|sent on March 28, 2017 |
Opinion: Acquistao used by a member of the forum and tried then sold after 13 giorni.rnSono was attracted to this focal length, and to the many positive reviews I wanted the provare.rnrnFocale very interesting, good for fotografica.rnI pro hunting rnLeggero, compact, easy to carry and replace it into the backpack with the attached reflex.rnAf fast and lightning (... though. ..leggere cons ...) rnI against: f 5.6.rnUn bit Darkness at ta, not multipliable with x2iii canon l ' automatic af becomes manual and on 6d 80d and that the lack of stabilizer sentire.rnHo you had an unpleasant experience by mounting a polarizing filter is the Hoya that the bw .... rnIl central point af not hooked, even in manual, kept look for the focus point fuoco.rnPeccato Canon has not thought of a 400 f4.rnVoto general? 5,5.rnCredo that will try canon 300 f4 is .... 100 mm shorter but f4 and stabilized !!
|sent on March 27, 2017 |
Pros: sharpness, even at 5.6, af speed, engraving
Cons: maybe a little uncomfortable to grip
Opinion: a really good goal, the use in circuit coupled to 7d and gives me great satisfaction! rnNitido, very fast, thanks to the af the 7d, does not lose the af even in large changes in depth of the subject (for intenederci, the subject and curved approaches, implies a good job for the motor lens maf, and never lose lock!) rnL'unico flaw is that it is uncomfortable leggemente the handle, as there is little space on the barrel, and maybe even the hood, that if it is bruised it becomes very hard to move and fix adequately, but have defects very minimal compared to what the good offers that goal! rnPer who says he preferred stabilized because impractical, remember that the stabilization requires other lenses, and the weight (and price) would greatly levitated. The same applies to the excessively small aperture ... at this price you can not ask for more if not to compromise!
|sent on December 05, 2015 |
Pros: lightness, sharpness, fast autofocus to capture sopratturtto
Opinion: I got it used for several years to only 700 euro a month and have already strasoddisfatto. I use it to do birds not only in flight but also to shed. I also have the Tamron 150-600 that besides being "intrasportabile" given the weight and the need to stand and supertesta, does not satisfy me to extreme lengths. Then as the tammirex not work well beyond the 400 mm why take away all that weight? I use the 400 with the 1D mk III and despite everything trasportabilissimo. I see no alternative at that price for those who want to carry around without working a lens that gives these rewards. Not bad by the way multiplied with the Canon 2X III although the loss of autofocus requires a photo cutlery.
|sent on November 18, 2015 |
Pros: Handling, excellent sharpness, even at TA, very fast autofocus, convenient built-in hood
Cons: Lack of stabilization and minimum distance of focus excessive
Opinion: I have this view for some years and I am very enthusiastic about. It adapts well to photography with tripod in a shed but, at the same time, it is light and very portable allowing handheld shooting and / or with a compact monopod. Sharpness, contrast and color rendition are excellent even at full aperture and autofocus is fast. I was not surprised to learn that even the first choice for some wildlife photographers when they photograph birds in flight. In these cases, the limits in terms of brightness of optics (and therefore bokeh and shutter speed) are less and the handling is very useful. So if I'm wrong a photo is not the fault of optics ... highly recommended! rnUnico defect: the minimum distance of focus of 3.5 meters is a limit that can be partially circumvented by the use of an extension tube (Franco Borsi docet ...).
|sent on November 06, 2015 |
Pros: Sharpness, speed, lightness, brightness although a F5.6 - built-in hood, contrast, color, price.
Opinion: And the second time I buy this goal, I had to try the Tamron 150/600 sold after two months sold 400 subito.rnIl love him, I have a good feeling with my Canon 7d seems born for this machine, many say cons and stbillizzatore for me is not a problem, with low light use the tripod, I like to take the birds in flight and this lens and the right one for me, light and quick in making fuoco.rnLa file quality that produces the my Canon 7d with this goal gives me a lot of satisfaction, always precise and with a detail eccellente.rnrn
|sent on April 27, 2015 |
Pros: lightweight, af lightning excellent value for money
Cons: not stabilized, f5.6, not suitable for stalking.
