What film format are you looking to use it in? In smaller formats (35mm/120) you will notice the grain, which is a good or bad thing depending on your taste. I haven't shot the 400, but I adored the 200 when it was around. Reciprocity is generally worse than comparable Ilford films, but not radically worse at short times. Once you get into longer exposures, it racks up quickly though.
I've been getting to know the Fomapan 100 in 135 via some short date bulk rolls Freestyle was offering awhile back.
I tend to agree that the Foma 100 builds contrast fast and will blow highlights if you don't watch things closely but it's a unique looking film. I haven't had a chance to really get to know it yet intimately but so far I really dig the look.
Will probably try the 400 in 120 and hopefully the 200T will get reintroduced.
I find it half the speed of HP5+; also, that it has less of a tolerance for underexposure. At 1/2 second you need to start adding exposure to account for reciprocity, and the amount of extra exposure you need increases much faster than for HP5+. Still, it is a pretty film, and I like it.
My favorite of all is HP5+, but I still like Foma 400.
I shot a roll of Fomapan 400 more than a year ago in 35mm. Not bad, as others have noted it seems to be marginally 400 ISO and prefers a bit of overexposure, and won't really push. As I recall the base tended to be quite a bit curlier than Kodak or Ilford's films. I also noticed this with the Fomapan 100 in 120. Not a huge issue, but a slight pain when trying to load the reels Maybe they've changed the base since I used it last.
i can't wait to take a picture of my thumb with this beautiful camera.
- phirehouse, after buying a camera in the classifieds