benefits of a long prime?

CaveDweller

CaveDweller

Messages
1,946
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm on the hunt for some lenses when I upgrade to FF. I have the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 on my list but I feel i need and want longer sometimes. I'm torn between the canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 or just go for the 400 f.5.6. Both roughly the same price.

I realise at the long end of the 100-400 is the same aperture as the 400 mm prime, but will I get better quality images from the prime because of Less elements inside etc?

The gap between 200 mm and 400 mm won't bother me either.

Sorry for the grammar. On my phone and I have fat thumbs.
 
Last edited:
It is generally accepted that the 400 prime will give better images at 400mm than the 100-400 mk I would. Things would be less clear with the mk ii though....
Another consideration is that the technique varies massively between using a 400mm prime and a zoom like the 100-400. Also that both of the 100-400s have IS.
 
CaveDweller said:
I realise at the long end of the 100-400 is the same aperture as the 400 mm prime, but will I get better quality images from the prime because of Less elements inside etc?
Click to expand...

It varies.

My current 100-400 mark 1 produces sharper images than my 400mm prime did.
 
I've always just used zoom lenses. I quite fancy the challenge of a large prime this time since I'm starting fresh with all my gear.
 
Shooting birds or wildlife It's normally the case that I'm tring to be very still.

Whilst most of my 100-400 shots are taken at 400mm - I'll often have to zoom out slightly if a larger bird lands or comes closer.
 
How about a 2x teleconverter behind the 70-200?
 
dinners said:
Shooting birds or wildlife It's normally the case that I'm tring to be very still.

Whilst most of my 100-400 shots are taken at 400mm - I'll often have to zoom out slightly if a larger bird lands or comes closer.
Click to expand...
Nod said:
How about a 2x teleconverter behind the 70-200?
Click to expand...
Both valid points. For some reason I was pretty sure you couldn't put a 2x on the Canon 70-200 L, only a 1.4x. I may have just gotten told the wrong information though.
 
Think your prices are a bit out. The 400mm seems to be selling for approx £1000 whereas the 100 - 400ii is approx £1500. Assuming non grey but the differential will still be there.

I swapped my 100 - 400 Mk 1 for the prime, principally because it wasn't sharp at 400 (and I didn't like the push/pull) but am tempted to do the reverse. The new lens sounds quite good.
 
CaveDweller said:
Both valid points. For some reason I was pretty sure you couldn't put a 2x on the Canon 70-200 L, only a 1.4x. I may have just gotten told the wrong information though.
Click to expand...

Lenses focus 'wide open' and introducing a TC means you 'loose' 1 stop or 2 stops of aperture depending on the TC.

You would loose less using a 1.4TC on your 70-200 f2.8 as it would become f4

Using a 2X TC on your 70-200 it would become f5.6 BUT you would get the 400mm at the long end.

Generally speaking AF is retained up to f5.6, so a 2XTC on f2.8 and a 1.4TC on an f4

Some cameras retain AF up to f8 meaning you can still use a 2XTC on an f4
 
Last edited:
There's something about TCs that I can't fully remember. If you put a 1.4 on then focussing speed reduces by 50% and if you put a 2x on then focussing speed reduces by 75%. Those figures may not be 100% accurate but the principle is that a TC will slow down autofocus and in bad light that is a real drawback. TCs are generally suggested for when light is good.
 
a canon 1.4 extender might slow it down a bit, but not noticably. a x2 does, but I use that on a 300mm 2.8 as standard, and I manage to follow fast jets with it without any problems. Admittedly it doesn't have to move the focus much at airshows, but does at airfields.
I would say like everything whether it's an issue or not depends on what your subject is.

Back to primes, I've got what I think is a good version of the 100-400 mk1, in that it's reasonable at 400, but it's no where near as good as the 400mm F5.6 I had a while ago. I almost never use the 100-400 now, I find that the 300mm with one or other extender on it serves all my needs.
 
dinners said:
Shooting birds or wildlife It's normally the case that I'm tring to be very still.

Whilst most of my 100-400 shots are taken at 400mm - I'll often have to zoom out slightly if a larger bird lands or comes closer.
Click to expand...

....Not being able to zoom out has happened to me a lot in the past few months and I have actually missed a few shots as a consequence.

I shall be starting a For Sale thread in the next couple of days for my Canon 400mm F/5.6 L prime but I shall be sad to see it go.
 
The 400 F5.6 has a well deserved reputation for sharpness and AF speed and the lack of IS doesnt seem to have limited its appeal. I would choose one over a 100-400 MkI every time as the zoom seems be a bit hit and miss at 400mm although this is generally caused by a slightly misaligned front element.

With the 100-400 MkII now being available then for me the choice goes to the zoom. Its very sharp all the way through, fast AF, 4 stops IS and makes handholding at a 640mm field of view on a crop body very manageable. I'm just selling my 300 f4 after buying the zoom. Its a far more versatile lens. Just a a matter of interest the new 100-400 isn't a true 400mm at the long end. It is around 383mm which means you'll have to stand two feet closer than with a true 400 mm.
 
