Canon 100-400mm or 400mm prime?

M

Markkelly1983

Suspended / Banned
Messages
18
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks, want your opinions on buying either the 100-400mm f4.5 L lens or the 400mm f5.6 L lens? I take alot of sports/wildlife shots on my 500d and 7d. Your help is appreciated
 
The 400mm prime is sharper and faster focussing, but the 100-400 (it's f/4.5-5.6 by the way) is a lot more versatile, with it's zoom and IS (and closer focussing).

What kind of sports do you shoot? I'd be inclined to recommend the 100-400 for sports. I happily use my 100-400 for wildlife. I carefully weighed up the 400mm prime, but decided that IS and close focussing are marginally more valuable than having the absolute best image quality, since I like to handhold it a lot.
 
Last edited:
Hi squishy, thanks for the reply! I shoot local football matches and I use my 70-200mm L f4 usm for that and find it great but want to get a bit closer to the action if you know what I mean
 
I'll second the 100-400L for versatility as well.
 
For what you do i would get the 100-400, I have it and it is soo versatile as been said above.
You will be limited with the prime, I think anyways.

I was out shooting the local sand racing meet at the weekend and tried different places around the course and used everything from the 100 end right up to 350mm so it was well worth it for me, Had I just had the prime I would not have had the choice but to be in one place unless I had another lens that did the other mm for me.

spike
 
Thanks hashcake! Yeah spikek6 I think your maybe right, there's a big advantage to zooming in and out! Iv just heard so much about prime lens being so much faster and sharper that I was swaying towards 1. I know with my 70-200 you can be stationary and get so many different shots
 
I'll go along with Squishy's analysis. I use mine for wildlife, including BIF, and also motorsports and running dogs. I get by quite well with the 100-400 for sports such as motor racing, where subject movement is usually very predictable and easily tracked, and the IS can really help with the slow speed pans, but I think football might be another story.

I've never actually tried shooting football, but where you have a high degree of random action the IS will not help and you'll need high shutter speeds to freeze subject motion, which should also take care of camera shake for you, more so if you use a monopod. The bigger issue would be achieving those high shutter speeds in less than stellar light. Of course the 400L would have no advantage there either, and without the zoom may even be too long at times, especially on a crop body. But I think where players are changing direction and speed at random any advantage in the AF response is likely to be a big plus. I think something faster than f/5.6 would be very useful, not only for shutter speeds, but also AF performance and subject separation.

What about a 70-200/2.8L IS II and a 1.4x and/or 2X TC? That will give give you a more versatile setup and the new 70-200 is supposedly mad sharp. Another option, if you have deep pockets, would be a 300/2.8 and a TC or two.

The 100-400 is a great lens, and I love mine, but for football....... I'm not sure. Think winter, rain, dull days and so on. As for sharpness, here is a sample from today while out walking the dog. It's just a practice shot of a DIF. Here is a 100% crop of a shot wide open at 400mm before and after sharpening. You can see how small the bird was in the frame. I also don't think 1/1000 was sufficient for a perfectly sharp hand held shot at 400mm on a 7D viewed at 100%, but you do what you can.

20110308_164805_000.jpg


Here are a couple of shots from today of the wee doggy having some fun. All are wide open at 400mm. No edits on these except WB....

20110308_143144_4745_LR.jpg
20110308_143938_4793_LR.jpg
20110308_150726_4880_LR.jpg


There are more examples from my 100-400 in this thread - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=289585.
 
Thanks guys! I'm only at photography a year and a half and appreciate all your help. Think my minds been made up.....100-400mm it is
 
hashcake said:
I'll second the 100-400L for versatility as well.
Click to expand...

Dito!

Unless you are going 400 2.8 for specific high volume purpose 100/400 will get so much more use. For the investment, I've stuck with the 100-400 until I'm ready to drop 4 times the cost on a prime.
 
I had the 100-400mm and swapped it for the 400mm f/5.6.............best thing I did, but that's because it suited me. Its light, ultra quick at focussing, and I seem to get better results with it than the 100-400, but thats probably down to me.

One thing I do miss, as has been stated, is the versatility of the 100-400mm. With the 400mm, only thing you can do is move back if you're too close !!

Not sure that the IS will help for sports though.....
 
Going to be using it during the day, never need it for night time. But as a matter of interest can you explain this to me so I know for again?
 
Hi Olly! That's the first positive view on the 400mm! So you've had both and you prefer the prime. You can still manage with the prime but would the zoom make that much of a difference in your view?
 
Most has been said so simply another vote for the 100-400. Like yourself I started a year ago, shoot zoos started playing captive bit this year and track days when I can on my original 500d and now the 7d.

The 100-400 is a cracking lens and the versatility is great, it lives on my camera and is rarely off it.
 
is was a bit of a pain before I got my 70-200mm but now its fine.

Bottom line if you haven't already got a lens in the 100-200 range then the 100-400mm will probably be better for you. If you have that range covered, might be worth looking at the 400mm.

Where are you based, if you're local you can always come and try it :)
 
Hi nissanman, the 7d is a cracker? I got mine at Xmas and used it for my first sports shots a few weeks ago. It truly is a camera for action....superb! Hope that the 100-400mm will give me a complete package if I go for it
 
Hi Olly thanks for suggesting that but I'm in northern Ireland but you could post it to me ! Lol just kidding. This is my thinking....I have the 70-200 and the 17-40 so I'm well covered there. Just thought I should have a long prime lens in my bag as my next purchase
 
ah ok :(

its a tough one for sure !! what sort of sports are you shooting ?
 
