I have used this lens since 2007 and it is my favorite lens for bird photography, especially in flight as it is very fast in focusing, would definitely recommend it.
Thanks for sharing! Normally newer lenses perform better than old ones, but this is an old one that continues to give great performance. The relatively light weight also helps with those BIF shots. One of my favorites too!
Good to see someone giving the 400 f/5.6L some love in this day and age. It was my first telephoto prime and it still in my kit for those times when I want the lightest possible kit! I have moved on to several other long primes, the most recent being the 400 DO f/4 IS mark 2 and the 500 f/4 IS mark 2, so I don’t use the 400 f/5.6 that much these days, but it gives up little in sharpness and focus speed to its higher end brethren. My copy of the 100-400 mark 2 is a dude and is the softest copy on the planet, and thus is a waste for me. By the way I have been able to use extension tubes on my long primes to reduce the minimum focus distance and it works well as long as you support the rig carefully and not put any weight in the mount or extension tube. That is the tricky part which is why I only use it in a limited fashion but it allows me to do bugs and birds in the same outing without having to have my macro gear with me and my bird gear. I like the idea of putting a ML body on the 400 f/5.6L for an ultralight kit, but I need one that does force the use of another type of battery, which is why I avoid it. I could get an EOS R but then I would lose the reach. The M6 mark 2 would be perfect but I believe it would force me into a new battery than that which I currently use with my 90D, 5D4, etc.
Thanks for your comment! Your remarks on how the image quality compares favorably with much more expensive lenses echoes comments from other people. This lens far exceeded my expectations. It would be nice if just one type of battery was used, wouldn't it? The CF cards that I bought in the past now gather dust. It is a pain having to buy new memory cards and new batteries when we buy new cameras. Other than that, the M6 Mark 2 looks like a very nice little camera.
Thanks for watching and commenting. I don't think you will be disappointed. People who own the EF 100-400mm L Mark 2 say that the 400mm f/5.6L is sharper. Even people who own the big white f/4 lenses say that they still love this (relatively) little lens. IS would be great, but I very rarely hand hold the lens so I don't really miss it. If you can get a used one for a good price that has been looked after it will be a bargain.
It's long in the tooth now, no IS, but it's still an amazing lens and still one of my favorites. I bought a new camera recently, but haven't had a chance yet to use it with this lens. Can't wait! Thanks for you comment.
Thanks for your comment! It really is an outstanding lens. Previously, I had lots of focusing issues with my EF 300mm f/4L IS. I sold it and bought this. Not only is the focusing very quick and very accurate, but the image quality astounded me. Some people say that it's actually better than the 100-400mm Mark 2 in terms of IQ. It's a great lens and it's still light enough to hand hold for birds in flight. I'm sure you will enjoy it!
Thanks for the review, I am interested in the lens, possibly with a crop sensor camera eventually. Right now I'm using a 5D classic and find the colors very interesting. In many video editing programs you can zoom into still photographs giving the illusion of video while sticking with your excellent still photographs. Ken Rockwell does a great job of using this technique on many of his reviews.
Thanks for your comment! Despite its age and lack of IS it's still a lens that delivers outstanding IQ, and the AF is fast and accurate. For a long time I thought that Canon would make an IS version, but all the lens development effort now seems to be on the RF mount. I don't think that we shall see many more new EF lenses. If you really want IS there's the 100-400mm Mk2, but it's heavier and more expensive. Also, I've read a few reports that say the IQ isn't as good as the 400mm. Enjoy your purchase!
I've read similar comments before and I guess my copy was bad. When I had the problems I was spending a lot of time in Singapore and took it to the Canon service centre there. They checked it, made some adjustments and said everything was to spec, but I have uploaded some sample shots to my website and you can clearly see that there is a problem. phil.uk.net/photography/canon-ef-300mm-f4-l-is-usm.html The sample shots are at the bottom of the page (click on the thumbnails) and for comparison there are some similar shots taken with the EF 400mm f/5.6L. I knew there was a problem, but when Canon say there isn't a problem, what do you do? I really wanted this lens to be a success, but in the end it didn't work out for me. The EF 400mm f/5.6L, on the other hand, has performed flawlessly and its IQ has far exceeded my expectations.