I hve the 70-200 mk I, and use this with a 2x converter. Works great for me doing birding and wildife. I now use a 300 2.8 with the 2x for most of my shots, but still use the 70-200 for the closer subjects.
 
Like the 400mm F/5.6 L prime, the 70-200mm F/2.8 L IS is considered by many to be Canon's sharpest lenses. However, adding any extender will reduce a lens F/stops and also limit AF pts as well as slow down AF and furthermore can effect image quality in certain conditions - It's simply all about the amount of light which can be transferred onto the camera body sensor.

But, don't misinterpret what I'm saying - I am definitely not against using extenders and am just pointing out the cons - There are strong pros as well.

In my experience (only DSLR since October 2013), my Canon 1.4x III works extremely well on a 70-200mm (F/4 L IS) but not quite so well on a 400mm F/5.6 L by direct comparison - This is on both a 70D and a 7D Mark II body.

Extenders are extremely useful as an option for adding lens reach but they do not magically make your lens the same as the equivalent bare prime.
 
Gaz J said:
Just as a matter of interest the new 100-400 isn't a true 400mm at the long end. It is around 383mm which means you'll have to stand two feet closer than with a true 400 mm.
Click to expand...


....That is interesting and especially as I have just bought a 100-400mm Mk2. A max of 383mm instead of 400mm is not a deal breaker as far as I am concerned. I still have my 400mm prime so might test this on a tripod. I'm not doubting your word, Gary, but I'm interested where you got the 383mm information.
 
Thanks all. A very mixed lot of responses and I completely forgot about extenders so really you've just given me more to thibk about lol.

Ideally I'd love the 400 f2.8, but at half the value of my car?...no thank you lol

Not having a zoom won't bother me, but with the improvements of the new 100-400 I must say I'm quite tempted by one of them now. A bit more reading into it i think...

Either way no matter what lens I go for ill probably end up getting a TC anyway.
 
Last edited:
I have the 100-400 ii, & hopefully I'm off to Twycross Zoo in a bit to give it a run out. I will also be re buying a 1.4 iii tc....
 
Adam J said:
I have the 100-400 ii, & hopefully I'm off to Twycross Zoo in a bit to give it a run out. I will also be re buying a 1.4 iii tc....
Click to expand...

Nice, let me know how it goes. Why only a 1.4TC? with the 2x not fit on the 100-400, or do you just prefer the 1.4?
 
RedRobin said:

....That is interesting and especially as I have just bought a 100-400mm Mk2. A max of 383mm instead of 400mm is not a deal breaker as far as I am concerned. I still have my 400mm prime so might test this on a tripod. I'm not doubting your word, Gary, but I'm interested where you got the 383mm information.
Click to expand...

This isn't uncommon Robin with ling zooms being a bit short at the long end. Can't remember which review I was reading but I've seen it mentioned a couple of times. All the guy did was frame a focus chart with a 400 f5.6, 400 f2.8 and the MkII at 400 then measured the distance. The two primes were just over 2 feet further away.​
 
I have the 100-400mm and the 400mm. The 400mm is sharper and the focus is faster but the 100-400mm obviously more convenient.
Saying that I recently purchased a used MKII 70-200mm f2.8 and after seeing the difference between that and the MKI version I am tempted to get rid of both the zoom and prime in favour of the 100-400mm MKII.
 
CaveDweller said:
Nice, let me know how it goes. Why only a 1.4TC? with the 2x not fit on the 100-400, or do you just prefer the 1.4?
Click to expand...

....The 2x will physically fit but you lose more F/stops than with a 1.4x and also, I think, autofocus? The manual focus movement on the 100-400mm Mk2 is beautifully smooooth.
 
Gaz J said:
This isn't uncommon Robin with ling zooms being a bit short at the long end. Can't remember which review I was reading but I've seen it mentioned a couple of times. All the guy did was frame a focus chart with a 400 f5.6, 400 f2.8 and the MkII at 400 then measured the distance. The two primes were just over 2 feet further away.
Click to expand...


....Thanks, Gary @Gaz J I won't bother to do my test then. That's Job #432 off my list.

The bottom line is that all that matters is what you see in your viewfinder and capture, the rest becomes a bit academic (although interesting). 95%, or thereabouts, of wildlife shots get cropped in editing anyway.
 
Mike.P said:
I have the 100-400mm and the 400mm. The 400mm is sharper and the focus is faster but the 100-400mm obviously more convenient.
Saying that I recently purchased a used MKII 70-200mm f2.8 and after seeing the difference between that and the MKI version I am tempted to get rid of both the zoom and prime in favour of the 100-400mm MKII.
Click to expand...

