have a D850 and other lenses which I will keep. Probably going to rent the Canon for a week to try it out.
G'day Nigel, good luck trying out the gear, the D850 is a formidable camera and is everything I wish the 5D4 was. I think the 1dx3 is very much a professional sports camera in which it excels however for wildlife I would go with the R5. Cheers, Duade
My wife is onboard with me buying a "Mark I" version of the 400 f 2.8 and I would use it on an R6 and 7DMark II. I hope spending up to 4000 US on the older version is worth it.
Michael, that is great, as I mentioned previously the weight of these old Mark 1 lenses can't be underestimated, they are so heavy and cumbersome it makes it really tough unless you are in a blind the majority of the time. They also don't work as well with converters. I would likely keep saving for a V2 300, 400 or 500 as they are just so much better. I guess the positive with these lenses are you can usually sell them for what you paid so you won't lose a lot of money if you buy and then find its not suitable. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade thanks for the advice. It is less about money and more about my wife. She is very very supportive but I also fly and that is like buying an R3 every year. So, just like this lens, it is about compromise. I just wish I could find one to rent.
I know it depends on the camera body, but how do you generally balance iso and aperture in terms of stopping down 2 stops to increase sharpness? Stopping down aperture means sharper, but the higher iso would make it grainer?
, yes, it is always a balance that is for sure. I'm lucky that in Australia we have a lot of sun, so a lack of light isn't usually that much of an issue. I can use narrow apertures and still have an ISO of 1600. If it is heavily overcast or in a forest, I will usually set my aperture to f8, ISO3200 and see what SS I get, if the SS is too low, I will bump up the ISO to 6400. Once I hit 6400 I will then reduce the aperture if I need extra light. The latest FF Canon bodies can use 6400 but if I was on an APSC body like the 7D2 I wouldn't like to use higher than ISO1600 if I could help it so I had no choice but to shoot wide open at times. Cheers, Duade
I use the 100-400 and its an amazing lens. 😊 I have an 1.4 exender but the sharpness really suffer. Im better of cropping then using the extender. However I always shoot wide open because im already at f8. Im going to try shoot it with f11 to see if it makes a difference. Thanx for that tip.😊
G'day, yes I have used the 1.4 in the 5.6, as you know it then becomes a 560 f/8 and really needs to be stopped down to f/11 to produce sharp useable shots. So you need a lot of light to make use of the 1.4, it does slow down AF a bit also. If you check out my 400 5.6 video I show a few shots taken with the converter attached. Cheers, Duade 👍
In theory it focusses quicker , because of all the light that comes in with the 2.8.....but than again ..... you prefer to shoot at f8 or f9 because of the DOF with (fast) moving subjects.....so it actually only comes down to IQ....
How does the 400 f5.6 hold up with a 1.4 TC (560 f8) versus the Sigma or Tamron 150-600 zooms. Those are the options within reach for me. I have Canon 70D and 6D2 bodies. Thanks
G'day John, it works with the 1.4 but you really need to stop down to f10-11 to get sharp shots, it is a little soft at f8. So you need a lot of light and with no IS you are likely going to need high ISO. I haven't used the 600mm lens but when used at f8 I think they are ok. They are a little heavy is the only downside. The version 2 100-400 is a great versatile lens and likely work better with the 1.4. Good luck. Cheers, Duade 👍
G'day Ern, you may find my video on focal length helpful if you haven't seen it already. ua-cam.com/video/O4RaRKwNiVE/v-deo.html This is a really good question, and there are a number of factors that impact the final image. Put simply new cameras with larger MP d850/R5 allow much larger crops which effectively increase your effective focal length without having to use extenders. Extenders in theory when used on high quality lenses will always be better as they increase your focal length with no loss in the megapixels of the image. However, say my 400 5.6, if I put a 1.4 extender on it, I would have to shoot at f10 to get a sharp image, this may increase the ISO by 2 stops introducing noise or I have to use low shutter speeds meaning I may get soft shots. I maybe simply better cropping the 400 5.6 shot as at least it will be sharp. You also have to consider an APSC body which has a crop factor built in which increases the effective focal length. Sorry, this is long and a bit confusing, but I would only suggest extenders on Canons L series white lenses. If you are not using them then cropping is likely going to be the better option. Or purchasing a lens which has more focal length. I may do a video on this very question as it is interesting and confusing at the same time. Cheers, Duade Oh thanks for joining the channel, I appreciate the support.
To summarize: the winner is.... the 5.6 400 EF lens. Clearly. But there is also the 4.0 300 EF IS version with the two converters: my winner also because of the 1,5 meter close range for a lot more versatility in all kinds of portraits and landscapes and because of the 300 mm.
G'day, the version 1 lenses are not as good for IS as the version 2 lenses and I am unsure how well it will autofocus and be stable on a 4k camera. You would need a very good tripod if you want steady footage. Cheers, Duade
I don't think this lens in the sharpest @ f8. That is actually where diffraction is kicking-in. You have f2.8 so that you could freeze the action or have a room to close down the lens for better sharpness but not beyond the diffraction limit. I guess this lens would be at its sharpest @ f4 where it would still be 1EV faster than the f5.6 Of course stopping down is more important when you use TC.
Thanks, I find the DOF is pretty narrow at 2.8 and find most lenses are sharper stopped down a little bit. 400mm is also too short for most birds so I had to use a teleconverter which means I have to use a narrow aperture. But if you shoot sports or larger wildlife in low light then yes, the 2.8 is a big advantage. Cheers, Duade
Its very odd how your bias jumps around. Sometimes you say that it is difficult to suggest a lens because it depends on one's needs. Then in the next statement you say that you don't see why someone would buy the 400 2.8 over the 500 f4, unless they needed the light. Well how do you know if you need the light until you go out on a shoot? What about that the 400mm is 400mm and not 500mm? I have the 500 f4 but it seems to me that the 400mm 2.8 is extremely versatile in that you start out with a 400mm that can shoot sports or wildlife other than birds, and even some landscape and portraits. With just the 1.4x the 400 becomes, not a 500mm, but a 560mm F4......isn't that a better bird machine than the 500 f4? I would definitely take the 400 with the 1.4 over a 500 f4.....much more versatile.
