Which Canon lens - zoom or prime

Mystery57

Mystery57

Messages
1,811
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
At present I have a Canon F4 L 70-200mm lens which I can use with the x2 extender.

As I also have a 28-105 L lens, I am contemplating changing things around.

The plan I think will be to sell the above lens and purchase either the Canon 100-400 lens, or the Canon 400 F5.6 lens.

What would you guys do ?


I have read reviews till Im blue in the face, so would appreciate guidance from people who have used / still use these lenses.

I like the idea of the zoom but have heard worrying tales of it being a dust magnet for sensors. The prime had a lot of good reviews, but if I bought this I would have to either still retain the 70-200, or have a gap between 105 and 400 in my available lengths

thanks in hope
 
Cannot comment on the 400 as I have never used this. However I have a 100-400 and to be honest it is probably the sharpest of my zoom lenses (24-105, 70-200 and 100-400). This sharpness extends right through from 100 to the 400 end.

Yes it has a reputation for being a dust magnet inside the lens due to the trombone action but I have not had any problems with my lens in this respect. I am not aware that any lens causes dust problems on the sensor. In any case I think people get paranoid about a little bit of dust. If you Google this you will find some very learned photographers will tell you that dust in the lens has NO detrimental effect on the photo.

I recently had a lens repaired by someone with over 30 years in the business he also stated that dust in a lens is not a problem unless the individual specks are large and in the centre of the glass.

Whilst prime lenses are supposed to be sharper I personally prefer the versatility that the zoom lens offers.
 
Last edited:
valb said:
Cannot comment on the 400 as I have never used this. However I have a 100-400 and to be honest it is probably the sharpest of my zoom lenses (24-105, 70-200 and 100-400). This sharpness extends right through from 100 to the 400 end.

Yes it has a reputation for being a dust magnet inside the lens due to the trombone action but I have not had any problems with my lens in this respect. I am not aware that any lens causes dust problems on the sensor. In any case I think people get paranoid about a little bit of dust. If you Google this you will find some very learned photographers will tell you that dust in the lens has NO detrimental effect on the photo.

I recently had a lens repaired by someone with over 30 years in the business he also stated that dust in a lens is not a problem unless the individual specks are large and in the centre of the glass.

Whilst prime lenses are supposed to be sharper I personally prefer the versatility that the zoom lens offers.
Click to expand...

Is your 70-200 the newest version 2.8 mark2, just curious if you are saying the 400 is sharper than that one.
 
I've researched this a lot in the past and used to own a 400mm f5.6. That was a cracking lens with just a couple of minor issues which may or may not affect you.

The first is the minimum focus distance, which was around 3.5m if I remember right, and not as close as it could be. I missed several bird shots because of this. Next is there is no IS - not an issue for me, but a lot of people want it. Lastly, its not particularly versatile, but you can say that about pretty much any prime lens.

On the upside it is very sharp, and reputed to be slightly sharper and faster focussing than the zoom.

The zoom is obviously more versatile, has IS and is plenty sharp enough for most people.

If you can afford it, maybe put a 1.4x converter on your current 70-200 if you think you would miss the 200-280mm range and buy the prime, I think it would mostly come down to the focal lengths you think you'll need and use most.

In a nutshell - they're both good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top