It's not just about sharpness though, i couldn't believe how good the contrast was on the 400mm f5.6L prime!
It's a very old lens now, but the fact they haven't chenged it in all this time, and they still sell speaks volumes.
I love mine, but would love a 400mm f2.8 IS II better! :D
 
Good contrast is pretty much taken for granted on Canons L series. Especially the long primes and best of the zooms. The new 100-400 really is a fine lens. I was never a fan of the old one but the MkII is a very nice lens and seems to be selling as fast as dealers can stock them.
 
Gaz J said:
Good contrast is pretty much taken for granted on Canons L series. Especially the long primes and best of the zooms. The new 100-400 really is a fine lens. I was never a fan of the old one but the MkII is a very nice lens and seems to be selling as fast as dealers can stock them.
Click to expand...
Yep, if the Mk II is half as good as people say, it'll be a cracking good lens and another on my 'envy' list!
 
After all your answers and reading up on the new 100-400 I'm just going to go for one of them, thanks for the tips (y) also it's a twist zoom, I felt quite rude when I was using the old one for a while:rolleyes:

Eventually I'll get a 1.4TC for 100-400 but it can wait for now. Also looking for a super wide angle at some point as well for night shooting, but I'll over come my decisions on that lens when the time comes.
 
Last edited:
CaveDweller said:
After all your answers and reading up on the new 100-400 I'm just going to go for one of them, thanks for the tips (y) also it's a twist zoom, I felt quite rude when I was using the old one for a while:rolleyes:

Eventually I'll get a 1.4TC for 100-400 but it can wait for now. Also looking for a super wide angle at some point as well for night shooting, but I'll over come my decisions on that lens when the time comes.
Click to expand...

....If you eventually get a 1.4x you'll need it to be a Canon and preferably a version III rather than a II. The Kenko introduces limitations when fitted to the new Canon 100-400mm Mk2.

I bought my Canon 100-400mm Mk2 from HDEW - I ordered and paid for it last Thursday and it arrived yesterday with a proper VAT receipt and I saved £300 off RRP, so £1,699. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them or buy from them again.
 
RedRobin said:
I bought my Canon 100-400mm Mk2 from HDEW - I ordered and paid for it last Thursday and it arrived yesterday with a proper VAT receipt and I saved £300 off RRP, so £1,699. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them or buy from them again.
Click to expand...
I just (Tuesday) ordered a 7D mkII from HDEW, delivery 3-5 days. Robin, did you request a VAT receipt or did it come automatically, I forgot to ask for one when I placed the order.
As my first 7D2 was returned faulty for a refund (not from HDEW), I am hoping to get a good copy this time.
 
RedRobin said:
....If you eventually get a 1.4x you'll need it to be a Canon and preferably a version III rather than a II. The Kenko introduces limitations when fitted to the new Canon 100-400mm Mk2.

I bought my Canon 100-400mm Mk2 from HDEW - I ordered and paid for it last Thursday and it arrived yesterday with a proper VAT receipt and I saved £300 off RRP, so £1,699. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them or buy from them again.
Click to expand...

I'm going all out (well, within budget) with this upgrade to FF anyway so I'm trying to stick to Canon stuff, apart from the standard zoom which is going to be the Tamron 24-70 2.8. I can't afford the Canon equivalent but with what I've been reading there's not a lot between them anyway.

Hdew or Panomaz is where i'll be ordering from, I don't mind buying "grey". I only do photography as a hobby and quite happy with a 3rd party warranty.
 
CaveDweller said:
Nice, let me know how it goes. Why only a 1.4TC? with the 2x not fit on the 100-400, or do you just prefer the 1.4?
Click to expand...

Same as below

dinners said:
Lenses focus 'wide open' and introducing a TC means you 'loose' 1 stop or 2 stops of aperture depending on the TC.

You would loose less using a 1.4TC on your 70-200 f2.8 as it would become f4

Using a 2X TC on your 70-200 it would become f5.6 BUT you would get the 400mm at the long end.

Generally speaking AF is retained up to f5.6, so a 2XTC on f2.8 and a 1.4TC on an f4

Some cameras retain AF up to f8 meaning you can still use a 2XTC on an f4
Click to expand...
 
Trev4 said:
I just (Tuesday) ordered a 7D mkII from HDEW, delivery 3-5 days. Robin, did you request a VAT receipt or did it come automatically, I forgot to ask for one when I placed the order.
As my first 7D2 was returned faulty for a refund (not from HDEW), I am hoping to get a good copy this time.
Click to expand...

....Hi Trev @Trev4 :)

When ordering I simply asked if my receipt would be a VAT receipt and she (Melissa) said yes.

You will have received an order confirmation from them by now and all you need do is reply and ask them to confirm they'll include a VAT receipt. I asked them to confirm that the lens case was included. It's all you would expect to find.
 
OK, thanks, I'll give them a call I think, its as easy as an email. Cheers for answering me (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top