FS7: which 400 mm lens?

P

Publimix

Veteran
I sold my Sigma 150-600mm sports lens. A good lens but heavy and slow.
Now I am looking for a 400mm lens. I searched the internet and found a 400mm canon EF 5.6 USM lens.
On paper it seems an OK lens.

What is your opinion about this lens? Are there alternatives? What I want is good contrast and sharpness.
 
I don't have a 400 prime, but I have the Canon EF 100-400 4.5-5.6 v2 and it's awesome. Great image quality, incredibly close focus for a lens that long and if you shoot Canon stills, really fast and accurate AF. Rent one and play with it. I seriously doubt you will be disappointed with it. Color, contrast, sharpness... It's all there.
 
I need the lens for filming birds. I used the 150-600 almost always at the 600mm end of the 600mm.
But I think a prime will give a better image than a zoom. This is what I found in some reviews about the 100-400 canon vs the 5.6 400 mm canon too.
 
As someone that has shot sports their whole career, Morgan brings up a great point about 'target acquisition'. Being able to pull out a little wider to quickly find, acquire and lock-on to your target then snapping back in on it tight is usually much quicker and easier than trying to find it with a fixed long lens/narrow field of view. Plus you will be able to vary up your shots more.

Also, were you reading comparisons of the v1 or v2 100-400 vs the 400/5.6? I never owned one, but my understanding was the v1 wasn't going to knock your socks off. The v2, however, is pretty much universally recognized as a stellar performer and a lot of people say it is at least as good as the fixed 400/5.6. Even Ken Rockwell sings its praises ; ) I've used it on my F55(even center punched) for network features and my only complaint is that it's a still lens. Lol.
 
I've have the Canon 200-400mm f/4 with built-n 1.4x extender that makes it a 560mm f/5.6 at the flip of a lever. So I can cover 200mm to 560mm without making a lens change, which frankly is out of the question in the bush. Focusing smoothness is not too bad for an SLR lens. It's the only SLR lens I shoot video with because there's not cinema lens in that league that I could afford and carry around alone. Yes, it's pricey but it has already paid for itself a few times over and will last me another decade or two, I'm sure. And then I'll sell it for about what I paid for it I bet. I was tempted to go with 600mm f/2.8 but having a little zoom range was worth the trade off in my book. As an added bonus I use it for stills with my 5DM4.

Another lens that I have but don't use too often after I got the Canon is a RED 300mm f/2.8 prime. I love that lens and focusing is smooth as silk. But 300mm just comes up short too often so it mostly sits in a case. Whenever I do pull it out it is like meeting an old friend. It just feels great to shoot with. If you can live with 300mm I highly recommend it.
 
Last edited:
Run&Gun said:
The v2, however, is pretty much universally recognized as a stellar performer and a lot of people say it is at least as good as the fixed 400/5.6. Even Ken Rockwell sings its praises ; ) I've used it on my F55(even center punched) for network features and my only complaint is that it's a still lens. Lol.
Click to expand...

- zoom for target aquisition, yes.
- sports, zoom, yes
- birds zoom, no, never enough focal length.
I rented the 100-400 v1 and wasn't impressed. But I guess I'll have to check again, now 100-400 v2 vs 400.

Or there must be someone on this forum that had both lenses and can give the final verdict.

I found this review: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1470669

Renting a 100-400 v2 is the next step I guess.
 
This was a post on DP Review in response to someone asking the "100-400 v2 vs 400/5.6" question.

I use/used both, but now primarily the 100-400II. The 400 f/5.6 has the advantage on weight and size, but that's about it. The new zoom beats it on image quality at 400; has the flexibility of a wide zoom range; doesn't just have IS, but has an amped-up IS; and has a minimum focus distance that is crazy-short (3' versus the prime's 12'), allowing for super close-ups.

If the 400 5.6 were half the price, I'd have a tough time calling the price/value winner. But seeing as the prime is the lion's share of the cost of the zoom, I think the zoom is a no-brainer.

I also owned the Mark I of the 100-400 zoom, and I thought it was fudgy, so I sold it. Also tried the Tamron 150-600, and I found that almost to my liking, but sold it for the Mark II. I think to get better image quality, we'd have to go to the 400 f/4 DO II, and then you're talking 4x the cost of the 400 f/5.6.
Click to expand...

This is a link to Bryan Carnathan's review on his site The-Digital-Picture. Bryan does very thorough and in-depth reviews.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx
There is also a section where you can compare pretty much any lens vs. any lens with test charts.

In a paragraph directly comparing the two, he says image quality is "essentially equivalent" and he finds the zoom to be "a far more useful lens".

His summary, err... sums it up nicely:
Every so often, a lens comes along that really grabs your attention. This is one of them. The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II is in an elite class of zoom lenses, capable of producing prime-grade image quality at all available aperture and focal length settings. Put a very useful focal length range into a ruggedly-built, pro-grade lens with fast and accurate AF, very effective image stabilization and very impressive image quality and it is destined to be a very popular model. The 100-400 L II has quickly become one of my favorite and most-used lenses. I highly recommend this one.
Click to expand...
 
Years ago I had the OM Zuiko 90mm F2.0 this lens was so much better than all my other lenses at that time. Since then I never had a telelens with that wow factor.
The Sigma 150-600 sports was OK but not super, my old 50-300 Nikkor is a bit soft and lacks contrast, the nikkor 300mm 4.5 which I had was good but missed that wow-factor too.

I think you are right mr. Run & Gun and mr. Morgan Moore. And of course mr. Doug Jensen is even more right.
I wish I could afford the 200-400 Doug Jensen mentioned. The 100-400 comes second. I am convinced now.
 
Last edited:
"The money a piece of equipment earns is more important that it's purchase price."
- Doug Jensen

(this is especially true for lenses that tend to hold their value)
 
I just looked at my stock footage stats for November. Out of the $1402.75 I have earned so far this month (today is the 17th), as best I can tell, $1189 of the clips sold were shot with my 200-400mm. That is great ROI.
 
Hi Doug, I can buy a Canon 200-400 for a good price. Can you tell me wich adapter is best for this lens. And do all the functions work with the FS7?
 
It has been well over a year since I used the 200-400 with my FS7 and I honestly cannot remember exactly what adapter I use. I can tell you that it is a non-speed booster Metabones or Kipon that allows iris control. I don't know about AF, AE, and stabilization because I don't care about those functions. In fact, if I had an FS7M2 I wouldn't even care about iris control because I'd just use the variable ND instead.

The F55 is really the camera I use with the 200-400 and that adapter is a Optitek because that was all that was available at the time. If I was buying an Canon to FZ adapter today I'd definitely be looking for alternatives to the Optitek because I have never been totally happy with it. Hopefully there is a better alternative by now, but I've already spent my money so I'll keep what I have.
 
Metabones makes a pretty good adapter in FZ that has an integrated iris ring that is indexed and electronically aligns itself to the aperture on Canon still lenses. While not as good as a real manual aperture, it's pretty good. If they make an E mount version, I would definitely check it out.
 
Yeah, the Metabones looks really nice and it's priced at a fraction of what I paid for the Optitek. If the Arri VCT mount doesn't fix the shimmy I'm getting on long lens shooting I think I'll try the Metabones adapter. I would't rule out the Optitek adapter as being a contributing factor to my stabilization issue.
 
Doug FYI the weak link in my longlens setup is the tripod plate on my miller 25, it is the 'one touch' style and exhibits some rotational flex.. whatever VCT went on top of it would not solve that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top