Canon 100-400mm L or Canon 400mm 5.6 L

[foshan]

I am thinking of buying one of these lenses for bird photography but am unsure of which one to get. If you have experience of these lenses could you please let me know which you prefer and why. Many thanks

 

[VickyMids]

I have both, and find them both similar in optical performance, although the 400 5.6 is the lighter of the 2.

All I can say is if you think you will always be at the 400 end the the 400 5.6 is cheaper, if you are going to get closer and need the range below then the 400 5.6 is as much use as a chocolate fireguard

Optically nothing to choose.

The IS on the 100-400 is old but still does its job especially good if you are hand holding the lump

All I can say is try them in store or in the real world if you can and see what floats your boat, with the only proviso being the one above that if you are ever going to need 100-300mm and dont have any other cover for that range you are up a creek if you buy the 400 5.6

Depending on where you are in Notts you are welcome to meet up and try mine if you want (I am up near M1 Jnc 28)

Vicky

 

[foshan]

I have both, and find them both similar in optical performance, although the 400 5.6 is the lighter of the 2.

All I can say is if you think you will always be at the 400 end the the 400 5.6 is cheaper, if you are going to get closer and need the range below then the 400 5.6 is as much use as a chocolate fireguard

Optically nothing to choose.

The IS on the 100-400 is old but still does its job especially good if you are hand holding the lump

All I can say is try them in store or in the real world if you can and see what floats your boat, with the only proviso being the one above that if you are ever going to need 100-300mm and dont have any other cover for that range you are up a creek if you buy the 400 5.6

Depending on where you are in Notts you are welcome to meet up and try mine if you want (I am up near M1 Jnc 28)

Vicky

Thanks for the offer Vicky i am junction 25 but there are one of each finishing on ebay tonight which i am thinking of bidding on. I do have the canon 70-300mm so i could use that for shorter ranges. Just a quick question what is the 400 5.6 like handheld without the IS.

 

[Bmwjc]

As you are aware foshan I've just purchased the 100-400 on here. Turned up yesterday and was mint. Only had a quick play with it, optically it's very very good and inmy opinion the IS is very useful and much needed. It is heavy but for me it won't be a problem it's not that bad.

In terms of use I don't have a lens in between so its important I have the range. I don't think I would want to be stuck on 400 all the time for wildlife.

 

[VickyMids]

Thanks for the offer Vicky i am junction 25 but there are one of each finishing on ebay tonight which i am thinking of bidding on. I do have the canon 70-300mm so i could use that for shorter ranges. Just a quick question what is the 400 5.6 like handheld without the IS.

for me not brilliant handheld it is my only Non IS Lens and I really notice the difference in the viewfinder. I find it a lot harder to hold a target steady then the heavier 100-400 IS handheld.

For versatility the 100-400 has it every time, but I would say for simplicity and Longevity the 400 5.6 would be the winner, I think it will outlast the 100-400 due to the Push Pull Zoom and the cardboard Tension ring in the 100-400

But overall its a tough choice between them

Good Luck with whichever you decide on..

 

[foshan]

As you are aware foshan I've just purchased the 100-400 on here. Turned up yesterday and was mint. Only had a quick play with it, optically it's very very good and inmy opinion the IS is very useful and much needed. It is heavy but for me it won't be a problem it's not that bad.

In terms of use I don't have a lens in between so its important I have the range. I don't think I would want to be stuck on 400 all the time for wildlife.

Glad you are pleased with the lens Bmwjc. The weight wont be a problem for me as i have just sold my Sigma 150-500mm as you probably already know affectionally called the Bigma, which is a heavy lens lol.

 

[foshan]

for me not brilliant handheld it is my only Non IS Lens and I really notice the difference in the viewfinder. I find it a lot harder to hold a target steady then the heavier 100-400 IS handheld.

For versatility the 100-400 has it every time, but I would say for simplicity and Longevity the 400 5.6 would be the winner, I think it will outlast the 100-400 due to the Push Pull Zoom and the cardboard Tension ring in the 100-400

But overall its a tough choice between them

Good Luck with whichever you decide on..

Thanks for the info Vicky i think that i'm edging towards the 100-400mm.

 

[HoppyUK]

Thanks for the info Vicky i think that i'm edging towards the 100-400mm.

Just a comment on your intended use - birds. If that includes small garden birds, then you'll need to be closer than the 400's 3.5m minimum focusing distance.

On the other hand, the 100-400 is significantly less than the marked 400mm focal length when you get under say 3m - 'focus breathing' is the euphemism Since Vicky has both lenses I think, it would be interesting to hear her comments on that, eg shooting both lenses side by side at close range.

 

[foshan]

Just a comment on your intended use - birds. If that includes small garden birds, then you'll need to be closer than the 400's 3.5m minimum focusing distance.

On the other hand, the 100-400 is significantly less than the marked 400mm focal length when you get under say 3m - 'focus breathing' is the euphemism Since Vicky has both lenses I think, it would be interesting to hear her comments on that, eg shooting both lenses side by side at close range.