Hi Olly, Gaelic football and camogie for my local club. My 70-200 is great for it but sometimes I'm just a bit too far away from the action so I wanted a bit more zoom
 
Since you have two bodies, the prime might work well in combo with the 70-200.
you're still missing the 200-399mm range that might come in handy, but you can always put a 1.4x on your 70-200 to close that gap a bit.
Or maybe the 300 f/4L IS instead of the 400? Might be worth hiring one for a day, seeing how you get on with the focal lengths. If you can manage without IS, the old 300mm f/4L non-IS is a real bargain used.

I was saddened when I realised I wouldn't get along with the 400 prime, I like having the IQ of a prime a lot and I wouldn't mind not having the zoom on my 100-400 (I do use it sometimes, but primarily the lens is for wildlife, where it's at 400 99% of the time), but IS and closer focussing are fractionally more valuable to me than having even better IQ.
If canon brings out a 400 f/5.6 L IS with a better close focussing distance, I'll seriously consider selling my 100-400 for it.
 
Yeah squishy it's hard to know what to do, as a hobbie it's an expensive game and since I bought my first L lens I won't settle for anything less. Wish I could just buy them all :-)
 
Markkelly1983 said:
Hi Olly, Gaelic football and camogie for my local club. My 70-200 is great for it but sometimes I'm just a bit too far away from the action so I wanted a bit more zoom
Click to expand...

Pardon my ignorance but what is camogie? another one of those violent sports that make great spectating.
 
Hi mj, did you ever hear of hurling? Well camogie is the same but played by women. 15 players on each side and each has a hockey like stick
 
That's a good point Phil! Il always have my 70-200mm in my bag! Have you used the 400mm prime?
 
Markkelly1983 said:
That's a good point Phil! Il always have my 70-200mm in my bag! Have you used the 400mm prime?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not, my mate has a 400 f2.8 which I have taken about 1 pic with, well heavy couldn't use it without a monopod and belt loop. Try hiring a 400 next game and see what it's like but if I was you I'd keep the 70-200 and get a 400 and a Tc for use with either lens if need be
 
If you are relatively serious about the sport side of things, then as has been suggested a couple of times f5.6 is really not fast enough for winter sport (even more so in Ireland!).

A decent second hand 100-400 is going to set you back £850 and for a bit more (they start at about £900) you could get a decent nick Sigma 120-300mm /2.8. It's heavier (by about 1kg), without OS and 100mm less in fl, but it does the job well and can take an x1.4 very well.

In terms of getting the shutter speed to stop the action, AF in lower light and putting the background out of focus it will knock the socks off both the 100-400 and 400mm /5.6.

If you can save a bit more then non IS version of the 300mm /2.8 Canon can be found for around £1,200, but they don't come onto the market very often.

The 100-400 is a fantastic lens, and I really miss mine, but the most important thing is having the right tool for the job as far as your budget will allow.
 
Last edited:
Hi demilion, I don't get paid for taking any of my photos at the sports matches. "Big camera and big lens, oh mark will take pictures for us" I'm a charity case :-). I find my 70-200 f4 is getting great shots so I want to buy another decent lens but don't want to be putting myself out seeing as it's a hobbie and not my occupation. If I was doing it full time then I could justify spending more money
 
Firstly I didn't say anything about earning and secondly both alternatives are within £100 of the used and new price of the 100-400 but it's entirely up to you.
 
I use the 400mm f5.6 and bought it after much consideration of the 100-400mm

Glad I did, realised most of my shots would be at 400mm, it focuses really fast, light'ish and the results are excellent. Yes IS would be nice at times, but although it is hand holdable (is that even a word) its the type of lens I would want to support most of the time

The other thing that concerns me is the design and build of the zoom especially the friction lock which seems to have a fairly high failure rate. Apparently its basically a piece of cardboard like material which disintegrates, not sure about the push/pull action either, just prefer to use my feet if needs be.
 
Hi Phil, tried that one and they said they would look into maybe a grant but obviously never bothered
 
I think I'm going to finish up with both lenses. I swapped my prime for Olly k's zoom and we're both delighted with the results.

I know many people don't recommend it but I do walk-about birding and the 100-400 has been a boon because of the IS. I now get many really sharp keepers even with my wobblyness.

However, on the tripod/gimbal the zoom simply isn't as quick to AF as the prime and I'm now missing that super fast AF.
 
Markkelly1983 said:
Hi mj, did you ever hear of hurling? Well camogie is the same but played by women. 15 players on each side and each has a hockey like stick
Click to expand...
Aha cheers, hurling is similar to shinty, a game of pain.
 
Yeah footman, there's plenty of good points for each lens! Just need to narrow it down to which would suit the best.
 
FWIW I have a 70-200/2.8 IS as well as my 100-400. In fact I bought them at the same time, in the same purchase order. I find sufficient difference between their abilities to keep both. I've had them for almost four years.

As an occasional BIF shooter I've sometimes thought that maybe it would be worth the swap to the 400/5.6L prime and I just can't bring myself to do it. Of 1959 images in my Lightroom library taken with that lens only 948 were taken at 400mm, slightly less than half of them. I've got a further 125 images shot with a 1.4X TC attached as well, but only 67 of those are at full stretch, just over half of them. I really would not wish to sacrifice the versatility of the zoom in order to achieve a hair more sharpness or AF speed. Maybe I don't know what I'm missing, but I'm happy in my ignorance.

If I wanted to up the stakes then I'd be looking to add a 300/2.8 to my collection, along with a 1.4X and 2X TC, but right now the cost is way above my level of interest. I would certainly not bother to exchange my zoom just to replace it with another 400/5.6 lens. Too much to lose. Too little to gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top