canon 400 to the best yet affordable

To be useful I think a user review must not be a heart stroke, it seems more interesting to me to place the target in relation to other neighboring focal solutions and prizes and for a specific use. Canon therefore remain in the area with the objectives for which the piggy bank you can still afford to break this little pleasure and a predominantly use Action, reportage and wildlife photography.
Let's eliminate first judgment on the merchant: nothing to say on Amazon, very professional, always on time, for me on a strictly commercial level it alone deserves 5 stars.

Some elements of comparison, on the track: the canon EF 400mm f 5.6L USM, the Canon EF 300mm f 4 L IS USM + 1.4x extender multiplier Canon II, the Sigma 150-500 APO DG OS 6.3 f5 HSM. I have not evaluated the Canon 70-200 with 2x extender because one IS is almost 2 times more expensive, the other is not stabilized, I have not evaluated the Sigma 50-500.
My tests were made with an EOS 7D on a test chart, which has the advantage of eliminating subjective factors, they are not an absolute rigor, but they have the merit to corroborate the views of some users to my friends and be consistent with site tests such as "digital picture".
I have obviously not tried other brands, with no other housing, no more than the kind of superlative goals 400mm f4 or 300 mm f 2.8 where it is no longer that piggy bank it is but of American uncle

Results
- The 400mm f 5.6 (not actually tested), is surely a very beautiful stone but it has an integrated sun visor, it has no stabilization and mini remote debugging is 3, 5m for a magnification ratio of 0.12 which puts him in a bad position to "catch" dragonflies and butterflies.
- Sigma 150-500 seems to me out of the race, opening 6.3 brings autofocus to punishment, it is very soft 500 same by stopping and improves little by reducing the focal length, plus it is very heavy it is far behind the two Canon. Confirmed by a colleague who has one.
- 300mm f4 is a beautiful stone, the best of all to its focal (see supplement my comments to this product)
- The 100-400 is excellent 400 from 8 opening.
Conclusion: 100-400 and 300+ 1.4x are at par and I doubt that we almost see the difference on screen or on a draw. It is the use that will guide the choice,
- Especially if one seeks 400 we will take the 100-400,
- If one is satisfied with a 300 but we are looking very bright lens the 300 f4 is a good plan and even when we get to a very good 420 with 1.4x.
I personally have long hesitated, zoom won for its flexibility.

Practical for use with the 100-400:
Adverse elements: once opted for a 5.6 400, the Canon 100-400 4.5 5.6 defects in a 100-400 and no use crying over the disadvantages that are inevitable :
- The weight and size: we do not want to walk with the objective hanged himself to the housing shoulder,
- The sunshade only adds to the clutter and it's hard to go unnoticed!
- When using the 100-400 on a device with a very defined sensor, it is perfectly capable of doing (see +), diffraction comes quickly play spoilsport and diaphragms then practically limited to 5 , 6, 8 and 11, which leaves little latitude for playing depth of field, one could also imagine a more open diaphragm to further isolate the subject on the background, but then it's not a 5, 6400 to buy and it is not the same price!
The pros:
- Optical quality from 8 diaphragm allows for expansion / interesting cropping: A2 up largely and widely A0 print on the screen, the picture - not the viseur- can see almost as many details with the best telescope magnification 20)
- It remains perfectly usable at maximum aperture,
- Zooming pump is a success, it zooms much more instinctively and faster than with a ring spinning.
- The tightening of the pump is easily adjustable to the value that allows him not to slip inadvertently while allowing easy operation of the zoom,
- Stabilization is effective and leads down to 400mm, at speeds of 1/100 without support and without a standing shooting champion. It corresponds roughly to 3 speed steps earned, the foot is essential in poor lighting conditions.
- Nothing moves during focusing, very nice to have a fixed bearing,
- The minimum distance of focusing is 1.8 m for a ratio of 0.20 which is not bad especially with APS C sensor
- Remains usable Baillebaude, resting on the shoulder bag or on the forearm.

Finding it is the goal I needed, now I can say that it is a stroke of heart! I think staying in an acceptable price range is the best solution at Canon 400.

Note 1 Please note a pernicious detail (which may be the cause of a certain disgrace target): Do not put a UV filter to protect the front lens, it can make unusable goal by creating a ghost pictures after reflection on the sensor (ghost). It is best to use a Canon protection filter, this filter has a slight curvature that eliminates this parasite reflection, it is totally neutral for the image.

Note 2 tests were done at the center only for 2 reasons:
- All these objectives cover the full format and can not be fundamentally wrong at the edges for a APS-C
- Imperfections edges: lower resolution, vignetting, distortion are not troublesome for wildlife photography or action in general sometimes instead highlighting the subject in the center.

Warning: 100-400 may seem robust. By paying attention to position 400 is not resistant to a fall. A patch of ice treacherously hidden under a little snow, the photographer suddenly down and zoom brutally hit a ground very hard, protective filter balance sheet broke and repair of a non-negligible cost.
Recommendation: leave the zoom maximum in the retracted position, keep the sun visor to protect and look carefully where you walk!