Canon 100-400L or 400mm 5.6L

Tooler

Tooler

Messages
217
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
As in the title I want to purchase either one of these lenses sometime before August but I don't know which to go for.

If anyone owns/has owned both of these lenses and can give some comparison advice to help make up my mind would be much appreciated.

Lens would be used primarily for bird and wildlife photography on a 30D.

Thanks in advance

Scott
 
What about 300 f/4IS and 1.4TC as option 3?
 
Why not. Open to any suggestions.

How would the 300 + 1.4 tc match with the others in IQ?
 
I've got the 100-400L which I'm happy with, theres a thread on it here--> Clicky Here
Also some samples here --> Clickity Click all at the 400 mm end of the lens. Might help you in your decisions. If your buying then Ian Kerso is the man to go to, you'll not find it much cheaper elswhere.
 
Although I know the answer to your initial 100-400 v 400/5.6 question, it's not from personal experience so I'll duck out of that one.

Version #2....300/4 IS + 1.4x T/C versus the 400/5.6 are both options that I have.
The 400 has better resolving powers than the 300 and the T/C only widens the gap more. The 300+T/C is a good option if things are gloomy and the IS is beneficial but in good light the 400 gives better results and focus tracking is much better than the 300....or, at least mine is.

Bob
 
Tooler

I do have the 100-400. It's a good lens, but it does go a bit soft at the 400 end. Not horrendously soft but softer than say 350. Having said that it is very versatile and the IS works a dream.

However I went through the same process as you did a couple of years ago. I subscribe to the Luminous Landscape forums, and Michael Reichman who runs it did a comparative test between the 100-400 and the 400 f5.6. Now at 400mm the prime lens was better. You could see it in the test images. I've just tried to find the article on the web site but can't sorry.

here's the link to the home page you may have more luck than me
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

For versatility, I'd still opt for the zoom. If all you need is a fixed focal length, I'd listen to Bobs advice.

If in doubt why not hire both lenses for a couple of days and see which you prefer. Cheaper than buying the wrong one.

John C
 
I'm a massive fan of the 100-400L. Prior to getting the 500mm f4, it was used for all my wildlife photography. It's a hugely adaptable lens with it's zoom range, and I can't imagine ever wanting to part with it. For ultimate image quality, there's no arguing that a prime lens will be better than any zoom, but I do think the 100-400L sometimes gets a bad press which it doesn't deserve in my experience with it. I also have the 70-200 2.8L IS which is a great lens, but lacking the same reach. If one of them had to go it wouldn't be the 100-400L.
 
At the moment I'm using a 75-300mm and find I use it at the long end pretty much exlusivley. so a zoom is not essential, although certainly has its benifits.

Reading through other threads on the 100-400 it seems that the far end of the focal range tends to go a bit soft as Chappers points out. I'd want 400mm to benefit my bird photography in particular but the prime has no IS.

So the suggestion of the 300mm+tc seems quite attractive, giving a couple of focal length options plus IS.

Would be nice to see some comparison shots from the three options if any of you have the time to put some up.

Thanks Guys.
 
Scott,

Firstly let me say that any of the three options is going to be a huge improvement on your 75-300.

There's nothing like peering through the viewfinder yourself and feeling the balance of the lens and camera to help make up your mind. Where abouts on this fair isle are you? Maybe close enough to someone with the goodies and you can try for yourself.

Bob
 
Tooler said:
Would be nice to see some comparison shots from the three options if any of you have the time to put some up.

Thanks Guys.
Click to expand...

This is a shot with the 100-400L and 1.4X TC (560mm) Shot in RAW so no sharpening applied at all in camera.

Full frame shot just with normal sharpening for downsizing the image.

2498503811_a3778ee268_o.jpg


And a 1:1 crop from the same image straight from the RAW file with no processing or sharpening at all. This image would sharpen very nicely.

2499333070_5ebb74d4db_o.jpg


Shot from a tripod btw with IS enabled, as pretty well all my shots are
 
I must say CT, you certainly get the best out of your equpment. Stunning shots that I'd be more than happy with.

I live in Farnham in Surrey so if there is anyone local, any help would be appreciated.

In the mean time I've emailed lensesforhire for availability of the three options for a weekend hire. It'll cost about £70 but a weekend out with all that glass "Should" save me from a pub lunch or two. :naughty:

Thanks again

Scott
 
Scott, my advice is try the lenses, but eliminate all the chances of camera movement etc which you can - use a tripod, pick your test subject carefully, focus accurately, and you should come out with a result. :)
 
Thanks CT. Arranging availability with Stewart now.