The 7D is APS-C, so the crop factor makes it like a 640mm anyway. I tried using a 1.4x extender with my 40D some years ago, but AF wouldn't work as it is limited to f/5.6 with that camera. You lose a stop of light with the extender. I'm not sure whether the 7D will AF at f/8. I decided personally that it was better using this lens without an extender, and that an extender wasn't necessary. However, other people may think differently. There will be some compromises with a reduction in speed and IQ, but if extra focal length is really important to you, it's something that you may want to try.
This has been a favorite lens for me and I've put it through it's paces for about 15 years, having shot several hundred thousand frames through it. One thing to watch for, is that over time, those three screws located around the circumference near the name plate tend to work themselves loose, but other than that it's been bulletproof. It's very sharp, and my go to lens for birds in flight. It's considerably lighter than my 300/2.8 and though I can add a 1.4x TC to get the same range as the 400/5.6, it's so much lighter that I don't mind hauling it around. I don't bother using the 1.4x TC on the 400/5.6 as it slows the focus enough that it defeats the purpose for why I use this lens, (others may have different needs and/or expectations). I'm fortunate enough that I have a 600/4 when I need longer reach, but it's such a beast that by comparison to the 400/5.6 it's impractical to use in many situations. The main drawbacks are the rather long minimum focusing distance, lack of IS and it does require a bit of light due to being f/5.6 instead of f/4 or f/2.8 but it's relatively light weight and ultrafast focus speed make it about the best lens on the planet for birds in flight. The only Canon lens that I haven't had the opportunity to compare to is the 400 DO.
Considering your huge amount of experience with this lens and the other expensive lenses you have available, this is praise indeed! Despite its age and lack of IS the 400/5.6 continues to be many people's favourite. I had big focusing problems with the 300/4 and just wanted a long focal length lens that would focus reliably, which is why I bought this one. Not only has the 400/5.6 been 100% reliable in every respect, its image quality has far exceeded my expectations. I have used it with a 1.4x extender, but on a body that didn't AF at f/8, therefore I had to focus manually. On occasions the long minimum focusing distance has been a problem for me as well, for example, when a small songbird suddenly lands in a bush nearby. Theoretically, extension tubes can fix this, but in practice by the time you have mounted an extension tube the bird will have disappeared. I haven't experienced any loose screws or mechanical problems yet, but I don't actually use this lens that much these days. The arrival of children severely curtailed a lot of the fun that I used to have! Many thanks for commenting and sharing your extensive knowledge of the 400/5.6.
@@PhilUKNet Hi Phil. The 400/5.6 does have shortcomings, as all lenses do. When I use extension tubes to shorten the focus, I do so knowing that I'm going to be giving up infinity and simply don't worry about 'what might have been'. Likewise, if i don't have tubes on, I won't worry about the near stuff that I wasn't after. I do the same with my 300 and 600. My shooting strategy is such, that I typically decide what it is that I'm going to shoot, decide which is the most likely way I can achieve the shot I'm after, kit up accordingly and either work the subject to death, or until something much more promising arises. Somebody else will do things differently, which is all good.
@@roberttailspin6330 I use a similar strategy. My maxim in life is that you can have anything, but you can't have everything. Deciding what you want beforehand is very wise!
Hi, Have this lens myself and for the price one of the best I have owned however (and this is just an opinion) why buy a piece of quality glass and then place a an inferior piece of glass on the front to degrade your images? As I say JMO but thankyou for your view on a cracking lens. Russ.
You make a good point! I have always been in the habit of buying a filter whenever I buy a lens to protect the front element. Over the years I have had a few incidents where I have shattered the filter, but the front element has been undamaged. It's really just some insurance. I normally buy Canon or Hoya filters to ensure that the optical quality is good and I suspect that most people, when looking at images with and without the filter, couldn't tell the difference. But I don't disagree with you. Just like audio equipment the final result depends on the weakest link in the chain and with most lenses the weakest link is probably the front element filter. Thanks for your comment.
