400mm f5.6 vs 100-400mm

pchidell

pchidell

Messages
898
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone!

I'm about to buy a 7d and, whilst I won't be able to afford a long lens for a while, I'm wondering if there is really such a big amount of difference between the above? They're both f5.6 at 400mm and, from what I've read, they perform quite similarly to one another?

Obviously, the prime is slightly cheaper but is it that much better in IQ, or is it worth going with the zoom as you have some flexibility?

Thanks! :thumbs:
 
The prime will give you a better IQ at 400mm than the telephoto. Some will say significantly better, while others feel that the 100-400 is acceptably comparable. The 400mm doesn't have IS, which may be of interest to you, depending on what you will mainly be shooting. The minimum focussing distance of the 400mm is just mad, whereas with the 100-400 you can pretty much get a butterfly or something similar in frame.

Personally, I went for the 300/4 IS and if I want 420mm I stick on a 1.4 extender.

You are the only one who can decide whether the flexibility of the zoom is that important to you. I don't miss that flexibility and would rather have the prime, especially as I was tending to use it at it's longest range most of the time.
 
Thanks for that, Sara!

I hadn't considered the 300mm f4 (actually I didn't know it existed :bonk:)! How many stops do you lose with the 1.4 extender? Also, is the sharpness comparable to the other two lenses?

Thanks!
 
Also, I forgot to mention that I'll use it, mainly for photographing famous people from a distance, but I'd also like to try some wildlife photography one day...
 
1.4 loses one stop of light, meaning you get a 300/4 or 420/5.6 with the 300 f4L and 1.4

The sharpness isn't as good as the 400 prime, but apparently is very similar to the 100-400 at 400. Some reviewers say it's sharper, some say softer (I think that's down to copy variation in the 100-400, not the 300)
 
I had a 400 f5.6, sold it, got a 300 f4, sold that, and went back to the 400. Brilliant lens, nothing to go wrong, brill image quality, light, and will hold its value if you tire of it.
 
Too throw another thought into the mix, if you are thinking wildlife, you invariably want as much length as possible. The Sigma 150-500 is an excellent alternative, takes a 1.4X pretty well and matches the 100-400 for IQ and gives the all important extra range for wildlife.

Img_1713.jpg


Img_1730.jpg
 
Thanks for the replies! I would be tempted by the 400mm prime if it were just a bit faster... I think that, to me, it's a psychological thing, not buying a prime that's the same aperture as a zoom lens (which has more versatility). Also there's the lack of IS.

Oh well, it's probably a few months 'till I'll be able to afford one, so I've got time to think it over (and try some lenses)!

Thanks everyone!
 
(Well that just proves how long it takes me to write a reply! :bang:)

Thanks for those pictures, Ken! Maybe I'll have to add another lens into the equation... :thinking:

I'll consider your offer, Neil! :D

Thanks, again, everyone!
 
pchidell said:
Also, I forgot to mention that I'll use it, mainly for photographing famous people from a distance, but I'd also like to try some wildlife photography one day...
Click to expand...

Paparazzi job can be easier done with a zoom. Get 1D mkIV and you can machine gun them at 10fps at any ISO you like :lol:. For birds I'd go for a LONG and thick prime (no pun intended :D).
 
I've also been deliberating between the 400mm f5.6 and the 100-400mm, however after reading the reports on IQ and sharpness, I think I'll go for the prime. If I need something shorter, I'll get a 300mm f4 later.
 
Not so much paparazzi but just photos for the local newspaper of, for example, the Pope's visit or our MP. I can only dream of a 1d mkIV. And 10fps. :'(
 
I think I might do the opposite, and go for a 100-400mm and later get a 300mm f2.8 (once I've won the lottery). I think the versatility is going to be important for me.
 
I've owned both (been through two 100-400s and one 400 f5.6) and both are excellent lenses. The prime does AF slightly faster than the zoom and in theory is a bit sharper but in real world situations I've not noticed any real difference even when shooting wide open. Personally I prefer the zoom for the flexability, better close focus and IS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top