Elliminating any chances of camera movement counts out the pub lunch then I guess!lol
 
Hi,

I loved my 100-400 too, you might think that using it at 400 all the time makes the 400 F5.6 a better option, however being able to frame the subject and then zoom up to FILL the frame is very useful. Just try capturing moving subjects with the 400 or 500 prime and it's not easy, however with the 100-400 you catch it at a lower number and then zoom it in.

The copy that I had was very sharp and I was loathe to sell it but I had to to fund my Sigma 500mm F4.5, now try BIF shots with that and you soon find out how useful the zoom is. Used prices are dropping on the 100-400 right now as I am sure people are thinking a new version might be on it's way, a good used one can be picked up for around £600- £700 max. Saw one sold the other day on another Forum for £580.

I might even get another one for my dad instead of the planned 400 F5.6 as the IS might be more useful to him than more detail, but undecided as yet all depends on the price of either secondhand at the time.

Try the 100-400 you might be surprised as the benefits of the zoom and IS will definitely outweigh the downsides, if I'd had the cash at the time I would have kept mine no question.

Mike.
 
Mikeyb. Agree with you on the framing at the lower end and zooming to fill the shot as this is how I use my current lens. But I suppose the only way to get used to using a prime is hand on in the feild and practice.

Can't count out any option just yet. Also the 100-400 isn't the most popular lens just for looking nice.
 
I had two 100-400mm's and both disappointing: soft wide open and more so at 400mm. With lots of sun it seems that it could be a good lens if you get a good copy ... but I've had a 100% record of not doing that ... but others seem to get good copies and then the flexibility and (old 2 stop) IS can be useful. For Birds ***? It's very hard to get a good bird shot with 400mm let alone a 100-350mm or so zoom ... and if you add a TCon and the light is any less than perfect then forget it ... and any softness just isn't going to do anything but get worse. Unless I wanted convenience above all else or to shoot outside my kitchen window on nice days then the 100-400mm just isn't a contender.

The 300mm IS L 4.0 is a very nice lens ergonomically and decent IQ bare-backed, but add a TCon and AF slows and then you got the IS gyro's to get going, same as with the 100-400mm, and it just feels sluggish. Shame. I really wanted to like this option but just didn't wow me..

I've had two 400mm 5.6 L's and both great. Perfectly acceptable wide open and with birds you're often at 400mm +++ so that performance matters. USM and AF speed and accuracy all excellent. Stick a Tcon on it and you can get good shots still. If you got a 1D or up then it'll AF nicely with a 1.4, so 560mm of usable range is getting into birding territory for the price of a 100-400mm. You need a monopod or beanbag or tripod *** ...

Just my experience of owning all three, multiple copies in the case odf the 100-400 and 400. Good luck in your choice.

EDIT: I'm wondering why TEE-AITCH-OH aka the short version of 'though' gets made into ***? Must be a swear word in Mongolia or something!
 
condyk said:
I had two 100-400mm's and both disappointing: soft wide open and more so at 400mm. With lots of sun it seems that it could be a good lens if you get a good copy ...

This is partly the reason I may go against this lens. But canon having sold more coppies of this than possibly any other so stats say it would have more 'duds' (for want of a better word).

I am by no means counting the 100-400 out, Im getting mainly good reviews of this lens but I want a long range lens primarily for bird photography. Any gaps in focal range I could fill as and when funds allow.

If I may, I will bump this thread when i've tested the hired lenses and hopefuly show the results.

Any tips on using a 'Prime" may well come in handy before I hire.

Thanks again for all your advice all.

Scott
Click to expand...
 
I don't know wether you saw my post last week regarding the 100 - 400, but i went on a proper test today, and fair enough it was nice weather , i've had some good results from it today, here are a couple of 100% crops, the puffin has had no sharpening, it's straight out the camera and it was probably about 75 metres away too....

puffin.jpg


kestrel1.jpg
 
'Bump'

They've arrived!! (on hire unfortunatly).

First impression 100-400f4.5-5.6L: I took out first and was a little supprised at its size and wheight. It was bigger than I imagined. Not a bad thing. Big is good, and good it looks too! It dwarfed my 30D compared to what i'm used to. This was the first time I've held my camera and felt that I was holding a damn fine peice of kit.
I took a couple of shots indoors then a few outdoors. Nothing to show off, just to get a feel. I could hear and feel yhe IS working as a short shaprp but quiet 'um' and a very slight jolt, for want of a better word. Overall, very impressed with this lens. Well actually 'WOW'!

First impression 400mm f5.6L: Was up next A little supprised about size and wheight of this lens too, but this time not quite as big as I imagined. This is quite possibly becaus of the 100-400 feeling bigger than I thought it would. As before I took a couple of shots indoors before going out and taking a few more. Again a nice feel to it (and giving my camera more of a hollow 'Clunk' than a click on the shutter). Felt a bit lighter than the zoom, by how much is probably minimal. Not so sure about the retractable hood, seemed to be a bit akward to adjust and always there. I'd prefere it to either be there or not. Overall, very impressed with this lens. But not quite 'WOW'.