G'day Stephen, thanks for the feedback. When I talk about needing light I am talking about in general, all you need to ask yourself is do I need reach or speed? I suspect all bird photographers would know this based off how much you crop and how often you shoot wide open. For me I very rarely shoot wide open but do crop a lot, so moving to a 540 f4 would be a big step back from my 700 f5.6 as I would end up cropping even more. Now if you shoot wide open constantly this would suggest you shoot in low light and would benefit from a faster lens. Again, it entirely depends on each photographer's needs. Regarding versatility, as you know the 500 is also a 700/5.6 and 1000 f/8 so also offers 3 focal lengths but has the advantage of extra reach and less weight. As I mentioned in the video, I would not recommend the 2.8 as a pure birding lens as we often need reach over speed. If you shoot sports, landscapes, or portraits as you say then yes, the 2.8 may suit your needs better. Apologies if I was not clearer but each photographer should base their purchasing decision off how and what they shoot. Pure birds then the 5 or 600 makes more sense for the added reach, if you are an all-round photographer or shoot in low light then the 2.8 would be more versatile. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade I realize, based on other's comments, that if you make one mistake in your video that someone will catch it and comment. I was trying not to be one of them. I watched your other videos on the 400mm, and maybe it was my fault, or maybe too much information for my brain, but I couldn't really tell if you liked the lens. Then when you did this last video I was once again confused. I'm actually trying to be constructive, not critical. It seems like it would be easy and quick to point out that, if all you are going to shoot is small birds in similar light conditions, then the 400mm is not the best choice. I can't image there are too many photographers that would pay the $ or only be interested in birds to shoot. What if you want to shoot three birds sitting on a limb? What about passing waterfowl where you want fast shutter speeds? What about flocks of birds where you need a wider fov? What about shooting owls or other birds that are generally in low light or maybe be flying above a field, hunting, and you want to capture some of the field? And then there is all the other wildlife that most photographers would be interested in.
G'day Stephen, all good I am happy to have a discussion about the lens as I have now used it quite a bit. Believe it or not there are quite a few people who predominantly shoot birds and I am one of them 😀 I have been photographing birds for 9 years and I can honestly say there are only a handful of times I wish I had a faster or shorter lens. If I want wider shots etc I can use a shorter lens like a 100-400. If shooting birds in flight you will generally have more than enough light at f4. We are only talking about a stop difference from 2.8 to 4 so I would use 1 stop higher ISO if I had to. The 500 gives you 25% extra reach and the 600 even more. As I showed in the video most lenses are not their sharpest wide open so I shoot nearly all my photos between f7.1 and f11. If I could afford both lenses then yes I could see myself using it for specific situations as it is an incredible lens. But if I had to buy one then I would always choose the 500. If you talk to most wildlife photographers with a zoom 600 you will find the majority of their shots are at the long end because it can be so hard to get close to the subject. At the end of the day anyone spending that sort of money knows what they need the most, sounds like a 2.8 would suit you better but for me and my style a longer lens is key. Cheers, Duade 👍
Hi brother...I am avid bird photo and videographer from Mumbai India, visiting Melbourne and Sydney in Oct 24. I wish u help me finding locations for bird photography in n near above cities. Thank u
I use the 400/4 DO, it's the lightest of these big lenses (even lighter than the 300/2.8) and as I don't only photograph birds it's light enough to carry around in a pack "just in case". I probably wouldn't do that with a heavier lens. With my 1D bodies and a converter I get 400 x 1.3 x 1.4 or 728mm FF equiv @ f5.6. I find that works for most subjects. A tad short on occasions but then I still have my 2x (1040mm @ f8).
Yes, the DO is a great versatile lens with the advantage of being much smaller than the big whites. I friend of mine had the lens and I remember being so surprised with its weight after using the 500. I do hope they do a 5 or 600 5.6 DO in the future. Thanks for sharing. Cheers, Duade
Come on lar..if you think your lens is so damn good. Let see you can capture planet Jupiter at 600x zoom & show it to the world in youtube if you could...🤔🤔🤗🤗
I’m a Nikon user who is now contemplating buying a d1x miii, and your video has given more insight into the lenses than the guy in the shop.
Keep em coming 😎
My pleasure Nigel, what are you unhappy with in regards to the Nikon lenses and bodies?
never get tired of watching your stunning images. God bless you.
Thank you I appreciate it, Cheers, Duade
Fantastic review, really good comparison.
I'd say the best review I've watched as so clearly shows the difference between focal length and f stop.
Thanks Richard, I'm glad you found it helpful. Cheers, Duade 👍
An interesting wrap up to the series, Duade - even for non-Canon shooters 👍👊. p.s. - I absolutely loved the duck and duckling shot with duckling on the rock
G'day Craig, thanks for the feedback, yes the duck shot was very cool. Cheers, Duade
Excellent review, lots of work. Unbelieveably detailed. Compliments!
Thank you, I appreciate the feedback, Cheers, Duade
Last year I told my parents I wanted to buy my first serious bird photography lens and since I knew I wasn't going to convince them to let me buy multiple lenses, I landed on the 100-400ii and I love it dearly! It's incredibly sharp and pairing it with my new M6 Mark.ii has been great. Planning on getting the 1.4x iii converter this year to add the additional reach since I've found I photograph primarily small birds.
Congrats on the new that is a fantastic one, good luck photographing birds. Just be sure to stop down the lens if you get an extender, f11 will likely be the sharpest aperture with a 1.4 converter. Cheers, Duade
Wonderful & unbiased comparison. Thank you.
Thanks Jimmy, Cheers, Duade
This is one of the best reviews on this subject I have seen. Thank you very much. I knew stopping down increased sharpness but seeing is believing. This is going to make me rethink my next lens purchase. Thanks again...
Thanks Mdees, I am glad you enjoyed the video and found it helpful, Cheers, Duade
Thank you terrific review. I have had my eye on the RF 400mm f2.8 and your video has given me more to think about. :)
Thanks Wendy, the latest version would be lighter and even better, Cheers, Duade
Another great video, mate. Keep up the good work!
Thanks Mansour, I appreciate the ongoing support. Cheers, Duade
Thanks for this review Duade it's much appreciated i might pick up one of these used when my money tin fills up :)
Stephen, my pleasure, it is a big heavy lens that is for sure, Cheers, Duade
Your videos are very well done. Subscribed!