Opinion: Taken after reading the many great reviews I used it for some months but ultimately failed to achieve the performance as much as 90% decantate.rnfacendo stalking and often with poor lighting (in the woods, cloudy etc. ) it is difficult to stay within the safety and shake-it is almost always presente.rnHo tried to use it on a tripod from the shed and "things" have changed radically (for the better of course) but it's not my genere.rnL'ho sold to switch the new 100 400.
|sent on November 17, 2014 |
Pros: AF fast, excellent construction, crystal clear, optically perfect
Cons: without stabilization
Opinion: A simply stunning optical quality of the shots that returns. If Canon had provisto of stabilization, would not be able to keep up with sales. I am also a proud owner of a 500 F4 L USM II, however, I decided not to sell the 400 F5.6 because an optical light and portable in this way, can not be beat for portability and shooting opportunities in the Forest in short spaces, such as long
|sent on September 03, 2014 |
Pros: Weight, sharpness, AF speed, colors, contrast, lens hood.
Cons: Lack of stabilizer, a minimum distance of maf
Opinion: For me it is a spectacular lens, lightweight and with a great flow, especially on a aps-c. Carry it around all day not tired at all even compares to a 300 2.8. At the level of sharpness is unmatched. The 100-400 does not reach the 400 and the 300 f4 fixed multiplied idem. One flaw is that it lacks the stabilizer, which combined with a maximum aperture of f5.6 would not be bad at all, although I must say that in everyday use you do not hear much about the lack. In addition, the minimum distance of maf is a bit long, 3.5 meters. The build quality is top, typical of the series L. Another positive note is that having a weight content not need a tripod head but above all a super strong (and super expensive) for reggerlo.rn
|sent on August 22, 2014 |
Pros: Optical quality, light weight.
Cons: no one
Opinion: I took just this purpose, a real gem for value for money, very affected even at full aperture, very beautiful color rendition, very maneggevole.rnAvevo of perplexity about two functions very important to me, the stabilization and the minimum distance of maf, in this case 3.5 m, too much for my needs, I solved this brilliantly by adding an extension tube canon EF 12mm, in practice now the minimum distance of maf is about 2.5 to 2.6 meters from the front lens (it is true that the minimum distance is measured by the maf sensor, but in practice I do I measure from the front lens), the light loss is minimal, the value of 1/3 stop, and both the quality perspective, the focus speed are not affected in the least, the loss of infinity maf normally I do not care because I dedicate a lot of work to mimicry and subjects are always close, however, the maximum distance of maf is about 13-14 meters, if serves nonetheless takes off immediately the pipe prolunga.rnPer regardstabilization Instead I've found no limit, indeed, in comparison with the Sigma 150-500 I had camera shake is virtually nil in the canon, of course, for the fact that my photographic genre exclusively or click on the bag or on a tripod, in the case then you were photographing a subject in flight is irrelevant stabilization, maybe some will find it limit who makes wildlife photography vagante.rnper the rest I only found out this fantastic optical qualities.
|sent on July 30, 2014 |
Pros: Maf fast, crisp, beautiful colors, lightweight, takes up little space, quality / price ratio very good.
Cons: I do not see contro.per me in his band is the best.