I've got these lenses on a three day hire so hopfully be able to put them through thier paces and get some good shots.
I'll post up the results as and when I get any.

'Watch this space'
 
I have the 400 f 5.6, very impressed with it but you have to think more about your composition as you've lost the versitility of zooming to fine tune the composition.

I'd tried to get on with the 100-400 several times and failed......:(
 
400mm f5.6 L USM

_MG_7214.jpg


100% crop

7214100crop.jpg


100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM

_MG_7221.jpg


100% crop

7221100crop.jpg


These were shot on a monopod as this is what I generally use. I'm pleased with the performance on both lenses but the 400 prime nicks it. Now do I sacrifice the slight image quality for the IS and versatility of the zoom. :shrug:

Would like to hear any of your opinions please. :)
 
First your sensor really needs cleaning ;-)

The 1-4 is clearly not 400mm, it is short. The 100% crops show the 400mm closer. I think I read some review that said the 1-4 isn't actually 400mm. It was at Romy's forum, a well known birder and you can look around here

I'd say the 400mm more than edges it but you ask the right question. When PP'd I doubt most would notice. If you want to use it generally get the zoom. If you want it sopecifically for 400mm use and happy to use a support then get the 400mm.
 
The test results pretty well mirror what I've seen many times before in a shoot off between these two lenses.

IF you're primary targets will be birds then I don't see the 100-400 giving you too much in the way of flexibility....you're going to be at 400 for the large majority of shots.

If you get the 100-400 then you'll always know that the 400 would have given you the better detail. If you go for the 400 then you'll always know that the IS might have helped when the light was alittle on the dull side.

FWIW, I'd go for, and have gone for, the 400/5.6

Bob
 
Thanks for the link condyk, Although its not helped me much in deciding. Though good to see someone elses opinions. Yeah I know the sensors dirty but I'm changing theses lenses so often this weekend I'll leave it til they go back.

The 400 is sharper and a tad longer so for bird photography this should be the one. But I've got an issue with the hood on this one. As said before I find it awkward to use and feel its only reason for it being fixed to the lens is to make a skinny lens a bit 'Chunkier'?
Also not having IS means you have to rely on fair to decent light to use, and with the good old British weather the zoom will get more use.

In the time I've had these, the 100-400 has spent considerably more time on the camera than the prime, and I have found its versatility useful.

I was convinced that the prime would be the one I'd go for before they arrived, Now I'm not so sure.
 
I've been watching this thread with some interest Tooler and your last post makes me feel better that I think I made the right choice getting the 100-400. I can see your in between the devil and the deep blue sea so I'll shut up now so I don't influence your decision.;)
 
Tooler said:
... I've got an issue with the hood on this one. As said before I find it awkward to use and feel its only reason for it being fixed to the lens is to make a skinny lens a bit 'Chunkier'?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you prefer some flexibility and so go for the zoom. The long primes are somewhat specialised, even more so the non-IS models. As to the hood I am really amazed. I think the design is superb. descrete, easy to pack, a quick twist and it's tight and another twist and you can pack it away. I think it's a great feature, same as on the 300mm IS L 4.0. Personal handling preferences do count so if ya don't like it, again, get the zoom. But the hood on that is like a cheap plastic popcorn scoop :)
 
frank said:
I've been watching this thread with some interest Tooler and your last post makes me feel better that I think I made the right choice getting the 100-400. I can see your in between the devil and the deep blue sea so I'll shut up now so I don't influence your decision.;)
Click to expand...

You're right Frank. A hard decision it is. Nonetheless I'm closer to a descision today after a six mile walk around Windsor Great Park. I predominantly had the zoom on the camera. Although having it at the 400mm end of it 90% of the time, that 10% is well worth the flexibility of the 299mm behind it! (truth be known, the 90% is probably more like 80% or less. Ill have to check my exifs to see).

The issue with the hood has bugged me a bit. It is of good quality, and I'm sure with use, I probably wouldn't know its there. I know I've been using this as a bit of an excuse. I really want to like the 400/5.6 because it Does have better IQ, Its lighter, cheaper & slightly longer. But it is a specialized lens as condyk points out. Maybe I'm not the Bird Togger I hoped I was. :shrug:

Still, I have one more day with these stunning lenses so neither are counted as beaten as yet...

BTW I've taken some fantastic shots (imo) with both of these lenses. Far too many to post on this thread, so I'll scatter them in thier appropriate sections when I get time to produce them.

I'll update tomorrow. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top