Canon 400mm f/5.6 vs. 100-400mm zoom

[Kerry Perkins]

I can afford to purchase one new lens now, and I want to go with something longer than the 70-200mm that I currently have. I am torn between the 400mm f/5.6 and the 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS. Anybody have experience with both lenses? I have read that the 400mm "toy" lens is very sharp, but has no IS so requires a lot of light for high shutter speeds.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

[Fabs Forns]

If you are going to use it for flight, you don't need IS. I used it a lot when I had Canon, in fact, I sold my 100-400 and kept the 400/5.6
It was my prime flight lens.

[Kerry Perkins]

Thanks Fabs. I would be using it HH for flight as well as on a tripod so it sounds like the reasonable choice.

[William Malacarne]

Between the two that you mentioned I would get the 400mm f/5.6, but I would also consider the 300mm f/4 and also get a 1.4TC. The 300 also has IS but as Fabs said IS is really not needed for flight photos but in other situations it can be useful.

Bill

[Rocky Sharwell]

I own both lenses. The 400mm is a fabulous lens for flight--It is sharp and focuses fast. The 100-400 is slower to focus and seems to have a wide variation in quality--mine got way better after I dropped it and sent it for repair.

The downside to the 400 is the min. focusing distance--I forget the number but I have used extension tubes with it at times. I like the 100-400 as a driving around lens and for zoom blurs. If I had to pick one for flight it would be the 400.....

[Maxis Gamez]

Hi Kerry,

Another vote for the 400mm f/5.6. I have one and I can tell you is as sharp as a good macro lens. Check out my website and see some of my images taken with this great lens!

[Cliff Beittel]

Another vote for the 400 f5.6, my first EF lens back in the mid-90s when I was still shooting mostly manual focus FD lenses, and one I still own and use. Note that the long minimum focus is one of the reasons it is so good for flight--less searching. For flight, I much prefer it to the 300 f4 IS with a 1.4, though the close minimum focus of that lens is good for close-ups.

[Kerry Perkins]

Thanks everyone. I just read Artie's blurb on this subject on the BAA web site, and I am convinced that the 400 is the way to go. I do want to use it primarily for BIF and other bird shots, so that seems to settle it. :D

[Roger Clark]

The 100-400 is slower to focus and seems to have a wide variation in quality--mine got way better after I dropped it and sent it for repair.

Ooohhh...Maybe I should do that! ;) My 100-400 is soft at 400 (makes just OK 8x10 prints).

My 100-400 sits on the shelf. I replaced it with a 300 f/4 (plus TCs).

Roger

[Doug Brown]

The 400 is a super lens. Great for hand held flight. Very sharp, even wide open. Very fast AF.

[Deborah Harrison]

I have both - the 400 5.6 is a sharp lens and, as already stated, with the high shutter speeds used for wildlife pics lack of IS is not a problem. I personally found it a better lens than the 400DO which I sold. It's also light for a lens of that focal length.

The 100-400 is a good lens IF you get a good copy, there seems to be some variability in quality. If you can only take one lens where weight is a consideration and need a zoom it's a great choice. I had one that I sold quickly because I didn't like the IQ, subsequently I got another which is fabulous.

One suggestion - why not rent both lenses to try them out, it's less costly than making a mistake and there are a lot of good places renting Canon glass. I'll do that - it's a great option and then you can see how both perform under the conditions you'll be using them.

[Alfred Forns]

Just recently started using the 100-400 lens. Some time back I gave up on it and chose to carry the 70-200 and 400 as a replacement. Main reason was having to rebuilt the lens every few months, zoom would freeze. My new one will keep out of the mud !!!

Presently I find that I'm doing much better with the zoom and find it sharp. The first copies of the lens had trouble but that was many years ago. I don't agree you have to luck out for a good one.

As far as focusing speed just look at some of the images I have posted. Tracking grackles going by at high speed and purple martins is difficult, the lens came through in flying colors.

Anything you do is a compromise and you need to go for need.

[arash_hazeghi]

I chose the prime over the zoom, the zoom would be sitting at 400 all the time anyways, IMO the prime is sharper especially if you need to shoot wide open, IS is nice for framing stationary birds but doesn't help for in flight shots.

[Ed Cordes]

While I have been using the 100-400 for years and like it a lot for its versatility, I would wait a short while, if you can. Canon Rumors and other sites are indicating a strong possibility of Canon lens updates this summer. The 100-400 and 400 prime are due for updating. I have read in other threads that many large dealers are back ordering the 400 f 5.6 prime. This would lend credence to the rumor. A 100-400 constant f4 with 4th Gen IS and excellent image quality would be worth upgrading to.

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Ed

That would be great but what about the weight? It will put the lens right up there with the Nikon at seven pounds !!! Not an over the shoulder hand holding gem !!!

[Kerry Perkins]

Yes, I noticed that B&H is backordering them. My local shop, Canoga Camera, has a few in stock so I am going to act quickly before they are all gone. I'm pretty sure that the new lens will be more money than I can justify right now, so I'm not going to be holding out for that.

[John Blumenkamp]

Hi Kerry... sounds like you've made your decision, and my two cents on the matter backs your choice. I went through the same process a couple years back, and have been shooting with the 400 5.6L ever since, along with a 70-200. As others have mentioned, the 400 5.6L is plain sharp, and when you take into account the cost, it's value for the price is excellent.

