Canon 400L 5.6 v Canon 100-400L 4.5-5.6

admirable

admirable

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,612
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone tried both, is the prime very very very good or does the versatility of the 100-400 out weigh the prime?

pros -cons?

I have read reviews but was looking for hands on reports.
 
Pros for the 400....
- sharper;
- quicker AF;
- lighter.

Pros for the 100-400....
- Mode 1 and Mode 2 IS;
- Large zoom range;
- Close focus is at 1.8m. I'm not sure about the prime but it is a wee bit further.

The choice of which is better for you depends on what you want to shoot with it. If you'll always be at the 400mm end of things and are keeping the shutter speed up, e.g. to shoot BIF, or can use a tripod/monopod at other times then the prime is the clear winner.

If you want the Jack of all trades flexibility that the zoom can offer, and want steady shots without lugging a tripod/monopod around then the zoom is the winner. It is a wonderful zoo and travel wildlife lens, and quite handy for motorsport, with the zoom range and Mode 2 IS adding to the appeal.

I've had the zoom for nearly two years and find the versatility to be excellent. I have no regrets in buying it. For BIF the prime would be better (if you need 400mm or more) but other than that I think the zoom would win most battles as the preferred choice.

This discussion seems to come up a fair bit on various forums including POTN and the Birdforum, both of which I frequent. Here is one such thread (I've not read it so I hope it stays on topic)....

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=46121
 
I had this dilemma and went for the 400 as I was getting the 70-200 and the over lap was a bit silly with the 100-400. I am very happy with the 400 and love the sharpness of this lens. Min focal distance is a bit long but I stick on a 12mm tube on when shooting short and it's great. AF is really quick and the built in hood is superb. I say if you are getting any others lenses in the range of 100-300 get this lens to complement them. It's my most used lens at the moment. ;) here are a couple of shots with it exif data is intact: EF 400 f5.6 L images Shot wide open at f5.6.
 
i have both i dont think there is much in it iq wise the prime is much better for bif shots
the zoom is not actually 400mm a bit shorter compared to the prime i dont use the is much
unlless using a really slow shutter speed cant remember which position to use the is in,
ones for panning
i have posted some shots in previous posts
the new forest shots were with the zoom
the swan and swallos pics were with the prime
the prime is a lot lighter
 
Here is an example of the power of IS, useful when you need it! I was actually testing out the high ISO performance of my new 50D and pushing it to quite silly limits. I had my 100-400 lens mounted and this was shot handheld in an unlit country park, around ten minutes after sunset.

EXIF is 400mm, 1/60, f/5.6, 12,800 ISO. Obviously there is noise, and a lot of it, but the sharpness is surely there. Can you imagine attempting this, handheld, with the prime? Without IS the recommended minimum shutter speed would be 1/(400*1.6) = 1/640. 1/60 is quite some way off that target - 3 1/3 stops in fact.

20081107_163358_1045_LR-2.jpg


Here it is after some cleaning up with Neat Image. More could be done but it wasn't worth the effort. This is just a test shot, not a keeper....

20081107_163358_1045_LR_filtered.jpg
 
mav said:
....the zoom is not actually 400mm a bit shorter compared to the prime i dont use the is much
Click to expand...

The 100-400 is actually 380mm at the long end when focussed to infinity.

Bob
 
I have the 400mm L and i love it, it's light weight and it locks focus faster than any other lens i have. Yes the f5.6 is a bit limiting as the light falls off but on the 5D i can whack the iso up and still get acceptable shots.

I've broken the rules a few times and come home with sharp shots at 1/125 hand held with the iso above 800.

Sure I'd love IS again after having it on a smaller zoom, but there's no substitute for a good holding technique.

There is 1 niggle I have with the lens, with it being prime you have to think about your composition much more as you cant frame with the zoom. I have a major problem with "seeing" the shot as it is.....being fixed compounds it a little :(

But......It still means I dont have that stupid push pull zoom :nuts:
 
Here's a BIF with the 400mm prime:
Bird-03-ABAF6931.jpg


As you might guess from the swept back wings, the peregrine falcon in question was seriously moving. Have to admit that I had no idea whether I was shooting the target or not as I really struggled to track it with my camera. The photo speaks for itself regarding the AF capability of the lens.
 
Really like your posts Tim. Absolutely sound, and solidly planted in reality :)

The zoom is a compromise, but a very good one. I've got it. And so have lots of folks, which keeps the resale value high.

If all you want is a cracking 400mm and can do without IS, then the prime wins. But in everyday use, I guess you'd have to shoot the two side by side at full aperture to tell the difference.
 
I don'tr know whether it is still the case but there have certainly been questions in the past about the zoom mechanism jamming on the 100-400.

I considered both and went for the prime because it was lighter, Better IQ, fast focus. and I don't like that push-pull zoom action.

I.S. would be nice but the lack of it was not enough to put me off the prime.
 
I find myself at the moment using my 75-300 quite a lot but needing more reach. Am currently considering selling the mentioned lens and putting the cash towards a 100-400mm, getting a 400mm 5.6 or even 300mm f4 and 1.4 converter (being 420mm f5.6).

The final option would give me a nice 300mm prime, and a 420mm prime without costing much more than the other options - and keeping the 75-300mm for versatility.
 
It really depends what you want to do with the lens. Versatility of a Zoom or Faster focus of the prime, both have their merits and drawbacks. Pricewise their not a great deal of difference.

Peter
 
I had the 100-400 and it was a cracking lens for what I wanted at the time, but now I have moved it was not going to get the same amount of use and I sold it to buy the prime which I am using with a 1.4 converter for birdie photography and if I do need a longer lens than the 70-200 I can either use my feet to zoom or the prime depending on where I am and the limitations at the time.
Both are really good lenses and if money was no object I would like to have had both, but at the moment the prime is the better one for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top