Canon 100-400 ii vs Canon 400 F5.6 & Canon 70-300 ii - BIF & Motorsport

B

Billabong

Messages
35
Edit My Images
Yes
So after (way too) much surfing I've come to the conclusion that a 7D2 will (probably!) be my preferred option for BIF & motorsport over the Panasonic G80 as it seems the AF system is still much more capable on the Canon for BIF, though someone will probably prove me wrong on that score now :)

For about £4-500 less than the price of a new Canon 100-400 ii I could get a used Canon 400 F5.6 & a new Canon 70-300 ii, all of which seem to get great reviews.

Anyone have any experience/thoughts please?
 
I had the old 100-400mm and sold it after 2 weeks as I was never happy with its images? I also had a 70-300l it was sharper the IS far superior it was lighter and the images were always sharp but it is was not long enough for bird photography and would only work with a Kenko TC and that slowed it down AF and aperture quite a bit.

The Canon 100-400mmii I have tried and it is a great lens but I ended up buying a Sigma 150-600C not only for the reach but it is very well priced. I sold it when I got a 500mmf 4 but just bought another as I missed the flexibility and the extra 100mm for bif shots.

If you think 400mm will be enough check YouTube for the reviews on the new Sigma 100-400 it is cheaper lighter and has comparable if not slightly better IQ which I was surprised at.
 
I have Canon 7D mk II and both Canon lens. They are both great lenses
100-400ii has greater flexibility nearer close focus and IS
400is cheaper and slightly faster focus for BIF IMHO.
Both great lenses.
If you are near you wecoudlmeet and you coudl try.

PS -Will be selling 7D & 7Dmkii in near future
 
PINNACLE said:
...The Canon 100-400mmii I have tried and it is a great lens but I ended up buying a Sigma 150-600C not only for the reach but it is very well priced. I sold it when I got a 500mmf 4 but just bought another as I missed the flexibility and the extra 100mm for bif shots...
Click to expand...

I did look at the Sigma 150-600C but the extra weight put me off!

PINNACLE said:
...If you think 400mm will be enough check YouTube for the reviews on the new Sigma 100-400 it is cheaper lighter and has comparable if not slightly better IQ which I was surprised at...
Click to expand...

I have seen this lens too and it was originally on my list but the lack of tripod collar put me off!
 
Billabong said:
I have seen this lens too and it was originally on my list but the lack of tripod collar put me off!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't let that put you off, tried the Sigma 100-400 at the Photography Show and it's comfortably light enough to hand hold all day IMHO
 
Gaz J said:
Buy the 100-400 MkII. You won't regret it. It's a very good lens. Works well with the 1.4 MkIII converter also.
Click to expand...

Love love love love my 100-400ii on my 5dmk3

See if Park Cameras / Calumet are still doing interest free credit, walk out of the shop with one only having paid a 10% deposit - brilliant


5D3_7606_1000 by David Williams, on Flickr

5D3_7606_BIG by David Williams, on Flickr

Taken with a 1.4mk11 quick conversion in Lightroom with default sharpening etc, second image is 100% crop

D
 
Last edited:
Willid1 said:
Love love love love my 100-400ii on my 5dmk3

See if Park Cameras / Calumet are still doing interest free credit, walk out of the shop with one only having paid a 10% deposit - brilliant

Taken with a 1.4mk11 quick conversion in Lightroom with default sharpening etc, second image is 100% crop

D
Click to expand...

That looks pretty good to me!
 
For a bargain price the 400 f5.6 is tough to beat, but if you have the money the newer 100-400ii is the better option, great optics and IS. I've not had the 70-300 (I have owned both the 400s), but you'll probably want the extra reach of the 400, so I'd be getting the longer zoom if I were you.

Mike
 
PINNACLE said:
I had the old 100-400mm and sold it after 2 weeks as I was never happy with its images? I also had a 70-300l it was sharper the IS far superior it was lighter and the images were always sharp but it is was not long enough for bird photography and would only work with a Kenko TC and that slowed it down AF and aperture quite a bit.

The Canon 100-400mmii I have tried and it is a great lens but I ended up buying a Sigma 150-600C not only for the reach but it is very well priced. I sold it when I got a 500mmf 4 but just bought another as I missed the flexibility and the extra 100mm for bif shots.

If you think 400mm will be enough check YouTube for the reviews on the new Sigma 100-400 it is cheaper lighter and has comparable if not slightly better IQ which I was surprised at.
Click to expand...

