canon 400 5.6 or 100-400 tele?

Hi Carol,

I've never owned or used either, but from what I've read and looking at results, the 400mm prime gives sharper results at the 400mm end.

Neither will AF with an extender, unless you own a 1D/DS, in which case it'll only AF on the centre AF point.

Swings and roundabouts. Obviously the zoom gives greater flexibility and the results aren't bad at 400mm..

Have also read reports that the push/pull of the 100-400mm can accelerate dust appearing on the sensor/mirror. Again, this is just feedback...

These guys http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx seem to give good opinions and looking at them before and after I've purchased a lens, their judgment IMHO is spot on..
 
I tried a 100-400mm, 70-200mm f2.8, 300mm f4, and 400mm f5.6 at the same time for a weekend.

As you got a 70-200mm already, then get a 400mm f5.6 prime. I found the drop of in IQ with a 70-200mm f2.8 with 1.4tc wsnt really noticeable to me verses the 100- 400mm, and some are saying the the f4 version is as sharp if not sharper then the f2.8.

The 300mm f4 is better then the 70-200, and 100- 400mm i sold it as i found it was getting a great deal of use.

The 400mm prime wipes the floor with the 100-400 at 400mm. Sharper faster better colours etc, comes in to its own in darker light as the 100-400mm can really hunt, where i found the prime didnt. Ok you lose IS on the prime, but its really light enough to hand hold.

The plus point for the 100-400 has to be its a one lens option, so if you worried more about having to take two lenses out then the 100-400, or Sigma as mentioned earlier.

If your after best IQ stick with what got and add the 400mm F5.6 prime. Comes in handy having 2 body's then.
 
Ooh, this is a big can of worms you've opened here. You're lucky you have a Canon - you have lots of options for decent telephotos.

The 400mm f/5.6 L is very very sharp, surprisingly light, and very fast to focus. If you know you want 400mm (eg birding, when you need every mm you can get) and you can cope without IS, then it's a great choice.

The 300mm f/4 L IS is also very sharp, and works well with a 1.4x Extender to give you 420mm at f/5.6 with IS. It's not as sharp as the 400, but the IS gives you more options when the light is iffy. When Canon Bob shows up he'll tell you that his 300 gets more use, but his 400 is the one with the sun tan.

Or the 100-400 L IS is a great all-rounder. Not as sharp at 400mm, but the zoom gives you so much flexibility. Superb build quality, superb ergonomics. Don't listen to people who don't like the push-pull zoom - it means your left hand is always in the perfect position to support the lens. And take the talk about dust with a pinch of salt too - we have lots of these lenses, and they're forever going to dusty places like Kenya, and we've had no problems with dust.

[spam]Want a test drive? ;)[/spam]
 
LOL I agree with Stuart. The 400mm prime will be a tad sharper, but the 100-400L is so flexible I find it pretty well indispensable as a walk around general purpose wildlife lens, whereas the prime would sometimes be just too long for the closer opportuinities which arise.
 
Just been to South Africa and my 100-400mm was on the 40D most of the time. No dust issues, dead easy to use and even when I had the x2 converter on, reasonably sharp for what I wanted (ie not exhibition quality, but good enough to show to others my holiday images!) :lol:

Haven't got any I can put up yet....not had time to sort...but it's a really versitile lens.
 
cason said:
Im thinking of buying a longer lens - I have the 70-200 f4 but frustrated with lack of reach! which of the above would you say was a better buy, oh I have the 2x extender but find it too slow to manual focus.
any thoughts appreciated thanks
cas
Click to expand...

Having already got the 100-400L, I got the 70-200 2.8L when Jan got interested so that we'd both have a longish lens for days out and it seemed like a good enough excuse anyway. The 70 -200 is a great lens, but it's totally out-gunned for reach by the 100-400L.

Take a 100-400L on a zoo visit and you'll find that it's THE perfect lens bar none for the closer critters and those further away.
 
I've got the 70-200 F4 IS and had the same problem, never enough reach. I went for the 100-400 and it's rarely been off the camera, it is so versatile! Mine is damn near as sharp as the 70-200, and even with the 1.4 TC image quality is good, -assuming I get the focus right!!- I can safely say I would not be without it!
Mind you, if canon would come up with a 200-800 (same size and weight) I'd 'ave that too :woot:

Tara
 
I will put a vote in for the 100-400 I love this lens, yes its heavy, the push pull zoom is amazing, what a great idea. Go for it, you will not look back. Had a play with mine on the 2x and even with that, it is very impressive, not short of reach that is for sure.
 
The 100-400 is not as good as the Sigma 120-300, stick a 1.4x TC on the Sigma will match the focal length and probably out perform at the long end too.

It is kinda tricky above 300mm - you've only really got primes that are top notch...

Other than the 100-400 you are talking the mega massive lens really... which are just physically really big, heavy and bulky. They are stunning bits of glass, the Canon 600mm prime is just the absolute mutts nuts in motorsport, but weighs as much as a family car and costs about the same!
 
CT said:
The 400mm prime will be a tad sharper, but the 100-400L is so flexible I find it pretty well indispensable as a walk around general purpose wildlife lens, whereas the prime would sometimes be just too long for the closer opportuinities which arise.
Click to expand...

I would say that the 400 f/5.6 will be a lot sharper. I have one and it is as sharp as my 500 f/4 and sharper than my 300/2.8 I reckon. It's a top quality lens.