I had half a dozen UV filters which all degraded the image quality on this lens, so I ditched them. A friend had similar results on his 400/5.6 and I've heard of others with similar complaints. Having said that, there's obviously some range in quality of various UV filter brands, so if yours works for you, I'm more than happy for you. For myself, I've found that due to the minimum focus distance, it's highly unlikely that a UV filter will protect from anything other than dust on the front element, but even after using this lens in extreme conditions, I've never had an incident where the UV filter was beneficial. As usual, YMMV, and only you can be the best judge of what works for you.
From the very first day of bird photography with DSLRs; this has been the undisputed best telephoto lens for Birds in Flight (BIF). No question about that. It works with equal efficiency on Canon EOS 1D and Canon EOS R3. This is a timeless lens that Canon is goofy enough to discontinue.😡
Great review. My 400 f5.6 works very well on my EOS 7DII for birds in flight but an absolute disaster with my EOS R. My favorite combo is the 7DII + Tamron 150-600 G2 which produces superb birds in flight images as well as long -lens macro's, but sometimes I sport the 400 f5.6 & definitely gives sharper images, but lacks the versatility of the zoom.
Thanks for your observations and comments. The 7D was all about speed. I suspect that after the R5 and R6 there will be an R7 - a mirrorless version of the 7D. The Canon future looks to be all about mirrorless bodies and RF lenses. Re your comparison to the Tamron lens, I've also heard some people say that the EF 400mm is sharper than the EF 100-400mm Mk 2. Considering its age, the 400mm has held up very well.
@@factsnchill168 The autofocus is a bit sluggish, so for birds in flight I lose a lot of shots. Those that did focus are really sharp, but there are few keepers. For stills (birds on branches, etc.) the combo is ideal.
Sorry, I don't. I have no experience with either of these cameras, although I will probably go down the EOS R route some time in the future. All I can say, based on my experience with EOS M and EOS M to EF adapters, is that you're very unlikely to have any problems with Canon.
Good morning (from Thailand)! When I think of this lens I normally only think of birding, but yes it should be fine for surfing shots. There will be a lot of light on the beach and reflected from the water, your subjects will be moving quickly, and you should be able to hand hold - although some kind of support (tripod/monopod) would probably be advisable. Shutter speeds will be high - even at f/5.6 and ISO 100 - so the lack of IS shouldn't be an issue and this lens is very sharp. I haven't done any surfing shots myself, but I imagine it would be quite good. The problem is that if you want faster and/or longer lenses than this it starts to get very expensive buying the big whites. This lens, on the other hand, is quite affordable.
@ Phil UK Net. At the beginning you said this was not an ideal lens for street photography, and I knew what you meant. However, I have found this lens to be invaluable for standoff street photos. I find that I can stand off at quite a distance and photograph people more naturally without being in their faces. It allows me to get much more candid and natural shots from street subjects.
Very long lenses are good for candid photography because you can maintain a large distance between the camera and the subject. Paparazzi also like these very long lenses! This is a street photography niche, but for general street photography I find that 400mm (560mm on a crop body) is far too much.
@@PhilUKNet Yes, and too heavy to lug around as well. But from across a cowded courtyard, or down a long sidewalk, I just can't replace the kind of wonderful shots I can get when people aren't aware of the camera.
Interesting point. When they make significant changes they bring out a Mark 2 version, but do they make small improvements without announcing anything? It was released in May 1993 so now almost 29 years old and still a remarkable lens.
My son plays football, and I take quite a lot of photos of him playing. I have never considered using my 400mm lens. When he plays indoors, I use my EF 85mm f/1.8, and outdoors, I use my EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. I use a Canon EOS M6 Mark 2, which has an APS-C sensor. I use both a standard Canon adapter and also a Viltrox speedbooster. The speedbooster reduces the focal length by x0.71 but gives me an extra stop of light, which is very useful indoors. For the football shots I do (especially using a crop sensor camera), the 400mm lens is just too long. It would be very difficult to keep fast-moving action within the frame. It's also a bit slow, especially indoors. In my personal experience, lenses for football don't need to be any longer than 200mm, and speed is important. A lens I've considered buying for this is the EF 135 mm f/2L. An f/2.8 70-200mm would also be good. These are just my personal opinions based on taking photos of my son playing football. Other people's experience may vary. It also depends on what kind of football. When my son plays, I watch from the touchline, and I'm very close. If you are taking photos of professional football and you are in the stands a long way from the pitch, then yes, a longer lens will be better because of the extra reach.