Thank you and welcome to the channel. Cheers, Duade 👍
More UA-camrs need to watch and learn from Duade's videos. Everything about your videos is excellent and I learn so much every time. I'm a MFT shooter looking to upgrade to full frame and am considering Nikon Z6 II, is there any chance you'll get your hands on one for testing?
Thank you so much for your kind comment, I appreciate it. I have a good friend that is likely moving to the Nikon mirrorless and I will try and catch up with him and see how it performs. Or if Nikon are reading I am happy to test it. 😀👍 Cheers, Duade 👍
I'd get a z6 II or z7 II but I'm worried about the "blackout" and tracking being behind canon/sony, been hesitation for a years already for a d7500 upgrade.
Great review video. Thanks!
my pleasure, Cheers, Duade
thanks for the very nice comparison and discussion. I'm getting the 400/5.6 now.
Wilfried, it is a great lens, just be aware of the lack of IS which means you really need a SS higher than 1/400th handheld otherwise you do get a bit of motion blur in your shots. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade Thanks. I'm aware that it's a specialist lens. I've been using similarly long manual focus lenses already before, so I think I can handle it.
The Canon 400/5.6 L seems to be one of the best birding lenses out there (the low weight is an important factor for me, since I want to take it with me on hikes).
The new RF lenses could be interesting too in combination with an RF camera, but I'm not yet ready to buy an expensive new camera. I'm getting the 400/5.6 second hand, so I think it won't be a problem to sell it off without much loss whenever I decide to step up to a FF mirrorless system.
@@wwelti Great to hear, it was a game changer for me to be honest. It was just light, fast and sharp which is what we all want. I just wish Canon had made a 500 or 600 version. Cheers, Duade 👍
@@Duade Thanks! Yes, just my thoughts. However... I think Canon did, in a way... The 600/11 and 800/11 are both affordable and very interesting. They require a mirrorless full frame Camera from Canon's RF system though. These cameras can happily autofocus even at f/11. Sure... it's a shockingly dim aperture value and these lenses can't even stop down. But... do they really need to? All we want is nice images of the subjects we love. In this case, birds...
These lenses give us what we need: They are lightweight, sharp and LONG. Easy to backpack, easy to handhold, and even image stabilized.
So am I tempted? Yes, but not enough to change my system right now. The time may come, eventually.
Great review man. Thanks a lot for taking the time to do this!
G'day Matthew, my pleasure, Cheers, Duade 👍
I bought new EF400f2.8 V1, using it with 1D Mark II & III. Love it!
Great to hear, a wonderful lens for sure. Cheers, Duade
I’m planning to attend a 10-day photography workshop in Svalbard aboard a small ship in August 2025, with only 12 photographers. A friend who just returned recommended renting the Canon RF 600mm f/4 to pair with my R5 for the trip, but I want to make sure I’m making the best decision for such a significant journey. I currently own the RF 400mm f/2.8, which would save me over $1K if I used it instead of renting the RF 600mm. With the 1.4x extender, I'd get 560mm at f/4 or 800mm at f/5.6 with the 2x extender. I know more glass can affect light transmission, but I’ve heard that the RF extenders don’t degrade image quality like the EF ones did. I’d appreciate your thoughts on whether it’s worth renting the 600mm or just using the extenders with my 400mm.
Thank you!
Excellent review.
I chose the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II + 1.4 attached to a 7D II as my walk-around setup. It is lighter and less expensive than the 2.8 with similar image quality. If you get a chance to look at one I suggest you check it out. Hope to upgrade to an R5 at some point.
Larry, a number of people have commented on how much they love that lens, I hope to get hold of a version at some stage to test. Cheers, Duade
Nice review and some stunning images!
Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. Cheers, Duade
Great vid mate. I thought the 2.8/400 was a tad smoother in the background than the 5.6 when both are stopped down. The trees and dark spots seemed smoother.
the f/5.6 is a tad closer and slightly different framing; plus the sun or clouds may have moved but for all intends and purposes there is no 8K difference in the quality of the bokeh :-)
Thanks mate, yes I suspect the 2.8 just had better quality bokeh, but the test shows how important focal length and distance are to getting nice backgrounds. Cheers, Duade 👍
@@Duade yes, distance and focal length are certainly a bigger factor than 5.6 vs 2.8 lens stopped down
Hello and great video. I am looking to purchase a Version I because I am also invested in new camera bodies.
I wanted to ask if you could help me understand because from the Reserch I have done I hear the main difference is mainly weight and that the image quality is pretty much the same.
I don’t plan on using converters but just the lens for night games.
Would you be able to tell me if image quality is Farley the same from version I, II or III ?
Thank you
The IQ will be similar but the version II did see a bit of a jump, along with the weight savings. You also don't get the full fps in mechanical on the R5/R6 with version 1. They also do not repair or support version 1 anymore. But in saying that the IQ and speed of 2.8 is great. I will say the weight really cannot be underestimated 5370 g (11.84 lb) is very hard to handle long term and if you have not shot a game with one I would suggest hiring one first. Cheers, Duade
Another fantastic review and your lens chart contained the dream lens 200-400!!. I’m more into sports and would fancy the 400DOii but who knows what the future holds.
Maybe touch on the blade count between lenses as they influence the blur too. You mention 500/600 is more ideal with the better reach and I know you have done a great vid on the rf800/11 any plans for the rf600/11 version?
Thanks, yes, I would love a 200-500 f4 with built in 1.4. No plans at this stage to get the 600 f11 unfortunately. Cheers, Duade
For African wildlife. Would you rather go with a 400 2.8 or a Sigma 60-600?
The fast lens with 2.8 is nice but if you step down anyways wouldn’t be a sigma zoom a better choice?
A used mark 2 400 is more or less the same price as the sigma.
Thanks!
Hello Daude,
As always very detailed video really helps us make appropriate decisions based on our requirements.
The way you consolidate all the right set of information in the review along with reference images is just so commendable.
Looking forward for more learning from you.