Opinion: I own the canon 400f5, 6 for a few years, optics which I could not do without, is the lens that I always keep on hand, both for convenience and space-saving, but especially for its resa.rnMaf fast, colors and sharpness at the top, it is clear even at RT, but f6, 3 f10 is a blade, the only drawback is that the focus slightly less than other fixed serie1e2 but with the price differences of thousands of Euros, God forbid. ...! rnSi is f5, 6 and lacks the stabilizer, but I can assure you that 90% of the photos is successful, its lightness and maneuverability make up for the gap, I pulled out the delicious file shot with 1/50 freehand impossible for me with other goals that I have for example: Canon 500mm.rnE 'so handy that I get on the subject with unparalleled ease, it is deadly on tracking of birds in volo.rnIl price "even if not a little to the times we live in "is affordable, well ... money well spent! in used you can find the solution and save money.rnDa always carry around, even to those who have megaottiche .... rnConsigliatissimo ....!
|sent on June 16, 2014 |
Pros: Speed ??'MAF, very light, very crisp
Cons: It remains glued to the machine
Opinion: I use this lens exclusively for birds, and I am satisfied, very light to carry for stalking, will not have 'the quality of a 300 f2.8 or a 500 but if you have the chance' to close a couple of stops, knows how to churn out files all respect. Excellent value for money and I do not feel the lack of is, what about the rest ... Highly recommended.
|sent on March 14, 2014 |
Pros: AF speed, maneuverability, price / performance ratio, sharpness at RT.
Cons: I would say no
Opinion: Used almost exclusively for sports photos and particularly indoors. AF really infallible. Sharpness TA rivals objectives of the upper class. Can be used easily by hand. In short, a truly irreplaceable companion, to match the price, although it is a dated design. The stabilizer frankly I do not miss.
|sent on February 21, 2014 |
Pros: Sharpness TA, AF speed, weight
Opinion: I was looking to replace with a view Pompone 100-400 mm at maximum focal always left me perplexed, the advice of friends Juza I was directed to this point and I have to say that I am 100% satisfied. I use it combined with the 1 DX and despite the weight of the camera body around everywhere not feeling the weight of the optics. Good also balancing that with Pompone at maximum focal length was a disaster. Thanks to all those that I have recommended.
|sent on December 21, 2013 |
Opinion: Objective of the last century ... but now immortal. It does not have IS so it does not get old or technological components that can fail. The af however, is of great relevance for efficiency and velocità.Puro, simple, lightweight, fast, sharp. It is crisp already at rt for which the opening "limited" to 5.6 is not so provide limited 90% use it freehand with monopod but you have to know exactly what you are doing: just so you get great photos even "in hand. " However, if you should die ... I'd buy an identical door on the same day ... addiction. In short: a perfect lens for hunting traveling photographic and other applications where required featherweights and focal lengths. One last thing ... of course mine is just an opinion and not a detailed recenzione. This is to say that the goals should always be tested before purchasing one.
|sent on October 25, 2013 |
Pros: Sharpness, Lightweight, quality construction.
Cons: lack of stabilizer.
Opinion: Just tried it I was immediately struck by the extreme sharpness, the f.5, 6 seemed to me so much, however it seems much brighter. With my 1dMKII is also fast in focus. I do not feel the lack of stabilization that much, given the lightness of the lens. To carry it behind forever. also the hood comfortable. It is not a recent project, but certainly winning and perhaps for this reason Canon does not feel the need to update it.