Would like to know how the AF performs for this lens with 1.4x extender on Canon 80D body..I use a Tamron 150-600 but the focusing is poor for distant objects
I stopped using DSLRs about 8 years ago, therefore I can't tell you. I've used the 400mm/1.4x combination with my EOS M6. It's not blazing fast and sometimes it won't focus exactly where I want it to, but once focus locks on it is very accurate. The last DSLR I had was a 40D and that would only AF to f/5.6. I believe the 80D will AF at f/8 so it should be fine with this lens plus a 1.4x converter. I would expect the 80D AF system to be better than my M6. It may be a little slow focusing at f/8, but the accuracy should be good. Sorry I can't give you a direct answer to your question.
I have used this lens since 2007 and it is my favorite lens for bird photography, especially in flight as it is very fast in focusing, would definitely recommend it.
Thanks for sharing! Normally newer lenses perform better than old ones, but this is an old one that continues to give great performance. The relatively light weight also helps with those BIF shots. One of my favorites too!
Good to see someone giving the 400 f/5.6L some love in this day and age. It was my first telephoto prime and it still in my kit for those times when I want the lightest possible kit! I have moved on to several other long primes, the most recent being the 400 DO f/4 IS mark 2 and the 500 f/4 IS mark 2, so I don’t use the 400 f/5.6 that much these days, but it gives up little in sharpness and focus speed to its higher end brethren. My copy of the 100-400 mark 2 is a dude and is the softest copy on the planet, and thus is a waste for me. By the way I have been able to use extension tubes on my long primes to reduce the minimum focus distance and it works well as long as you support the rig carefully and not put any weight in the mount or extension tube. That is the tricky part which is why I only use it in a limited fashion but it allows me to do bugs and birds in the same outing without having to have my macro gear with me and my bird gear. I like the idea of putting a ML body on the 400 f/5.6L for an ultralight kit, but I need one that does force the use of another type of battery, which is why I avoid it. I could get an EOS R but then I would lose the reach. The M6 mark 2 would be perfect but I believe it would force me into a new battery than that which I currently use with my 90D, 5D4, etc.
Thanks for your comment! Your remarks on how the image quality compares favorably with much more expensive lenses echoes comments from other people. This lens far exceeded my expectations. It would be nice if just one type of battery was used, wouldn't it? The CF cards that I bought in the past now gather dust. It is a pain having to buy new memory cards and new batteries when we buy new cameras. Other than that, the M6 Mark 2 looks like a very nice little camera.
Thanks, you helped me make a decision to buy a used one of these lenses! BTW, you have some fantastic pics here, thanks for sharing!!
Thanks for watching and commenting. I don't think you will be disappointed. People who own the EF 100-400mm L Mark 2 say that the 400mm f/5.6L is sharper. Even people who own the big white f/4 lenses say that they still love this (relatively) little lens. IS would be great, but I very rarely hand hold the lens so I don't really miss it. If you can get a used one for a good price that has been looked after it will be a bargain.
I have just bought this lens super happy thank you for information you provided
It's long in the tooth now, no IS, but it's still an amazing lens and still one of my favorites. I bought a new camera recently, but haven't had a chance yet to use it with this lens. Can't wait! Thanks for you comment.
Very useful video. You've shown that this lens delivers fantastic images and I think it will be my next purchase. Thank you and keep up the good work.
Thanks for your comment! It really is an outstanding lens. Previously, I had lots of focusing issues with my EF 300mm f/4L IS. I sold it and bought this. Not only is the focusing very quick and very accurate, but the image quality astounded me. Some people say that it's actually better than the 100-400mm Mark 2 in terms of IQ. It's a great lens and it's still light enough to hand hold for birds in flight. I'm sure you will enjoy it!
I got one of these canon 400MM EF 5.6L plus my canon 70/300MM EF 4-5.6L lens i also got a Tamron 90MM EF 2.8 Macro lens
I've still got my EF 400mm f/5.6 and I'm still very pleased with it!