😊
Thanks for the feedback Riyaz, I had fun using the lens. Cheers, Duade
Nice video.. well expanded
Thank you I think that the F2.8 is better for Wildlife due o the low light. I'm saving for a used Nikon AFS 400mmF2.8 E VR
I know you use topaz de noise. D you ever use topaz sharpen thanks for your videos just really enjoy them
G'day Kenneth, I haven't but I do plan on testing it in the future. Cheers, Duade
Great testing work 👌
Thank you, I appreciate the support. Cheers, Duade 👍
Excellent tutorial
Thank you, Cheers, Duade
For the focus on head and body issues, couldn't you use Topaz Sharpen?
Another ripper video Duade. I'm still saving for the 500 or 600 F4, might take awhile yet though. All the best, Brian.
G'day Brian, thanks for the comment, good luck saving, I'm sure one will pop up soon enough, Cheers, Duade 👍
The outtakes!🤣. Thanks for taking the time for the clear and fair review! Liked seeing the crop and DOF comparisons
Currently shooting with a Tamron 5.6
150-600 G2. Sometimes I’m looking for more reach but it works for now.
G'day Elaine, yes I wonder how I put together a sentence at times.😂 You have a great lens and don't worry I think we all want more reach at times. Cheers, Duade 👍
The interesting thing about Prime lenses, especially Canon L series, being they seem to have narrower FOV than zoom counterparts.
Love your videos and the photos you show!
I think that it's important to remember that the most important contributors to the depth of field are the focal length and distance to the subject because it's a quadratic dependency, and f-stop is a linear dependency. DoF = u² × 2 × N × C / f².
Get 2x closer to a subject, and you get 4x more narrowed depth of field. Going from 400mm to 600mm has a 2.25x impact on the depth of field. Combined these factors together, and its 4 * 2.25 = 9x more narrowed depth. It means that 400mm f/2.8 gives you roughly the same depth of field as 600mm f/6.3. It's could have been interesting to do the math regarding the DoF for f/2.8 and f/8 from your benchmark. Every lens doesn't demonstrate its maximum sharpness at the widest aperture, but it could have been not the only contributor. It could have been a problem because the depth of field was too narrow.
Sometimes I don't like when a lens obliterates a background too much. Laser distance meters can be useful to get the depth of field that you want in order to get the correct parts of a subject in focus, but the eyes + a calculator can do a good job as well.
As a pro motorsport photographer I swapped my 500mm f4.5 [1990s] for a 400mm f2.8 for the extra light it brought, often using it wide open in the rain. Now I am doing a lot more birding I wouldn't mind a 600mm. Do you think there is much difference in quality between my Mk1 non IS and the lens you tested?
I think the big difference is the weight reduction and the improved IS enabling slower SS if needed. It is a quality lens for sure and takes converters probably better. I assume the AF will be faster than the original as well. If I had a choice between the 400 and 600 I would go with the 600 for birding but the 400 would be better for motorsport, sport etc. Cheers, DUade
Super review/ teaching video! Suggestion you could name the prop owl "Warby". I've made a decision on what lens to purchase. Camera body a Canon 5D Mark IV, lens Canon 100 - 400 4.5/5.6 IS ll. Your videos and others have been a great influence on my purchase choice. God bless/ Cheers! thank you for your time and efforts.
G'day Mary, thanks for the suggestion and congrats on the lens. Good luck with your birding. Cheers, Duade 👍
Great video. On a mirrorless body the 300mm f4 IS canon is amazing, with the lowest minimum focus distance. The fact that it's so light makes it a pleasure to use and is sharp wide open.
G'day Robert, great to hear, it is another great affordable option. Thanks for sharing. Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade, how is the new Canon RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 lenses for bird photography? Best regards Dennis
G'day Dennis, I still haven't been able to get hold of these lenses to test, I would love to put them through their paces at some stage. Cheers, Duade
They are excellent. The only downsides are you need sun and need to keep a distance of 6 Meter.
Just brings home the point of spending money on good glass - even with the moder cameras, these lenses are great.
Another great review Duade.
I own the 400 2.8 for my football, but man i would give my right arm for a 500/600 f4 for my bird photography.
Thanks Carl, yes it is fantastic for low light, sports etc but I think as you say the 5 or 600 are the better options for birds. Mind you I was impressed with how it went at 800mm. Cheers, Duade
Have you tried the extenders?.....curious
Duade
The Owl name Hootie sounds good to me . I am using a 55- 300 WR PLM weather sealed lens on a Pentax body the lens is a 4.5 -5.6 with electronic fast autofocus I am looking into a extender at this time. Pentax cameras have very few focus points and can be challenging on moving objects. Such as birds in flight , not a problem for stationary birds and my pictures crop well on stationary wildlife
Gday, sounds like you make the most of your kit. I like the name Hootie🤔👍😀
Great review... 👍👍
Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. Cheers, Duade 👍
Mine is brilliant at f/2.8, and I think you're missing out. To me, even at f/2.8 the photos are pin sharp, even when I used it mainly on my 250D.
The only real obstacle, is that if you are slightly out of focus, the subject is more often way out of the DOF, or the part you focused on is no longer in it because either of you have moved a tiny bit.
I've had mine for nearly 2 years now, it is a fantastic bit of kit. I now use it mainly with my 6D II.
I agree, these lenses are sharp wide open and I have had the pleasure of using the 300 2.8 which is also pin sharp. I think for me the narrow DOF becomes and issue the closer you get, parts of the bird/subject become OOF very quickly and I would prefer the entire bird sharp if I can. So I tend to shoot at 7.1-9 even with a very fast lens. If I don't have light sure I will shoot lower but it really depends on the situation. Cheers, Duade
Great informative video! I am 15 so thinking about getting the first generation 5.6 because its quite affordable 👍
Great to hear JP, it is a great lens to start with and there should be a few copies available second hand. Good luck. Cheers, Duade
@@kaib718 I currently shoot a 7d and a tamron 150-600 with a decent gimbal head on a sturdy tripod. I do get some sharp shots but often would like to have something sharper. I was thinking about the 400 5.6 because it is quite affordable but still has great quality glass. Any other suggestions for about £800 Uk or $1500 Aus? would be very appreciated
@@kaib718 Yes I watch Morten. Thank you for all your advice!
Hello Duade. Can it cover Fujifilm GFX 33mm*44mm sensor? Or will it vignett a lot?