|sent on October 14, 2013 |
Pros: Lightweight, sharp enough, good contrast, almost excellent AF. rn
Opinion: If we add the built-in hood, price and 'more justified and affordable. rnSi uses freehand (which means a lot). rnHo also the 28-300 stabilized and the weight difference of feeling, especially collo.rnLo to use especially when I walk in the mountains and 'maneggevole.Consigliatissimo for fotocazzeggiatori like me. rnPorterete home of the excellent scatti.rn
|sent on July 27, 2013 |
Pros: objective light and relatively cheap place to rnscelta plus other ottichernsembra ideal for 7 Drncomperato reservation by Fotocolombo (the price on the most interesting new) rngaranzia Italy
Cons: there is limited opening rnnon stabilizer but you can not have everything
Opinion: thanks for your advice, I sold my 300 f 4 and the 2x multiplier always Canonho just received the Canon 400 5.6 and made an exit before to Massaciuccoli (where there was little heat and pollution) seems to me a very objective easy to handle and with a mass rapid fire I can not say much about the quality but I hope well I wonder if it's worth checking to make retrofocus from Canon service then I think to try the Kenko multiplier which you say beneconfermo the excellent opinion on the forum JuzarnG.Manuel Polo
|sent on April 30, 2013 |
Pros: Can be used at full aperture, light, fast AF, Bokeh fabulous
Cons: Lack IS, minimum distance of focus
Opinion: goal that is appreciated much already at full aperture, produces files very good even without post production (obviously guessed exposure), the AF motor is a splinter, lightweight that you do not carry too tired, its shortcomings are the lack of IS which is useful to see the viewfinder firm and the minimum distance of focus, may be wrapped many 3.5 meters!
|sent on April 08, 2013 |
Pros: Mechanical construction impeccabilernPeso very ridottornNitidezza estremarnAF velocissimornParaluce built and comfortable use
Cons: Is not stabilized
Opinion: Objective unbeatable quality / price ratio, which combines the low weight and the extreme speed of the AF brilliant clarity, capable of emulating (very near) the elder brothers of much more cost. Ideal for photo hunting stray and photos of wild birds in flight or on the run. Too bad that the reduced opening prevents the multiplication except with a very small number of bodies. The lack of stabilization is not significant for those photographing birds in flight. Raccomandabilissimo.
|sent on February 14, 2013 |
Pros: Sharpness of reference, handy
Cons: For me, no
Opinion: I use this lens not much, always find space in your bag relatively light and crystal clear. File produces excellent, I use it with an old 5D and allows considerable crop. Initially, like many, I was undecided between this and the 100-400 hours are stracontento, the lack of stabilizer do not think a problem especially with the latest generation of FF sensors.
|sent on September 13, 2012 |
Pros: Lightweight - compact - sharpness - contrast - held in backlight - Quick AF - Price - built-in hood
Cons: none (obviously in relation to the type of lens)
Opinion: This lens is not just for those who always and photo hunt to deal with this kind of once in a while with essential equipment, the brightness low, but of very high optical quality. The appearance of greater importance is that this lens does not require iris to deliver high performance, then, despite the brightness is not exciting, it can and should be used f: 5.6 or half a stop closure. The tripod is a must, but thanks to the handling of this objective by shooting on the fly freehand often allows very respectable results. It can even be carried in a backpack fitted as "standard" in nature photography (not only cf) because still reasonably light and "stowed" along with a pair of wide-angle zoom and mediotele and / or a macro. After the mid-70s Nikon marketed its Nikkor 400/5, 6 If Ed, that was the envy of every canon user ... Today, the roles are reversed. It would not hurt a IS version, but would suffer for sure size and weight, and of course the price. It 's true, there is an excellent 300/4 IS, which with a multiplier of 1.4 X "do" the same thing as this subtle character. But in my opinion is not the same thing, and species with small form factor high pixel density that is even more true.
|sent on July 11, 2012 |
Pros: weight, cost, clarity, speed af, 400mm, lens hood
Cons: f 5.6
Opinion: Excellent lens for sharpness even af ??5.6, good light to be transported, in fact use it a lot for going to the mountains where every gram after hours of walking is felt, but lacks stabilizer in favor of the weight, so I think it is almost an advantage if you are not in a position to be able to bring back a good tripod becomes unusable in low light conditions. the AF is fast and accurate. The hood of this objective is very convenient as it is incorporated into the lens itself.