Thanks for the review, I am interested in the lens, possibly with a crop sensor camera eventually. Right now I'm using a 5D classic and find the colors very interesting. In many video editing programs you can zoom into still photographs giving the illusion of video while sticking with your excellent still photographs. Ken Rockwell does a great job of using this technique on many of his reviews.
Despite its age, it's still a great lens! My video editing skills are pretty basic. I need to get better!
Excellent video clip, very informative, just the information I needed before buying this lens
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment! Despite its age and lack of IS it's still a lens that delivers outstanding IQ, and the AF is fast and accurate. For a long time I thought that Canon would make an IS version, but all the lens development effort now seems to be on the RF mount. I don't think that we shall see many more new EF lenses. If you really want IS there's the 100-400mm Mk2, but it's heavier and more expensive. Also, I've read a few reports that say the IQ isn't as good as the 400mm. Enjoy your purchase!
Good video. I have owned a 300 L IS for 10years and never had any issues with or without 1.4 extender. Perhaps you had a poor copy.
I've read similar comments before and I guess my copy was bad. When I had the problems I was spending a lot of time in Singapore and took it to the Canon service centre there. They checked it, made some adjustments and said everything was to spec, but I have uploaded some sample shots to my website and you can clearly see that there is a problem. phil.uk.net/photography/canon-ef-300mm-f4-l-is-usm.html The sample shots are at the bottom of the page (click on the thumbnails) and for comparison there are some similar shots taken with the EF 400mm f/5.6L. I knew there was a problem, but when Canon say there isn't a problem, what do you do? I really wanted this lens to be a success, but in the end it didn't work out for me. The EF 400mm f/5.6L, on the other hand, has performed flawlessly and its IQ has far exceeded my expectations.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I have just bought a used 400 f5.6 L and will be interested to see how it performs against the 300 f4 L IS.
I hope your experience with the EF 300 f/4L is better than mine was!
hi phil, grate pics at the end , would you recomend a focus ext on canon 400mm f5.6l usm and canon 7d mark 1.
The 7D is APS-C, so the crop factor makes it like a 640mm anyway. I tried using a 1.4x extender with my 40D some years ago, but AF wouldn't work as it is limited to f/5.6 with that camera. You lose a stop of light with the extender. I'm not sure whether the 7D will AF at f/8.
I decided personally that it was better using this lens without an extender, and that an extender wasn't necessary. However, other people may think differently. There will be some compromises with a reduction in speed and IQ, but if extra focal length is really important to you, it's something that you may want to try.
This has been a favorite lens for me and I've put it through it's paces for about 15 years, having shot several hundred thousand frames through it. One thing to watch for, is that over time, those three screws located around the circumference near the name plate tend to work themselves loose, but other than that it's been bulletproof. It's very sharp, and my go to lens for birds in flight. It's considerably lighter than my 300/2.8 and though I can add a 1.4x TC to get the same range as the 400/5.6, it's so much lighter that I don't mind hauling it around. I don't bother using the 1.4x TC on the 400/5.6 as it slows the focus enough that it defeats the purpose for why I use this lens, (others may have different needs and/or expectations). I'm fortunate enough that I have a 600/4 when I need longer reach, but it's such a beast that by comparison to the 400/5.6 it's impractical to use in many situations. The main drawbacks are the rather long minimum focusing distance, lack of IS and it does require a bit of light due to being f/5.6 instead of f/4 or f/2.8 but it's relatively light weight and ultrafast focus speed make it about the best lens on the planet for birds in flight. The only Canon lens that I haven't had the opportunity to compare to is the 400 DO.
Considering your huge amount of experience with this lens and the other expensive lenses you have available, this is praise indeed! Despite its age and lack of IS the 400/5.6 continues to be many people's favourite. I had big focusing problems with the 300/4 and just wanted a long focal length lens that would focus reliably, which is why I bought this one. Not only has the 400/5.6 been 100% reliable in every respect, its image quality has far exceeded my expectations. I have used it with a 1.4x extender, but on a body that didn't AF at f/8, therefore I had to focus manually. On occasions the long minimum focusing distance has been a problem for me as well, for example, when a small songbird suddenly lands in a bush nearby. Theoretically, extension tubes can fix this, but in practice by the time you have mounted an extension tube the bird will have disappeared. I haven't experienced any loose screws or mechanical problems yet, but I don't actually use this lens that much these days. The arrival of children severely curtailed a lot of the fun that I used to have! Many thanks for commenting and sharing your extensive knowledge of the 400/5.6.