I have 200-600mm from sony and looking around for faster stop len for low-light, owl thing. Your video make me happy when i picked the nikon 300mm f2.8 for smaller, lighter weight. I can add on the converter and then let high megapixel bodies camera do the work. I feel like the 300mm better then 400mm now.
Hope you will have the chance to test the 1200mm RF
Thanks, yes, that would be fun, I am not sure how many copies Canon Australia have and if they would loan one out. Cheers, Duade
I'd like to see how the EF II compares to the EF III and the RF version, other than the size and weight.
Yes, that would be interesting, I don't think the IQ can be improved that much, the weight and possibly better AF in the RF version. Cheers, Duade
G'day Duade, I am very interested in photographing birds and snakes and was contemplating purchasing the Canon 400mm lens: after watching your video I will need to rethink what I purchase, Thank-you. What range were you recording this video, I replayed it a couple of times but couldn't understand what you said, not your fault I've got industrial deafness.
Dennis, I would consider looking at an R5 and an RF100-500, that combo is very light but very sharp and would be fantastic for birds, reptiles due to the minimum focus distance. Sorry you are having trouble hearing the video, I believe they have subtitles available if that helps. Cheers, Duade
Excellent video...Call him Fuzzy....
Thanks Cesar, great suggestion, Cheers, Duade 👍
Great comparison review. Thank you
G'day, my pleasure. Cheers, Duade 👍
With the F2.8 you can stack converters. Did you try stacking 1.4 and 2x on the 400F2.8? :)
G'day Andrew, no I didn't try that when I had the lens. I think the IQ and AF would start to suffer f8 on certain DSLRs but is an option if you need reach. Cheers, Duade 👍
@@Duade it does. I’ve tried it with my 1DX but just messing around. Curious if it’ll look decent at F11. Just got the R7 and May give it a try. Crazy reach with that combo. Haha
Have you considered getting an R5 sometine Duade? Its a huge upgrade for bird photography. The eye AF makes shooting such a different experience, it literally takes the hobby to a new level. Just curious.
G'day Mark, I will be upgrading to mirrorless at some point. The R5 will end up costing me around $7500 Australian which is a lot of money considering I will probably be lucky to get $1700 for my 5d4. No doubt it is worth the money but unfortunately I cant justify it at the moment. Hopefully the price comes down or more info about the R7 comes out. Cheers, Duade 👍
Do you generally shoot to slightly over or under expose your shots? I mean if you had to choose, which would you prefer?
Hi Kenneth, I try to avoid overexposing as that is harder to recover. Cheers, Duade 👍
Would be interested to see how the 400mm F4 DO compares Duade.
Likewise David, I have held it but never used it. I got your email and lovely photos, will respond when I'm home. Cheers, Duade 👍
@@Duade like you said in the video though, the 500mm f4 is a much better sweet spot. That 600mm f4 is just a shade under 4kg btw - a full kg heavier than your 500mm (and the same weight as my 500mm). That 500 is just the sweet spot for focal length, weight and min. aperture. All good re: email mate, no rush.
Incidentally, do you think you will get an R7 for the additional reach, or stick with 17+mp on the R5 using the 1.6 crop?
I have been testing the R7 and I suspect I will continue to use the R5 as the AF is more accurate and the ISO performance is better. Cheers, Duade
Hi, very nice and usefull video. Do you know if the canon 500mm f4 IS II + canon 2x II autofocus works on eos 5ds?
G'day Diego, yes it should focus at f8, my 5D4 worked at f8. Cheers, Duade 👍 I will note that the version 3 extenders are much better for AF. Cheers, Duade 👍
for the R7 what would you think is the best choise 400mm ef 5,6 l usm or 300mm ef 2,8 is usm
An interesting choice, I have not used the version 1 300 2.8 so its hard to judge. 300mm is too short so a 1.4x will give you 420 f4 or 600 f5.6. The only issue with the older lenses is they do not get the full FPS on the R7. The weight is also a major factor with the 300, the 400 5.6 is super light at 1.2kg. I have a video coming in a week or so testing a number of lenses including the 400 5.6. Cheers, Duade
The duck photo hands down!
Thanks William, I appreciate the comment, Cheers, Duade 👍
Typically the sharpest f/stop of most lenses, are 2 to 3 stops closing down from wide open.
Thanks Ron, yes, many lenses do appear to get sharper when stopped down, Cheers, Duade
Well, you for sure get more depth of field as you close down, but you said said something about lens being sharper at 11 or 16, and that is just not the case. For almost all lenses, their sharpest is 2 stops from wide open. I enjoy your content. Merry Christmas!
Thanks Ron, perhaps I was referring to the 400 with a 2x attached so 800 5.6, 8, 11 so two stops down? I can't recall it was a long time ago 🙂. Cheers, Duade@@ronalvey103
Great video Duade ,
I'd choose the EF400 f/4 DO mark ii myself if I had enough money as it's the only supertelephoto light enough for hand holding for Birds in Flight
Cheers
Noel
Noel, it is a wonderful light lens and great for BIF, I have only held it once and would like a session with it. Cheers, Duade
Waiting for my 400mm F4 DO mark ii. I have a very good deal on E-bay. only $ 4,000 in excellent condition. For the last 10 years, I have discovered that 400 mm is the sweet spot for wildlife. With 4 stops IS is good even in low light conditions. The weight is another big plus only 2100 grams. Can be used with teleconverters for birds. My question is how well does the lens with the extensions perform? What camera do you use with this lens? I will use a Canon 5DS 51MP camera. I like this camera, I can crop the image a lot if I have to. Of course, the Canon 5D mark IV has better autofocus points in the F8, but it's only 30.4 MP and I don't think that's enough for a full-frame camera, especially for birds at a distance and distant objects. Thanks!
@@kirostar12 I don't own this lens but it's supposed to work excellently with teleconvertors.
You will never get a sharp image of a distant bird with any camera/lens combination as the air layers/moisture/heat haze will always ruin the image.
Very long lenses like 600mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6 and teleconvertors are to give larger magnification of small birds at a fairly close distance not for birds at a distance . Any more than 15-20m (50-70ft) is too far and ideally less than 10m (30ft) is better.
The most important thing in bird photography if you want the best images is to get as close as you can without disturbing/upsetting the bird.
The 5Dmark IV will get you more keepers than the 5DS because of it's faster frame rate and better autofocus but if you're too far away don't even bother shooting except to identify the bird.
