Focusing with 400 5.6

Hey everyone, Im looking at possibly purchasing a 400mm lens. Im currently leaning towards the 400 5.6, instead of one of the other options (400 DO, 400 2.8, 100-400). The two that are in my price range are the 400 5.6 and the 100-400. So my question is I would like some input from those who own this lens on how fast it will focus. Im looking at using it for outdoor sports as well as some nature photography. I currently own the 70-200 2.8 IS so the versatility of the 100-400 is not a big concern for me, as well as the lack of image stabilizer, because the monopod although not as versitial has worked pretty well for me in "hand holding' large lenses.


Ok no more ramblings from me, if you have the 400 5.6 and could lend a hand great! If you have it and the 70-200 2.8 and can compare the focus speeds for me even better, hey if you have the 100-400 and think it focus's pretty fast let me know, maybe I will rethink that as an option.


thanks once again.


joel


oh one last thing its going to be used mainly on a 40D.

I can't speak for the others but my 100-400 is pretty dern fast. I use it mainly for outdoor sports and air shows. I get some pretty amazing shots at air shows. I use it on my 40D most. I'd say 85-90 percent of my shots in Servo mode were dead on.


I've shot some of my son's concerts indoors with it too. On a 5D2 at 1600ISO with the IS you get some pretty good low light stuff too.


The more I use this lens the more I love it.


Last weekend at an air show I was watching a lady with a Nikon D3 and a fixed 400mm. I could see she was missing a lot of shots because 400 was too much. All I had to do was slide the lens back a little and bam! I actually find the slide action an asset.

I also got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS first, and didn't think I'd really care about the versatility of a 100-400 so much...


I've played with the 70-200 the most. I've used the 400 f/5.6 a good bit, enough to feel familiar. I've got a little bit of experience with the 100-400, but I wouldn't consider my experience with it anywhere near decisive.


The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is simply a kick ass machine. I have lenses that might be a little sharper, or faster, or more telephoto, but all around, the thing just kicks ass. I've heard about it being the 'worst'of the 70-200 family, and there may be some truth to that in a pure sharpness criteria, but it challenges my pixel resolution on the 'old' cameras I've got (30d and 5d), and man... It just kicks ass. But you know that....


the 400 f/5.6 has autofocus that's really incredibly good, so far as I can tell. I don't know if it's better or worse than the 70-200 f/2.8, but it's close enough that it never occured to me that it's inferior. It's WAY better than the 70-200 with a teleconverter involved, i'm pretty sure about that... Is it better than the 100-400 autofocus? My gut feeling is yes, though I'm not positive. The 100-400 zoom seems to handle itself pretty well, but... I really don't know.


The 400 f/5.6 has a significant (maybe not huge, but I think I notice a difference) advantage, from what I can tell, in terms of sharpness and maybe contrast, compared to the 100-400. It's not that I don't think that the 100-400 doesn't do well. i think it does very, very well. The 400 f/5.6, however, is just ABSURDLY (yes, shouting) detailed lens. Now, yeah, I suppose that the big gun 400 f/2.8 IS is probably even better, but the cash requirements, in addition to the size issues, negate that point for me.


100-400 has two serious advantages, which I do appreciate over the 400 prime, being the IS (sometimes I don't want to play sniper dude or walk around with a three legged crutch), and the ability to zoom back (like when a bird is flying overhead, and a picture of it's foot isn't that interesting).


Something you might consider, is getting the 400 f/5.6, but bring the 70-200 along on a separate body. That way, if you need to zoom wider, just switch cameras...


I don't know. I got the 400 prime first, and then caved into impulse and got the 100-400, and I don't regret either. What I bring with me depends on what I'm doing. If the target is almost always between far enough away and too far away, unlikely to approach me or relatively stationary, or I can have a second camera ready, the prime is the default. If the targets are going to be near and far, every which way, and I'd like to use just one camera, the 100-400 makes more sense.

The 400 f/5.6's autofocus speed is extremely fast. If you plan to use your lens outdoor and at 400mm, the 400 f/5.6 is a great lens.


In good light I don't notice any different between the 400 f/5.6 and 70-200 f/2.8L IS. In low light the 70-200 f/2.8 is much better.

Thanks for all of the reply's. Im liking the idea of getting the 400 5.6, and carrying a second camera with the 70-200 attached. Although the only other camera body Iown currentlyis the XTI and although Ive shot some great images (in my mind) with it, after getting the 40D I have been stubbern (for lack of a better word) at wanting to use it, I feel as if I should only use the XTI if absolutely necessary, because I cantswitch lens's fast enough. The 100-400's biggest downfall for me at the moment is the push/pull. Inmy days of shooting film I used a pentax push/pull and liked it, but with as far as you have to zoom in and out with it I feel as though I will look like a trumboneist trying to learn how to play.


Sinh Nhut Nguyen- Your feathered friends images have been great! Those images have been a big factor in my decision making. Although I know that you could probly McGiver a lens out of a cardboard tube, some duct tape and a lens from a pair of glass's and still make some great images (although autofocus might be a problem). Keep on sharing your wildlife images with us, they are great, and a big inspiration to keep on shooting.


thanks


joel

I use the EF70-200 F/2.8 with the 2x Extender a lot and I do like the results in bright light (with small enlargements). However, I used the EF400 F/2.8 this weekend and the results make me want to throw away every other lens. It's by far the fastest focusing, sharpest,lens I've used.


You can pick out blades of grass flying off the players with this beast.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.00/TN_5F00_MF1T6543.jpg[/img]


1DMKII, EF400MM F/2.8L IS USM, Av, F/4.0, ISO-100, 1/1000

The 400 2.8 L is truly the king amongst kings.


I have buddy who owns one and always tells me I can borrow it, but I do not want to be responsible for $6500 lens.


I'm tempted though.

great picture!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

The 400 2.8 L is truly the king amongst kings.


I have buddy who owns one and always tells me I can borrow it, but I do not want to be responsible for $6500 lens.


I'm tempted though.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Brian is right in his review. The cost and weight are the two things you notice. The EF400 F/2.8 is monpod crusing beast and I carried it around all weekend...ouch. On the plus side, I own the frontof two local sports pages and an online website because of it.