@@PhilUKNet Hi Phil. The 400/5.6 does have shortcomings, as all lenses do. When I use extension tubes to shorten the focus, I do so knowing that I'm going to be giving up infinity and simply don't worry about 'what might have been'. Likewise, if i don't have tubes on, I won't worry about the near stuff that I wasn't after. I do the same with my 300 and 600. My shooting strategy is such, that I typically decide what it is that I'm going to shoot, decide which is the most likely way I can achieve the shot I'm after, kit up accordingly and either work the subject to death, or until something much more promising arises. Somebody else will do things differently, which is all good.
@@roberttailspin6330 I use a similar strategy. My maxim in life is that you can have anything, but you can't have everything. Deciding what you want beforehand is very wise!
Your review..it was very helpful, I got a lot out of it. Thanks...
Thank you!
Your sample photos and comments are very useful!
Thank you!
Thanks for review. Also brilliant photos. Regards Barrie
Thanks for your kind words!
Hi, Have this lens myself and for the price one of the best I have owned however (and this is just an opinion) why buy a piece of quality glass and then place a an inferior piece of glass on the front to degrade your images? As I say JMO but thankyou for your view on a cracking lens. Russ.
You make a good point! I have always been in the habit of buying a filter whenever I buy a lens to protect the front element. Over the years I have had a few incidents where I have shattered the filter, but the front element has been undamaged. It's really just some insurance. I normally buy Canon or Hoya filters to ensure that the optical quality is good and I suspect that most people, when looking at images with and without the filter, couldn't tell the difference. But I don't disagree with you. Just like audio equipment the final result depends on the weakest link in the chain and with most lenses the weakest link is probably the front element filter. Thanks for your comment.
The same reason why you wear a helmet when riding a bike.
章猫文Melvin Much better than my answer!
I had half a dozen UV filters which all degraded the image quality on
this lens, so I ditched them. A friend had similar results on his
400/5.6 and I've heard of others with similar complaints. Having said
that, there's obviously some range in quality of various UV filter
brands, so if yours works for you, I'm more than happy for you. For
myself, I've found that due to the minimum focus distance, it's highly
unlikely that a UV filter will protect from anything other than dust on
the front element, but even after using this lens in extreme conditions,
I've never had an incident where the UV filter was beneficial. As
usual, YMMV, and only you can be the best judge of what works for you.
From the very first day of bird photography with DSLRs; this has been the undisputed best telephoto lens for Birds in Flight (BIF). No question about that. It works with equal efficiency on Canon EOS 1D and Canon EOS R3. This is a timeless lens that Canon is goofy enough to discontinue.😡
From day 1 it exceeded my expectations and it still does!
Great review. My 400 f5.6 works very well on my EOS 7DII for birds in flight but an absolute disaster with my EOS R. My favorite combo is the 7DII + Tamron 150-600 G2 which produces superb birds in flight images as well as long -lens macro's, but sometimes I sport the 400 f5.6 & definitely gives sharper images, but lacks the versatility of the zoom.
Thanks for your observations and comments. The 7D was all about speed. I suspect that after the R5 and R6 there will be an R7 - a mirrorless version of the 7D. The Canon future looks to be all about mirrorless bodies and RF lenses. Re your comparison to the Tamron lens, I've also heard some people say that the EF 400mm is sharper than the EF 100-400mm Mk 2. Considering its age, the 400mm has held up very well.
Why would the lens not work as well on the R? I have an R and was interested in purchasing this lens.
@@factsnchill168 The autofocus is a bit sluggish, so for birds in flight I lose a lot of shots. Those that did focus are really sharp, but there are few keepers. For stills (birds on branches, etc.) the combo is ideal.
Hello. Do you know how this lens works with a Canon RP with EF Lens Adapter or with a Sony A7iii using Canon Lens Adapter? thanks
Sorry, I don't. I have no experience with either of these cameras, although I will probably go down the EOS R route some time in the future. All I can say, based on my experience with EOS M and EOS M to EF adapters, is that you're very unlikely to have any problems with Canon.
good evening. I'm looking to buy this lens to take surfing photos, will it suit me well?