How did you find the AF speed of the Sigma compared with the Canons for BIF? I use the Sigma on a 7Dii, usually it if fine but this week I tried it on smaller birds and it struggled to track. I think my settings were correct, perhaps it is just my technique or lack of. My old Canon 300Lis tracks better but doesn't have the range.
 
I can't remember the old 100-400 it was years ago, it is a lot slower than my 500mm but I guess on par with my 300mmf4 with X1.4TCii which is not that slow. It still manages to focus on Hobby's and you don't get much smaller, faster and unpredictable than them.

Depending on weather and light I have to change camera settings also 7Dii. Lens has firmware update and C1 set to fast focus and I think lowest IS for bif.

I also had no issues in low light which some say would be its weakness. I had many evenings taking photos of Barn Owls often at ISO 12,800 and circa 1/1000 shutter speed.

Minimal focus distance is poor over the Canon 100-400ii so not good for close ups of bugs etc.

Weather proofing never bothered me. I bought a rain cover but rarely go out in the rain for fun photography.
 
pooley said:
For a bargain price the 400 f5.6 is tough to beat, but if you have the money the newer 100-400ii is the better option, great optics and IS. I've not had the 70-300 (I have owned both the 400s), but you'll probably want the extra reach of the 400, so I'd be getting the longer zoom if I were you.

Mike
Click to expand...

Agree totally about needing the extra length, which is why my options are either the 100-400 2 or 70-300 & 400 F5.6. I figure the 70-300 would be good for motorsports & the 400 would be used for most BIF. The 100-400 does cover all that ground in one lens but at a slightly higher cost. I'm sure either option would be good but it's really interesting to hear real users' thoughts :)
 
Billabong said:
Do you use then for BIF? I've read that the focus & IQ on the mark 1 isn't as good as the mark 2, but if it's good enough...
Click to expand...

I own the Mk1 100-400 and often borrow a Mk2 - there's absolutely no comparison for me, the Mk2 is so much nicer than the old one in pretty much every way, aside from the fact that I still have a soft spot for the push/pull zoom action of the Mk1. I've always found focus speed on the Mk1 to be 'just about good enough' rather than decent, and image quality seems to be very variable. Mine is decentish, and I've used ones which ranged from superb all the way down to 'if I got this on eBay for £100 I'd still feel slightly ripped off' so you really need to try a selection.

Used 400mm 5.6 is a no-brainer really - light, sharp, very quick focus. I'd definitely be giving the Sigma 150-600 a try as well, absolutely cracking lens in both S and C versions for that sort of thing and seems to work extremely well with the 7D2.
 
I have the 100-400 MK ii and it's a cracking lens. Use it for motorsport & airshows and can't fault it. The canon 400mm doesn't have is either, but although I've not had one the reviews I've read on it say it's very sharp. Hope this is of help
 
Billabong said:
Do you use then for BIF? I've read that the focus & IQ on the mark 1 isn't as good as the mark 2, but if it's good enough...
Click to expand...

Fast stuff was Motorsport or airshows, never an sue with those but much larger than a bird :). I'm not really a bird person although I've shot some statics of our regular robin, never had an issue with sharpness.
http://www.pbase.com/byker28i/image/108016257

http://www.pbase.com/byker28i/image/114827021

Sorry about the links, on mobile app.
 
Why not hire something for the weekend to try before you buy. It would allow you to decide what's suits your circumstances. Lenses for hire?
 
If you can get to a branch of Calumet they do a weekend (or over a Bank Holiday) for the cost of one days hire.

Ask nicely and they'll let you pick it up on Thursday evening and return it on Monday (or Tuesday for a BH) morning for I think £47

Its a risky strategy though, I thought "I can do lots of hires before I'd spend the money it would cost to buy one" but 3 hires later and some interest free credit and - well you can guess.

D
 
I have the 7d2 plus a sigma 150-600c great combination. I tried a canon 100-400mk2. Really good lens but as I really don't like tc's that's why I went for the longer reach
 
To answer the original question whilst I loved my 400 5.6 I would say if you bought that and the 70-300 instead of the 100-400 whenever you had the prime 400 on you'd quickly need wider. Vice versa with the wider zoom attached you'd quickly need 400mm.

For simplicity and flexibility the excellent 100-400 mk ii wins.

Unless you need 70mm!
 
I agree with Craig. The flexibility from the 100 - 400mk2 is great and it is excellent with the 1.4. One lens. Less hassle. What's not to like?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top