Thanks
Noel
Of course you're right. For long distances, you can use a Nikon 2000 mm bridge camera, which can give you some good results in the right light conditions. I meant the average distance for birds and over long distances for some large animals or eagles of course summer heat waves are important, but if the object is not too far you can go between these waves because they are not constant. And in winter there are no such heat waves and we can afford long distances. The AF points on my 5DS are enough for me. I know there are cameras with better AF performance, but if you have the right technique, you can easily shoot with this camera. 90% of my photos with this camera are sharp and clear. Over the years, I've gone through all the camera manufacturers, including mirrorless technology. I went back to Canon for many reasons. One is the cheap high quality super telephoto lenses that I find second hand and the sturdy DSLR cameras that are designed to last. The lens arrives tomorrow, so I will test it and I hope my search will stop for at least the next few years :) Cheers!
@@kirostar12 heat haze even in winter here in New Zealand as it hardly ever goes below freezing point here 🌞
sometimes you need the 400 2,8 (low light or bigger böörds( ;) ) ) sometimes you need more range 600 f4 /800mm .and sometimes you need the zoom. The question is whats your budget and how strong you are, because these stuff is heavy, also the newer and what do you want...
Totally agree, there is not one lens that can do everything and really does depend on your budget. For me a prime and a zoom is a great combo. Cheers, Duade
Are you able to hand hold the 2.8 for long periods of time?
Hi Jeff, no handholding for me is very difficult with the weight. Maybe short bursts but my back would not appreciate it. Cheers, Duade 👍
I went with the 300 2.8 and have the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders for when the birds are farther away. Works for me now ... but I may look for a 500 F4 when one comes up for a bargain. Cheers
The 300 2.8 is a lovely lens and gives you a few options with extenders. The 500 F4 II is excellent but does not come up for sale that often. Cheers, Duade
I have both the 400 and 600 but in the Sony range. I mainly use the 600 with a x2 at f8 and rarely take the 400 out. 400 is beautiful lens but I agree not ideal for birding. Thanks for a great, informative channel.
Thanks Mike, yes I agree with you I suspect I would be the same, reach is often more important than speed depending on where you are. Cheers, Duade 👍
While this seems like overkill for wildlife, (or just not the best choice vs the 500 or 600 f4 IS) it is a fantastic sports lens. I have the version 1 of this lens and have shot sports with it for 10+ years. I do shoot nature from time to time and use a 1.4X or 2X converter. So in the oddball case of a sports shooter, who owns this lens, it's a fantastic choice vs buying another big while lens.
My vote for owl name is: Ozzie. Because Ozzie Owl is hilarious and it sounds like Aussie.
Thanks Nordburg, I love that name, yes it is a great sports lens and using extenders does make it pretty versatile. Cheers, Duade
Do you have any advice on picking one up second hand? There's 400mm 2.8 IS II that's popped up for $7k (flawless/MINT condition/original everything) and I'm giving it serious consideration. The lens itself suits my needs but I've always bought lenses new.
@@cdelviscio If its in great shape it sounds like a good deal. $7K is alot, but vs $12k for new it not. Use eBay "completed auctions" to see what they sell for. My guess is $5000-$7500 depending on condition.
I do think the 200-400 f4 IS is the better lens. Also very hard to find, but I picked one up for $6200. It is my go-to at 90% of my events.
@@DeputyNordburg have you ever tracked what % of your shots on the 200-400 are done in the 200-350 range?
@@grahamfloyd3451 A quick check of my 2021 "keepers" taken with the 200-400 finds 1241 total, 431 < 350mm, and 393> 400mm. So about 1/3 are less than 350mm. And slightly less than a third use the teleconverter. Not surprising as I shoot sports with a 2nd body that usually has a 70-200mm on it.
If you can help up . I would like to know if there is to much difference between the
500 f/4 mark i and the 500 f/4 mark ii.
Yes, there is a bit of a difference, the Mk1 is a lot heavier, AF is not as fast. It also does not get the full 12fps on the new mirrorless bodies. I would likely save for a Mk2 lens but I understand it is very expensive. Cheers, Duade
I am looking at a friends ef 400 2.8 ll and dont want to over pay for it in Feb 2023. What is a bargain on this lens? Thx
G'day Angelo, I suspect around 5-6K USD is the going rate for this lens. It is a beautiful lens albeit a little heavy. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade Heavy yes. I have the 300 on a monopod and some days that is too heavy for my aching back. If he wants that much for it, I will probably pass. I am also looking at his 1Dx Mark ll. I have not heard back yet. Thx for the reply.
Also the problem with 500mm f4 is that when you slap in TC1.4 on a 400mm f2.8 you basically have 540mm f4 which gives you more reach. And you cannot widen the 500mm f4. I think 600mm f4 makes much more sense. When you digitally crop 500mm f4 image to 600mm you end up with f4.8 apeture and linear resolution decreased by 17%. That is disturbingly close to the f6.3 600mm zooms territory. I noticed that you almost always put on the TC1.4 on top of your 500mm prime which is indicative of it lacking the reach. To my understanding in terms of performance for wildlife (when you need max reach, max sharpness and max speed) with all other factors being equal it is always most efficient to choose the the longest lens possible at a given apeture. That is 400mm f2.8, 600mm f4, 800mm f5.6. Although Canon 400mm f2.8 II is actually two generations behind and for wildlife it would definately be a rare usecase lens.
Thanks mate, yes, my feelings also, the 600 f4 is hard to beat, Nikons 800 6.3 is also an excellent lens. Cheers, Duade
I am considering swapping my D4 and 300mm 2.8 for the 1Dx iii and similar lens, I still have a D850 and other lenses which I will keep.
Probably going to rent the Canon for a week to try it out.
G'day Nigel, good luck trying out the gear, the D850 is a formidable camera and is everything I wish the 5D4 was. I think the 1dx3 is very much a professional sports camera in which it excels however for wildlife I would go with the R5. Cheers, Duade
I have canon 100-400 mark ii but more interested in song bids so want to buy atleast up to 600 mm but fast lense too
G'day Farhat, a great lens you have, but yes a longer lens helps with small bush birds for sure. Cheers, Duade
Merci pour cette vidéo qui est très instructif, je dispose d'un 400MM F/2,8 IS première génération et c'est vrai que je l'utilise qu'en affût.