The other factor to consider is that it is light. It's a great bird in flight lens and it is easy to chuck about and you can carry it forever.

As Cedric says the 100-400 is a great zoo lens (but I still hate the use of them!) but if you are planning to use it primarily as a 400, get a prime. I got mine for about £700 from Kerso which also makes it a cheap option.

Although people talk of the Sigma 120-300 it really is in a different league from a size point of view and very heavy so not really comparable.

Paul
 
To be fair if It's prime use is for birds, it'll probably be mostly used at the 400mm end anyway, so I could agree on the prime there.
 
I * had * the 400 F5.6 L

it's super sharp and ultra fast at focusing, once you learn how to rely on composing the shot before you take it iykwim

working with a prime is a bit trickier than a zoom as the increase in IQ comes at the expense of versitility.

*had* it's out on long term loan at the moment.........;)
 
I've rented the 400m f5.6 from Stewart a couple of times and it's a stunning lens, fast focussing and very sharp. I'd choose it over the 100-400 every time for wildlife work.
 
grumpybadger said:
Although people talk of the Sigma 120-300 it really is in a different league from a size point of view and very heavy so not really comparable.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I certainly wouldn't want to carry one around all day, and it's not comfortably hand-holdable.
 
StewartR said:
When Canon Bob shows up he'll tell you that his 300 gets more use, but his 400 is the one with the sun tan.
Click to expand...

Indeed I will Stewart....:thumbs:

However....it's always been the case that the 300/4 and T/C got a fair bit of use when the light wasn't co-operating for the weapon of choice (the 400/5.6). Recently the 400/5.6 has had the "ante" upped a little with the improved ISO performance of the 50D....I used to use a 30D.
I see you use a 40D (I skipped over that one) and can't say whether the ISO improvement was credible or not. In a moment of utter madness, I sold my 300/4....regretted it within the month and had to replace it. Would I have replaced it if I known how the 50D coped with higher ISO's....not sure yet.

IMO, if the light's right then the 400/5.6 is what you should be carrying.....if it's a dull day then the 300/4 IS and T/C is a good substitute. If you want a zoom's flexibility then others are better qualified to advise.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
IMO, if the light's right then the 400/5.6 is what you should be carrying.....if it's a dull day then the 300/4 IS and T/C is a good substitute.
Click to expand...

Bob

Why do you recommend the 300 f/4 with TC is a better bet in poor light than the 400 f/5.6? Both are then 5.6 lenses and I've tended to find native lenses focus better than those with a TC fitted. Is it just because you can remove the TC and gain a stop at the expense of reach?

Cheers

Paul
 
grumpybadger said:
Bob

Why do you recommend the 300 f/4 with TC is a better bet in poor light than the 400 f/5.6? Both are then 5.6 lenses and I've tended to find native lenses focus better than those with a TC fitted. Is it just because you can remove the TC and gain a stop at the expense of reach?

Cheers

Paul
Click to expand...

No Paul, it's the option to use the IS for stationary tweeties.

Bob
 
I have both and they really are for quite different purposes. I will replace the 400mm with something longer at somepoint but will miss it when its gone. Its fantastically sharp and actually relatively lightweight and easy to handle.

The 100-400mm feels significantly heavier even though there is not really much in it. One significant difference between them is the minimum focussing distance, which at 350cm for the prime, is almost double that of the zoom. The only time I got close to Ians kingfishers at Brandon, they were actually within the minimum focus so I didnt get the shot!!
 
thanks everyone,

Heck, its a mind field isnt it! I need to go and feel the weight of both and see the sizes, I have only just got used to my other two. Im erring towards the zoom because of being so new at this it may be the easier option! I get so frustrated with the lack of quality of some of my shots I want the 400mm to help me not hinder :lol:

mfwild13 "One significant difference between them is the minimum focussing distance, which at 350cm for the prime, is almost double that of the zoom."

the above has swayed me, thanks, I would never have thought of how far away the mimimum focus is!

Bob thanks, I think the iso is fine high, I have forgot to reset it many a time and got away with it.

digitalfailure thanks I may be better with the zoom I really dont want trickier :lol:

thanks CT Take a 100-400L on a zoo visit and you'll find that it's THE perfect lens bar none for the closer critters and those further away. Yes defo leaning towards the zoom
 
Ah..check. You had me worried for a minute. :D
 
mfwild13 said:
One significant difference between them is the minimum focussing distance, which at 350cm for the prime, is almost double that of the zoom. The only time I got close to Ians kingfishers at Brandon, they were actually within the minimum focus so I didnt get the shot!!
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that read 3.5meters or 3500cm?
350cm is only just over a foot in plain money

 
Cobra said:
Shouldn't that read 3.5meters or 3500cm?
350cm is only just over a foot in plain money
Click to expand...

Is it really Chris.....that lay-by incident has had a lasting effect.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
Is it really Chris.....that lay-by incident has had a lasting effect.

Bob
Click to expand...

You can tell I'm still in shock Bob, but what's a few inches between feinds :shrug:

digitalfailure said:
350mm is just over the foot m8 ;)
350cm is 3.5 meters
Click to expand...

:bonk::bonk::bonk:
[mental note] type before consuming too much Pernod[/mental note]
 
Pernod!............whatever next, peach schnapps or summat............:nono:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top