Good morning (from Thailand)! When I think of this lens I normally only think of birding, but yes it should be fine for surfing shots. There will be a lot of light on the beach and reflected from the water, your subjects will be moving quickly, and you should be able to hand hold - although some kind of support (tripod/monopod) would probably be advisable. Shutter speeds will be high - even at f/5.6 and ISO 100 - so the lack of IS shouldn't be an issue and this lens is very sharp. I haven't done any surfing shots myself, but I imagine it would be quite good. The problem is that if you want faster and/or longer lenses than this it starts to get very expensive buying the big whites. This lens, on the other hand, is quite affordable.
@@PhilUKNet I'm in doubt if I buy it or, the Sigma 150-600mm
@ Phil UK Net. At the beginning you said this was not an ideal lens for street photography, and I knew what you meant. However, I have found this lens to be invaluable for standoff street photos. I find that I can stand off at quite a distance and photograph people more naturally without being in their faces. It allows me to get much more candid and natural shots from street subjects.
Very long lenses are good for candid photography because you can maintain a large distance between the camera and the subject. Paparazzi also like these very long lenses! This is a street photography niche, but for general street photography I find that 400mm (560mm on a crop body) is far too much.
@@PhilUKNet Yes, and too heavy to lug around as well. But from across a cowded courtyard, or down a long sidewalk, I just can't replace the kind of wonderful shots I can get when people aren't aware of the camera.
Given that this lens has been around for so long, I do wonder if Canon have made small incremental improvements over time.
Interesting point. When they make significant changes they bring out a Mark 2 version, but do they make small improvements without announcing anything? It was released in May 1993 so now almost 29 years old and still a remarkable lens.
@@PhilUKNet It is sometimes said that the best car to buy is one of the last ones of the previous model, when all the gremlins have been sorted out.
This lens suitable for football photography?
My son plays football, and I take quite a lot of photos of him playing. I have never considered using my 400mm lens. When he plays indoors, I use my EF 85mm f/1.8, and outdoors, I use my EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. I use a Canon EOS M6 Mark 2, which has an APS-C sensor. I use both a standard Canon adapter and also a Viltrox speedbooster. The speedbooster reduces the focal length by x0.71 but gives me an extra stop of light, which is very useful indoors. For the football shots I do (especially using a crop sensor camera), the 400mm lens is just too long. It would be very difficult to keep fast-moving action within the frame. It's also a bit slow, especially indoors. In my personal experience, lenses for football don't need to be any longer than 200mm, and speed is important. A lens I've considered buying for this is the EF 135 mm f/2L. An f/2.8 70-200mm would also be good. These are just my personal opinions based on taking photos of my son playing football. Other people's experience may vary. It also depends on what kind of football. When my son plays, I watch from the touchline, and I'm very close. If you are taking photos of professional football and you are in the stands a long way from the pitch, then yes, a longer lens will be better because of the extra reach.
Would like to know how the AF performs for this lens with 1.4x extender on Canon 80D body..I use a Tamron 150-600 but the focusing is poor for distant objects
I stopped using DSLRs about 8 years ago, therefore I can't tell you. I've used the 400mm/1.4x combination with my EOS M6. It's not blazing fast and sometimes it won't focus exactly where I want it to, but once focus locks on it is very accurate. The last DSLR I had was a 40D and that would only AF to f/5.6. I believe the 80D will AF at f/8 so it should be fine with this lens plus a 1.4x converter. I would expect the 80D AF system to be better than my M6. It may be a little slow focusing at f/8, but the accuracy should be good. Sorry I can't give you a direct answer to your question.
What is the minimum zoom in mm? So without it zooming in, how many mm is it?
It's a prime, fixed focal length lens. There is no zoom.
Good video!
Thank you!
Simple and unpretentious, and you also SPEAKS ENGLISH, not American, that makes this video advice quite pleasing to watch and listen to. @frame25_ren
Thanks! American accents certainly dominate on UA-cam. Time for the Brits to fight back!