Canon 100-400 Mk1 or 400mm 5.6?

Steelo

Steelo

Messages
2,774
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
I'm looking to try my hand at something other than my landscapes this coming year, and looking at wildlife and motorsports (more so wildlife).

I've just bought a 7d Mk2 (my 6d isn't known for it's AF system for what I want to do) and I'm now obviously looking at lenses to suit my new needs. I've narrowed it down to either the 100-400 L Mk1 or the 400mm L 5.6.

The majority of the time, the lens would be stuck at the long end, which is why I'm considering the 400 prime and I already have my 70-200 2.8 for shorter work. I'm not too worried about the lack of IS on the prime lens.

Would love to hear some thoughts from others? Maybe even suggestions to something I've overlooked? I've hired the Tamron 150-600 before in the past and wasn't overly impressed, although I was using that on my 6d.
 
Get a 1.4 tc and the 400 prime,then you have a 280mm f4 and a 400mm f 5.6
 
Steelo said:
The majority of the time, the lens would be stuck at the long end, which is why I'm considering the 400 prime and I already have my 70-200 2.8 for shorter work. I'm not too worried about the lack of IS on the prime lens.
Click to expand...

Well the 400 F5.6 seems to be the option then :) - I chose the 300mm F4 IS over the original 100-400 lens and didn't regret it, my main reason for choosing the 300mm over the 400mm was the IS and if I wanted the 400mm reach, I could easily add a 1.4TC (which I did do) - giving me the 420 F5.6 with IS - Could be another option to think about.

The 400mm does get a good following on here...
 
@andyred how does the 300mm perform with the 1.4TC? Does it affect AF speed at all? I did have a TC (albeit a 2x) and used it with my 70-200, but again that was on my 6d, and it certainly made it hunt a lot more for focus, but then it was also a Kenko TC not a Canon one.
 
I would definitely go with the 400 f5.6 prime with the 7D2 - IQ is fantastic and the lack of IS for wildlife isn't the big a deal as your shutter speed will be high enough for it not to be an issue anyway. The original 100-400 is not as good as the prime at 400 but the mark ii version is if you wanted to explore that option, but as you already have 70-200 covered and the option to add a 1.4x extender, I would say the 400 prime at the price they now are, is a no brainier. Add the extender to that and you have 560mm at f8 and still viable IQ in good light.
The original 7D with the 400 prime was considered a great wildlife combination, with the 7D2 that still holds up.
 
Thanks @wardy07 the lack of IS wasn't an issue because of exactly what you mentioned. I can't stretch to the £1800 for the Mk2 100-400, hence the two options. I have always been leaning towards the prime out of the two, but wanted other opinions too. :)
 
I use a combo of the 70-200 and 400 for Motorsport. I've found the 400 optically great, and don't regret choosing that over the 100-400.
A lot depends upon the type of Motorsport you want to do, and the locations you will be at. For rally, I don't bother with the 400 really, as a wider view is usually beneficial. If you're doing a lot of track work, then reach is more of an issue. I've only really found the 400 necessary at Donington and Silverstone, but again, it depends upon the types of shot you want to produce. Certainly the flexibility of the 100-400 is enviable, and I believe the mk2 is optically sound, but I can only vouch for the 400mm, which on FF drops very solid IQ
 
Thanks @MattyW It'll be more rallying and motocross than anything, certainly wouldn't be a lot of track work, probably a couple of track events per year and only Croft, which I coped OK with at the weekend there with 200mm on the 6d. Seems to be a lot of love for the 400 prime which is good to hear :)
 
I'd say you'd be better considering a 300mm then maybe. 400 is overkill for rally, and I would have thought motox too. Croft is my local circuit too, and 300 on crop would see you right there. Unless you're after frame fillers, then I'd seriously consider the 300 as an option, the 2.8 is fantastic and takes a 1.4x very well. You're welcome to try my 400 if you're ever around this neck of the woods - I'm at a lot of northern rallies.
 