|sent on June 14, 2012 |
Pros: Weight, handling, sharpness, price, speed AF and overall quality
Cons: Unique: the lack of IS, it is not necessary as it seems
Opinion: Optics nothing short of outstanding. Initially I was undecided whether to take this or the 100-400 and took the Pompone I sold after four months to try this masterpiece of the '90s. There is no comparison, the fixed utilizzabilissimo at room temperature and not have to worry about loss of sharpness. Initially I was a bit 'skeptical about the lack of stabilizer but I wanted to try the same, and his weight instead ensures perfect use even without IS. I'm really happy with this optic. The only thing I noticed is that with the MIA 50D AI SERVO is more difficult to engage the subject with respect to the 100-400 .. Once hooked, however, has not problemi.rn
|sent on May 21, 2012 |
Pros: image quality, handling, weight / size, AF, price
Cons: minimum distance of focus a bit long and lack IS, not for shooting but for the stability of the frame in the viewfinder that allows the IS.
Opinion: I own the lens not much but I have used it extensively and I was able to compare the quality of the field with your sisters and comes out a winner. A f5, 6 the picture is very clear and it is possible to crop the image while maintaining a high quality of both FF on APS-C (a little less). Its light weight allows you to use it in situations that are not comfortable and chasing elusive subjects effortlessly. I missed the stabilizer rarely and in any case for its comfort and be situated in the viewfinder for his contribution to avoid camera shake. I have the 70-200 IS II (duplicate) and the difference is noticeable doing the same kind of picture, the viewfinder is quite another thing. I do not see this lens as an economical alternative to larger lenses but as a specific tool for birds in flight or as dynamic. If pass-ply longer keep the 400mm F5, 6 because it is a single lens and more useful than others in many situations, both forthe AF lightning that for ease of handling. With the duplicator 1.4 xiii I got good results but always on a tripod and static subjects or in slow motion, but the AF does not work with the makeup of the tape on the contacts you, even if it is reliable only in part, and requires a lot of light. Finally, the price makes it accessible to many and is a great start for the birds. Its quality is in any case better than the 100-400 @ 400mm and 70-200 IS II with 2xIII: I did a lot of testing with these two objectives before deciding to take it. A part of the image quality tests to compare the AF 400mm F5, 6 is unmatched and makes a difference, even on a low AF system like the 5DII.
|sent on November 20, 2011 |
Pros: Weighs relatively little and is not bulky, retractable hood, excellent construction (but it is weather sealed), great sharpness even at maximum aperture, fast autofocus
Cons: Lack of stabilization, which fortunately is heard only rarely!
Opinion: I am in possession of this lens a couple of months and I can already think me very happy! Before I had a Sigma 150-500mm that although it was for my needs more than satisfactory is totally incomparable to the new purchase. Meanwhile, the 400mm is lighter and less bloat: it is a lens that you can carry around without the hassle (I say that they are tiny!) And is also very easy to handle (for example, to photograph birds in flight, which comes into play in the fast AF). You can then safely use freehand or placed on any media (wall, bean bag etc) clearly tripod high energy yield is insured but do not always have the opportunity to use it. Problems can arise dell'usarlo hand when the subject is motionless or in low light where the shake is on the prowl for slow shutter speeds and the impossibility of not transmit jitter unless you have iron arms! Its quality fixed lens in any case it is indisputable (sharp pictures even at f/5.6), the pictures are always rich in detail and if you wish, you can also make substantial crop. I recommend this lens to anyone who wants a perspective of great quality for the birds but they can not afford those blunders by euro!
|sent on October 10, 2011 |
Pros: Af lightning speed, weight, size, cost, clarity, strength.
Cons: Lack is.