I have also heard that the 100-400mm is better in dim light conditions so that is also swaying me a bit.

 

[HoppyUK]

I have also heard that the 100-400mm is better in dim light conditions so that is also swaying me a bit.

Well, yes, if you mean because of the IS? But not otherwise.

 

[foshan]

Well, yes, if you mean because of the IS? But not otherwise.

I will be shooting hand held most of the time and i have never had a telephoto lens without IS so i am a bit concerned with the results with the 400mm as they are both similarly priced its a hard choice. Do you own the 400mm.

 

[HoppyUK]

I will be shooting hand held most of the time and i have never had a telephoto lens without IS so i am a bit concerned with the results with the 400mm as they are both similarly priced its a hard choice. Do you own the 400mm.

No, used to have 100-400.

It's a notoriously difficult choice. Other options are the 300L/4 plus 1.4x, or 70-200L 2.8 Mk2 with 2x, or 70-300L. Not easy

 

[foshan]

No, used to have 100-400.

It's a notoriously difficult choice. Other options are the 300L/4 plus 1.4x, or 70-200L 2.8 Mk2 with 2x, or 70-300L. Not easy

I was thinking of using a 1.4x with the 400s to get more reach for small birds. What did you think of the 100-400mm.

 

[HoppyUK]

I was thinking of using a 1.4x with the 400s to get more reach for small birds. What did you think of the 100-400mm.

Great lens, very versatile, a few years ago now though I was always suspicious of actual focal length at 400mm around the 2-3m range for small birds - but all zooms do that to a greater or lesser extent.

It will take a 1.4x, but f/8 is not brilliant for a max working aperture and if AF works at all, it will be slow/unreliable.

 

[foshan]

Great lens, very versatile, a few years ago now though I was always suspicious of actual focal length at 400mm around the 2-3m range for small birds - but all zooms do that to a greater or lesser extent.

It will take a 1.4x, but f/8 is not brilliant for a max working aperture and if AF works at all, it will be slow/unreliable.

Thanks for the advice Richard i think i will try the 100-400mm. Just need to find a decent one at the right price now.

 

[dinners]

I've had two 100-400s and two 400s

At 400mm I'd say there was nothing in it despite what you read. At 5.6 my current 100-400 is way sharper than either 400 I had.

Not much is made of the fact that the 400 has a minimum focusing distance of 3.5m. That may sound close but if you're wanting to shoot stuff like garden birds then that's a pain in the arse once you've got the know how to get closer.

The 1.8m distance of the 100-400 plus zoom advantage = no brainer for me.

 

[foshan]

I've had two 100-400s and two 400s

At 400mm I'd say there was nothing in it despite what you read. At 5.6 my current 100-400 is way sharper than either 400 I had.

Not much is made of the fact that the 400 has a minimum focusing distance of 3.5m. That may sound close but if you're wanting to shoot stuff like garden birds then that's a pain in the arse once you've got the know how to get closer.

The 1.8m distance of the 100-400 plus zoom advantage = no brainer for me.

Thanks Phil another + for the 100-400mm

 

[Bmwjc]

So which one did you get?

 

[foshan]

So which one did you get?

Neither yet as i have decided on the 100-400mm like yourself but the one i bid for on ebay went for a bit too much money so i will have to wait for the next one to see if i can win that one at the right price.

 

[Bmwjc]

You won't be disappointed, lovely bit of glass. I looking forward to getting out there and getting some nice images.

 

[foshan]

You won't be disappointed, lovely bit of glass. I looking forward to getting out there and getting some nice images.

Let me know how you get on with it. What are you using it for?

 

[Bmwjc]

Bit of a mixed bag really. Mainly sports but I will we using it out and about bit of wildlife I may try my hand at. My current manfrotto monopod which is very basic feels very unsturdy with it on though. I know the IS is quite old apparently but it's very very good still and for me vital. I switched it off briefly and hand held it was crazy trying to work it.

 

[foshan]

Bit of a mixed bag really. Mainly sports but I will we using it out and about bit of wildlife I may try my hand at. My current manfrotto monopod which is very basic feels very unsturdy with it on though. I know the IS is quite old apparently but it's very very good still and for me vital. I switched it off briefly and hand held it was crazy trying to work it.

IS is a definate for me as i will be photographing birds mainly which is one of the reasons i didn't decide on the 400L. Anyway off for some shut eye now. But it would be nice to see some of your results please post some on here when you can.

 

[Bmwjc]

Will do, I will PM you when there are some up. Hopefully it will be sooner rather than later.

 

[corpy]

I had the 300f4 l is & 1.4 tele con , Great combo and versatile - close focusing -f4 at 300mm- is- not too heavy + sharp pic's ......I only changed mine when i could afford a 300 2.8 ! All L lens are good i'm sure which ever route you go you will enjoy your photo's !


Local Waxwing by CORPY, on Flickr

An example of my old combo !