I compete a lot of rallies around here and on the Scottish side (based in Carlisle) so rarely get out to photograph them. The 400 was more thinking of reach for wildlife stuff tbh, but i'll look into the 300 too. Cheers :)
 
I used the 400 f5.6 for many years ,it's a super fast lens ,in 99% of shots you won't need I.s either as most wildlife shooting should be done in good light ,and in woodlands etc even I.s doesn't help anyway ,the 400 is light enough for hand holding and fast reaction shots with super fast a/f to . Also don't forget your 7dmkii will a/f at f8 so fitting a 1.4 t.c will actually give you 560mm reach far better than using the 300 plus t.c
 
Steelo said:
@andyred how does the 300mm perform with the 1.4TC? Does it affect AF speed at all? I did have a TC (albeit a 2x) and used it with my 70-200, but again that was on my 6d, and it certainly made it hunt a lot more for focus, but then it was also a Kenko TC not a Canon one.
Click to expand...

Hi Martin

I used the Canon mkIII 1.4TC with mine and was very impressed with it, I didn't really notice any significant drop off with the AF speed and for me, no loss in IQ. I can't comment on how effective the Kenko TC are, but have had no issues at all with the Canon mkIII TC. And don't forget, you still have IS available if required...

I'll see if I can find a shot from Oulton Park taken with the 300 + 1.4 for you...
 
Steelo said:
Thanks @MattyW It'll be more rallying and motocross than anything, certainly wouldn't be a lot of track work, probably a couple of track events per year and only Croft, which I coped OK with at the weekend there with 200mm on the 6d. Seems to be a lot of love for the 400 prime which is good to hear :)
Click to expand...

MattyW said:
I'd say you'd be better considering a 300mm then maybe. 400 is overkill for rally, and I would have thought motox too. Croft is my local circuit too, and 300 on crop would see you right there. Unless you're after frame fillers, then I'd seriously consider the 300 as an option, the 2.8 is fantastic and takes a 1.4x very well. You're welcome to try my 400 if you're ever around this neck of the woods - I'm at a lot of northern rallies.
Click to expand...

I've been unto Croft and found the 300mm F4 IS on my 40D at that time a great combination, there were a couple of areas / times the TC was used (giving 420mm), but more often than not, I found the 300mm focal range ideal and was a very sharp lens :)
 
i see the replies from the fans of the 300mm f4 ,but in all honesty if you want it for wildlife then REACH is everything so go for the 400 f5.6
 
the black fox said:
i see the replies from the fans of the 300mm f4 ,but in all honesty if you want it for wildlife then REACH is everything so go for the 400 f5.6
Click to expand...

I'm with Jeff. Even with a crop sensor reach is everything for wildlife especially as there is virtually zero weight difference between the two.

The 300 is a very sharp lens but the 2 stop IS is a bit old hat and clunky. I also felt that it was one of the slower focussing L lenses.

Both have been around for a while now. 1997 for the 300 and 1993 for the 400. Just shows how good the original design was. Be nice if Canon gave them a makeover and brought them up to date with 4 stop 3 stage IS and, in the case of the 300 a bit quicker AF.
 
in fact if your really looking for a wildlife lens and as you say your funds limited (aren't most of us) then i would really take the sigma 150-600mm C into consideration fast a/f good reach and sharp enough to count
 
Thanks for all the replies folks :) It will be more wildlife I do, so reach is indeed everything.

@the black fox I did look at the Sigma 150-600 C and the S too (the S is out of budget after just buying the 7d2) and wasn't sure if the AF was up to par on the C.....I'll take another look, thank you :)
 
there are threads running on both the S and the C on here martin ,i have had the S for nearly a year now and it simply stays on the camera . there are plenty of C users and a few of them will have it coupled to a 7d11 so you can see for yourself the results ,also remember yet again that both these lenses on a 7dmkii will BOTH accept you using a 1.4tc stretching your reach even further ,albeit centre focus point only ? not sure if the expanded works on the mk2 .
saying that i have done bursts with mine on a 1D3 and got a hit rate of 10 out of 14 sharp with the t.c fitted and thats hand held
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top