Thank you for your comment, I'm glad you enjoyed the video, Cheers, Duade
My wife is onboard with me buying a "Mark I" version of the 400 f 2.8 and I would use it on an R6 and 7DMark II. I hope spending up to 4000 US on the older version is worth it.
Michael, that is great, as I mentioned previously the weight of these old Mark 1 lenses can't be underestimated, they are so heavy and cumbersome it makes it really tough unless you are in a blind the majority of the time. They also don't work as well with converters. I would likely keep saving for a V2 300, 400 or 500 as they are just so much better. I guess the positive with these lenses are you can usually sell them for what you paid so you won't lose a lot of money if you buy and then find its not suitable. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade thanks for the advice. It is less about money and more about my wife. She is very very supportive but I also fly and that is like buying an R3 every year. So, just like this lens, it is about compromise. I just wish I could find one to rent.
I know it depends on the camera body, but how do you generally balance iso and aperture in terms of stopping down 2 stops to increase sharpness? Stopping down aperture means sharper, but the higher iso would make it grainer?
, yes, it is always a balance that is for sure. I'm lucky that in Australia we have a lot of sun, so a lack of light isn't usually that much of an issue. I can use narrow apertures and still have an ISO of 1600. If it is heavily overcast or in a forest, I will usually set my aperture to f8, ISO3200 and see what SS I get, if the SS is too low, I will bump up the ISO to 6400. Once I hit 6400 I will then reduce the aperture if I need extra light. The latest FF Canon bodies can use 6400 but if I was on an APSC body like the 7D2 I wouldn't like to use higher than ISO1600 if I could help it so I had no choice but to shoot wide open at times. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade thankyou very much. I always shot wide open and now I will do some testing.
I use the 100-400 and its an amazing lens. 😊 I have an 1.4 exender but the sharpness really suffer. Im better of cropping then using the extender. However I always shoot wide open because im already at f8. Im going to try shoot it with f11 to see if it makes a difference. Thanx for that tip.😊
Hello, great review! Have you used the 400 f5.6 with tc 1.4 attached? If so, does the quality loose that much?
G'day, yes I have used the 1.4 in the 5.6, as you know it then becomes a 560 f/8 and really needs to be stopped down to f/11 to produce sharp useable shots. So you need a lot of light to make use of the 1.4, it does slow down AF a bit also. If you check out my 400 5.6 video I show a few shots taken with the converter attached. Cheers, Duade 👍
In theory it focusses quicker , because of all the light that comes in with the 2.8.....but than again ..... you prefer to shoot at f8 or f9 because of the DOF with (fast) moving subjects.....so it actually only comes down to IQ....
Thanks Richard, yes all that extra light certainly helps that is for sure. Cheers, Duade
Thank you, thank you, thank you very much !!! Shooting the f/2.8 v the f/5.6 at f/8 at 14:10 I think settles this issue once and for all.
G'day Dimitris, I was happy to help and test it out, I was impressed with how it performed. Cheers, Duade 👍
Very interesting
Staged photos are more eye-pleasing, but natural habitat photos are so much more engaging.
Totally agree Pawel, those field shots are tough but when they work they are amazing, Cheers, Duade
I am a bird photographer and my dream lens is 600mm f/4. yet to afford it though
Yes that is the ultimate lens but very expensive, Cheers, Duade
How does the 400 f5.6 hold up with a 1.4 TC (560 f8) versus the Sigma or Tamron 150-600 zooms. Those are the options within reach for me. I have Canon 70D and 6D2 bodies. Thanks
G'day John, it works with the 1.4 but you really need to stop down to f10-11 to get sharp shots, it is a little soft at f8. So you need a lot of light and with no IS you are likely going to need high ISO. I haven't used the 600mm lens but when used at f8 I think they are ok. They are a little heavy is the only downside. The version 2 100-400 is a great versatile lens and likely work better with the 1.4. Good luck. Cheers, Duade 👍
Can you comment on cropping v extending with the lenses Duade?
G'day Ern, you may find my video on focal length helpful if you haven't seen it already. ua-cam.com/video/O4RaRKwNiVE/v-deo.html
This is a really good question, and there are a number of factors that impact the final image. Put simply new cameras with larger MP d850/R5 allow much larger crops which effectively increase your effective focal length without having to use extenders.
Extenders in theory when used on high quality lenses will always be better as they increase your focal length with no loss in the megapixels of the image.
However, say my 400 5.6, if I put a 1.4 extender on it, I would have to shoot at f10 to get a sharp image, this may increase the ISO by 2 stops introducing noise or I have to use low shutter speeds meaning I may get soft shots. I maybe simply better cropping the 400 5.6 shot as at least it will be sharp.
You also have to consider an APSC body which has a crop factor built in which increases the effective focal length.
Sorry, this is long and a bit confusing, but I would only suggest extenders on Canons L series white lenses. If you are not using them then cropping is likely going to be the better option. Or purchasing a lens which has more focal length.
I may do a video on this very question as it is interesting and confusing at the same time. Cheers, Duade
Oh thanks for joining the channel, I appreciate the support.
To summarize: the winner is.... the 5.6 400 EF lens. Clearly.
But there is also the 4.0 300 EF IS version with the two converters: my winner also because of the 1,5 meter close range for a lot more versatility in all kinds of portraits and landscapes and because of the 300 mm.
Onno, yes, it's a wonderful lens, I must get hold of the 300 f4 and try it out as many people have commented on it. Cheers, Duade
I am fishing for a used lens my options are mind boggling theirs a 300 2.8 is 1750 usd its from 2005 and i want to use a blackmagic 4k
G'day, the version 1 lenses are not as good for IS as the version 2 lenses and I am unsure how well it will autofocus and be stable on a 4k camera. You would need a very good tripod if you want steady footage. Cheers, Duade
Also, they are not supported by Canon any longer. Have to go 3rd party for repair.
brilliant indeed!!
Thanks Gosse👍
I don't think this lens in the sharpest @ f8. That is actually where diffraction is kicking-in. You have f2.8 so that you could freeze the action or have a room to close down the lens for better sharpness but not beyond the diffraction limit. I guess this lens would be at its sharpest @ f4 where it would still be 1EV faster than the f5.6 Of course stopping down is more important when you use TC.