Opinion: Excellent optics with an unbeatable value for money. Otticamemte excellent already at full aperture, autofocus has a truly spectacular for speed and accuracy. It can be used all day by hand, never fails, plus it's compact enough so that it can be carried everywhere easily. Unfortunately, the real peccca is the lack of IS which affects slightly the free-hand for static subjects, but just put it on a tripod and you're done. I highly recommend this light to all those who do not want svenarsi with the price (compared to all the other paintings canon) and have the highest optical quality.
|sent on October 03, 2011 |
Pros: TA sharpness, AF speed, light weight, built-in hood, price
Cons: I can not find
Opinion: I use this lens for quite some time, is a lens stranitida at room temperature so that closing will not notice the difference is very slight and therefore can be used without problems by hand for hours, lack of IS does not feel except in rare cases (just leaning somewhere to remedy the problem with taking a long time), the focus speed is impressive and does not drop even mounting a 1.4X multiplier to use with the 1D Mark3, as well as decreases the sharpness of the built-in hood is a real treat! gets in the way and the second time in as many takes off, it is not as huge as some lenses and is very sturdy! Having regard to the price he is a lens that advice, surpassed only by lenses that are priced 4/5 times
|sent on September 30, 2011 |
Pros: Sharpness, lightness, handiness, quality / price ratio
Cons: minimum distance of focus a bit 'long (3.5 m)
Opinion: The nitididezza that full aperture (f/5.6) is impressive. At the same opening looks good at all in comparison with its bigger brothers (400 f/2.8 and 400 f / 4 DO) and exceeds by far the "POMPONE." Very handy and lightweight it is used safely by hand. He lacks the stabilization is true, but I do not feel personalemente sorely missed.
|sent on September 29, 2011 |
Pros: AF, lightness, sharpness
Cons: Unique: lack of stabilizer
Opinion: Bringing you unique, lightweight and crystal clear, perfect for the mountain where a 300 2.8 hours led to destroy you. With its light weight hand is not felt, the quality is spectacular and also allows good crop without excessive loss of detail. The only drawback for static subjects is the lack of the stabilizer, with a lens that would be even more perfect!
|sent on September 28, 2011 |
Pros: Handling, excellent sharpness even at room temperature, very fast autofocus, convenient built-in hood
Cons: Lack of stabilization
Opinion: I own this lens for about a year and I'm very enthusiastic. It adapts well to photography using a tripod inside a shed, but at the same time, it is lightweight and very portable allowing shooting handheld and / or a compact monopod. Sharpness, contrast and color rendition are excellent even at full aperture and the autofocus is very fast. I was not surprised to learn that even the first choice for some nature photographers when it comes to photographing birds in flight. In these cases the limits in terms of brightness optics (and therefore bokeh and shutter speed) are less and the handling is very useful. So if I'm wrong a photo is not guilty of optics ... highly recommended!
|sent on September 26, 2011 |
Pros: All too extreme sharpness Opening (F/5.6), is also extremely fast AF, lightweight, compact, built-in hood, price / performance ratio.
Cons: Lack of stabilizer (but it makes up for a short time), if semiduplicato lose AF on bodies not set "1".
Opinion: This 400 series fixed "luxury", in my view, a truly unique price-performance ratio. Its extremely simple optical scheme enabling him to achieve extremely high performance in sharpness and speed of engagement of the subjects. Canon has never updated, despite both in production for years ... and I think they have their own good reasons. For my part I can say that it is a pleasure to use this light, the sharpness which also gives the possibility of some crop. And 'perspective particularly paid especially for shots of birds in flight, personally use both shed on that tripod with towel leafed with monopod. Used for the purpose for which it arises, in its price range in my opinion, simply has no rivals.
|sent on September 26, 2011 |
Pros: weight, handling, clarity, value for '/ price speed' af
Cons: loss af
Opinion: I use this lens for some time and on my way to photograph I think that few can compete. Since its certainly has the manageability little more 'than a kilo of weight and therefore offers the possibility' you can use it freehand without any problems. Many people think that the lack of a stabilizer may compromise its use but if you think that with time more than 1/500 the stabilizer goes to hell I believe that you can not miss this additional technological means. For me it 's the lens more' crisp on the market and also used with the 1.4 multiplier and down really low. Of course you lose AF (not the number 1) but 'remains without the multiplier, one of the most' fast. Affordable price and takes home a lens slap.