The final 2 lenses! :S

Chilt

Chilt

Messages
738
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
As my quest for a bird lens is coming to the end.. My final is between the 100-400mm L and the 400mm 5.6L. Ive had some brilliant advice on the lens but still unsure on what to get. I may be meeting my friend next week to try out the 100-400 but just still unsure if im going to use the zoom when i get it :/

Nick
 
jz325i said:
Have you seen this writeup? ...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml
Click to expand...


I have serious doubts about the quality of the 100-400 being tested there. He says it's not defective in any way but my 100-400 on my 40D (with a higher pixel density than the camera he tested it on) gives sharper 100% crops. No doubt the 400 is sharper, but not by that massive amount.

Plenty of reviews rate it's image quality very well (which is hard to reconcile with that LL comparison).

http://www.lenstip.com/217.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_100-400_mm_f_4.5-5.6_L_IS_USM__Introduction.html

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/609-canon100400f4556ff


You're doing the best thing you can, trying the lens. If you can try a 400 prime as well that would be even better, just too see how you get on with the lack of IS (but I'm sure you'd love the focus speed and IQ).
 
Last edited:
I'd get the 100-400, more flexible....

Always buy used, that way you never really lose much money come selling/upgrade time.
 
jz325i said:
Have you seen this writeup? ...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml
Click to expand...

Definitely something wrong with he 100-400 that they tested. I have owned two copies of the 100-400 and used three other copies in the field and all five have been much sharper than the test copy. In fact all five have been sharper wide open than the test copy was at f11! I have owned both the zoom and the prime and there is very little in it as far as real world sharpness is concerned.
 
We tested a 100-400 and 400 and at 400mm the difference in IQ was tiny. I would get the 100-400 for the flexability.
 
postcardcv said:
Definitely something wrong with he 100-400 that they tested. I have owned two copies of the 100-400 and used three other copies in the field and all five have been much sharper than the test copy. In fact all five have been sharper wide open than the test copy was at f11! I have owned both the zoom and the prime and there is very little in it as far as real world sharpness is concerned.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. Canon doesn't have the very best QC in the world and there are certainly duffers about.

My experience (short) with both was very similar to luminous-landscape test. The prime was a clear winner for sharpness. I'd be happy to be proved wrong on the zoom.
 
Just dug out a couple of sample shots from the 100-400 that I took for a friend a while back, boring shots but they do shot it is more than capable lens. I would post them here but small files won't show much so instead I have uploaded full res photos onto flickr (RAW files converted in LR3 with no export sharpening). Also included a couple of real world samples too, one at 400mm f5.6 and the other at 400 f5.6. http://www.flickr.com/photos/37669825@N04/sets/72157629431968429/
 
This comparison seems to come up again and again. As a 100-400 owner I've been amazed at its sharpness, it's just the weight that's the issue or some folks don't like the pump action zoom
 
postcardcv said:
Just dug out a couple of sample shots from the 100-400 that I took for a friend a while back, boring shots but they do shot it is more than capable lens. I would post them here but small files won't show much so instead I have uploaded full res photos onto flickr (RAW files converted in LR3 with no export sharpening). Also included a couple of real world samples too, one at 400mm f5.6 and the other at 400 f5.6. http://www.flickr.com/photos/37669825@N04/sets/72157629431968429/
Click to expand...

interesting. The 'money shots' look perfectly sharp, the tiger and the bird not so much - I suspect some degree of front focusing there at the very least (the paw looks like the sharpest part)
 
daugirdas said:
interesting. The 'money shots' look perfectly sharp, the tiger and the bird not so much - I suspect some degree of front focusing there at the very least (the paw looks like the sharpest part)
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Thinking about it they probably weren't the est examples as the leopard is through glass and the kookaburra is through wire mess :cuckoo: unfortunately I didn't have other stuff on the computer I was on. I'll take a look on my laptop when I next turn it on and see what the sharpness is like on other shots. Though personally I'm happy enough with the sharpness on those shots, both sharpen up nicely and print well.
 
Well... All I can say is that I've seen some pretty "iffy" results from the 100-400mm.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen good results too, and there's no possible argument about it's superior versatility. But if you need 400mm most of the time then go for the prime lens!
 
When I was looking for a BIF lens I went down to my local camera store and they let me test a tonne of gear:

70-200 f/4 L and a 1.4 tc
70-300 f/4 Sigma + 1.4 tc
50-500 Sigma
150-500 Sigma
and the 400mm f/5.6

I took the images back and imported them into LR and just went through and flagged up which images I thought had the best contrast and sharpness. Later on I checked the Exif data, I'd flagged only images from the 400mm f/5.6 (which I later bought).

It was a great lens, superbly sharp and it was so much lighter than everythng else I tested which for me at the time was a massive bonus.

Incidentally I went through the photos afterwards and pulled out a few more, they were the Sigma 70-300 and TC shots. The constrast on this combination was impressive.
 
Thanks for all the replies guys, I completely forgot I
Posted this thread haha. Ill take a proper look at the links and read through the comments again when I get back home from work, thanks for all the feedback!

Nick
 
Bennp2000n - Sigma 70-300mm f4? I didn't realise they made one.
 
Strangways said:
Bennp2000n - Sigma 70-300mm f4? I didn't realise they made one.
Click to expand...

sorry 100-300 (near enough). I also missed off the 100-400.

The last poster makes a good point about IS. I only used mine in the South of France. Chasing a kingfisher around Sheffield I was a bit stumped for a good shutter/iso combination in the evening light.
 
I'd definitely of returned my 100-400 L if it'd been as soft as the one they tested. I've no doubt the 400 L prime is sharper than the 100-400 zoom, but not by that much. After all, would Canon have sold that many if they were as bad as that.
I've bought the Sigma 150-500 OS at the start of the year and have just taken some bird shots with it and they are really sharp. I wouldn't totally recommend it for BIF shots as it does take longer to focus than the 100-400 L, but it's not far off in sharpness and great for resting birds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top