Thanks, yes, it seems it helps to stop down with extenders for sure. Cheers, Duade
I want this lens on my R6.
G'day, yes that would.make a great combo, Cheers, Duade 👍
Seems like a waste to shoot this lens at f8. Thanks for the comparison video.
Thanks, I find the DOF is pretty narrow at 2.8 and find most lenses are sharper stopped down a little bit. 400mm is also too short for most birds so I had to use a teleconverter which means I have to use a narrow aperture. But if you shoot sports or larger wildlife in low light then yes, the 2.8 is a big advantage. Cheers, Duade
Subbed you # 20.6k
Thanks David, Cheers, Duade
Its very odd how your bias jumps around. Sometimes you say that it is difficult to suggest a lens because it depends on one's needs. Then in the next statement you say that you don't see why someone would buy the 400 2.8 over the 500 f4, unless they needed the light. Well how do you know if you need the light until you go out on a shoot? What about that the 400mm is 400mm and not 500mm? I have the 500 f4 but it seems to me that the 400mm 2.8 is extremely versatile in that you start out with a 400mm that can shoot sports or wildlife other than birds, and even some landscape and portraits. With just the 1.4x the 400 becomes, not a 500mm, but a 560mm F4......isn't that a better bird machine than the 500 f4?
I would definitely take the 400 with the 1.4 over a 500 f4.....much more versatile.
G'day Stephen, thanks for the feedback. When I talk about needing light I am talking about in general, all you need to ask yourself is do I need reach or speed? I suspect all bird photographers would know this based off how much you crop and how often you shoot wide open. For me I very rarely shoot wide open but do crop a lot, so moving to a 540 f4 would be a big step back from my 700 f5.6 as I would end up cropping even more. Now if you shoot wide open constantly this would suggest you shoot in low light and would benefit from a faster lens. Again, it entirely depends on each photographer's needs.
Regarding versatility, as you know the 500 is also a 700/5.6 and 1000 f/8 so also offers 3 focal lengths but has the advantage of extra reach and less weight. As I mentioned in the video, I would not recommend the 2.8 as a pure birding lens as we often need reach over speed. If you shoot sports, landscapes, or portraits as you say then yes, the 2.8 may suit your needs better.
Apologies if I was not clearer but each photographer should base their purchasing decision off how and what they shoot. Pure birds then the 5 or 600 makes more sense for the added reach, if you are an all-round photographer or shoot in low light then the 2.8 would be more versatile.
Cheers, Duade
@@Duade I realize, based on other's comments, that if you make one mistake in your video that someone will catch it and comment. I was trying not to be one of them.
I watched your other videos on the 400mm, and maybe it was my fault, or maybe too much information for my brain, but I couldn't really tell if you liked the lens. Then when you did this last video I was once again confused. I'm actually trying to be constructive, not critical.
It seems like it would be easy and quick to point out that, if all you are going to shoot is small birds in similar light conditions, then the 400mm is not the best choice. I can't image there are too many photographers that would pay the $ or only be interested in birds to shoot.
What if you want to shoot three birds sitting on a limb? What about passing waterfowl where you want fast shutter speeds? What about flocks of birds where you need a wider fov? What about shooting owls or other birds that are generally in low light or maybe be flying above a field, hunting, and you want to capture some of the field? And then there is all the other wildlife that most photographers would be interested in.
G'day Stephen, all good I am happy to have a discussion about the lens as I have now used it quite a bit. Believe it or not there are quite a few people who predominantly shoot birds and I am one of them 😀 I have been photographing birds for 9 years and I can honestly say there are only a handful of times I wish I had a faster or shorter lens.
If I want wider shots etc I can use a shorter lens like a 100-400.
If shooting birds in flight you will generally have more than enough light at f4.
We are only talking about a stop difference from 2.8 to 4 so I would use 1 stop higher ISO if I had to.
The 500 gives you 25% extra reach and the 600 even more.
As I showed in the video most lenses are not their sharpest wide open so I shoot nearly all my photos between f7.1 and f11.
If I could afford both lenses then yes I could see myself using it for specific situations as it is an incredible lens. But if I had to buy one then I would always choose the 500.
If you talk to most wildlife photographers with a zoom 600 you will find the majority of their shots are at the long end because it can be so hard to get close to the subject.
At the end of the day anyone spending that sort of money knows what they need the most, sounds like a 2.8 would suit you better but for me and my style a longer lens is key. Cheers, Duade 👍
@@Duade Cheers
Hi brother...I am avid bird photo and videographer from Mumbai India, visiting Melbourne and Sydney in Oct 24. I wish u help me finding locations for bird photography in n near above cities. Thank u
You should call the owl Dunbi.
Thanks Steven, great suggestion, Cheers, Duade
400mm for football and motorsports is more an ideal focal length
Yes, very true, can be too much at times. Cheers, Duade
I use the 400/4 DO, it's the lightest of these big lenses (even lighter than the 300/2.8) and as I don't only photograph birds it's light enough to carry around in a pack "just in case". I probably wouldn't do that with a heavier lens. With my 1D bodies and a converter I get 400 x 1.3 x 1.4 or 728mm FF equiv @ f5.6. I find that works for most subjects. A tad short on occasions but then I still have my 2x (1040mm @ f8).
Yes, the DO is a great versatile lens with the advantage of being much smaller than the big whites. I friend of mine had the lens and I remember being so surprised with its weight after using the 500. I do hope they do a 5 or 600 5.6 DO in the future. Thanks for sharing. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade I thought that they had abandoned the DO range but I think some of the new R-series lenses are DO. So there's hope yet.
Yeah I think they would be silly not to after the success of the Nikon 500 5.6. a light 600 5.6 that can focus at 1200 f11 with 2x would be great.
❤❤❤
TL:DW yes, every penny of it
Thanks for the comment, yes it is a great lens for the money. Cheers, Duade 👍
Cool title name Lol
Lol, sure is. Cheers, Duade
Come on lar..if you think your lens is so damn good. Let see you can capture planet Jupiter at 600x zoom & show it to the world in youtube if you could...🤔🤔🤗🤗
I am no astro photographer so I wouldn't expect any planet shots, Cheers, Duade