If Canon is updating some of their lenses this summer, then I'm all for it... I'd love to see an improved 100-400, which would be awesome for wildlife and larger mammals, etc.

[Kerry Perkins]

Thanks for all the input! I purchased the EF400mm f/5.6. I felt that this was a good choice for me, as I already have the EF70-200mm f/2.8 IS and the 1.4x TC. Along with the 28-135mm IS I have a good range and plenty of flexibility now. I think that this lens will help me get back to the basics, as I feel that the image stabilization has made me a little too dependent on the technology (translation - lazy!). Before IS came along I wouldn't even attempt to hand-hold a tele! BIF is a whole different matter, and I usually turned IS off on the 70-200 anyway. As for manual focus with the 1.4x, it used to be the only way!

Next stop - Wimberly/Gitzo...

[Jay Gould]

If you have the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS and the 70-200 f/4 IS, would you sell the 100-400 and buy the 400 f/5.6? Now? Wait?

[Jay Gould]

Let me ask this question differently.

If you have the 70 - 200 f/4 and the 400 f/5.6, how serious is the "hole" between 200 to 400?

I realize that you can fill it somewhat with a 1.4 making the 200 into a 320. Is that the answer?

[Roger Clark]

Let me ask this question differently.

If you have the 70 - 200 f/4 and the 400 f/5.6, how serious is the "hole" between 200 to 400?

I realize that you can fill it somewhat with a 1.4 making the 200 into a 320. Is that the answer?

I personally do not think it is a serious hole. I often travel with the 70-200 f/4, 300 f/4, and 500 f/4. Some trips, the 300 rarely gets used. I consider it more a backup in case the 500 fails. So my hole is 200 to 500, ignoring the 200 + 1.4x.

[Jay Gould]

Hmmm, that being the case I should seriously think about changing the 100 - 400 to the 400 f/5.6. That works size/weight, and apparently will give me a faster focusing sharper lens than the 100-400.

I am going to wait to see what Father Canon brings out during the summer before making the jump.

I cannot carry the 500; it is simply to heavy and large to carry for an entire year along with all the rest of my gear.

[Roger Clark]

I cannot carry the 500; it is simply to heavy and large to carry for an entire year along with all the rest of my gear.

I understand. Often the 500 is too much for me too, especially long hikes. So then I drop back to a 300 f/2.8. I can hand hold it for long periods with no problem (I now some people do hand hold the 500 for long periods). If I want to travel lighter, then I go down to the 300 f/4.

[Jay Gould]

I just chatted with another BPN member who has a hole from 85 - 400; he too has the 400 f/5.6. I guess the "hole concern" has fallen down the hole. Terrible pun! :-)

[Jay Gould]

I have been in communication with Jim Neiger; when I come to the States in October I am going to spend a few days with Jim hopefully learning some of his BIF techniques.

On the issue of which lens, Jim said to me:

If your 100-400 is a sharp copy of that lens, I would keep it and not get the 400mm F5.6. The lens of choice for BIF and bird photography in general is the 500mm F4 IS.

As I indicated, the 500 is out of the question.

I asked Jim and let me ask everyone:

How do I tell if the 100-400 meets a professional’s standards as a “sharp copy”? Are there some images (or a specific calibration target) I could shoot at fixed f/stops and fixed focal lengths, to make that determination? For example, if I mounted a newspaper page on a board and set it up on a stand, put the 40D/100-400 on a tripod at measured distances, is there some test you could devise that I could shoot in RAW, download into LR, export to ??, and send you given size images for a “sharpness” determination?

Obviously I am not going to send my images to everyone; perhaps I could post a few here or even take them to a noted reputable camera store in Brisbane for a professional opinion.

BTW, the bear photo that I posted in the ETL thread was shot with the 100-400 in question.

[Roger Clark]

Jay,
Here is my lens testing page:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...lens-sharpness
My 100-400 is on that page. Notice how wide open at 400 is is pretty bad, but at f/11 very good. Then at 200 mm wide open is quite good. I saw a friend's 100-400 that did as well at 400 wide open as mine at 200 wide open in this test.

If you want to produce images at the same scale as these images, you would follow the same distanc as indicated by multiplied by the ratio of pixel sizes. For example, the tests were done on a 10D with 7.4 micron pixels. If you used a 40D with 5.7 micron pixels, increase the distance by 7.4/5.7 = 1.30x.

On the test chart, it prints pretty small. I printed a bunch of them and taped them to a board so the full field of view was covered in test charts. The you can look at on and off-axis sharpness.

[Jim Neiger]

I have been in communication with Jim Neiger; when I come to the States in October I am going to spend a few days with Jim hopefully learning some of his BIF techniques.

On the issue of which lens, Jim said to me:

As I indicated, the 500 is out of the question.

I asked Jim and let me ask everyone:



Obviously I am not going to send my images to everyone; perhaps I could post a few here or even take them to a noted reputable camera store in Brisbane for a professional opinion.

BTW, the bear photo that I posted in the ETL thread was shot with the 100-400 in question.

Jay,

Try making some images with your 100-400mm at 400mm and wide open at F5.6. Then process the images, and if the end result is sharp enough to make you happy, then the lens is sharp enough. I find it impossible to tell a difference in sharpness in processed images from the 3 lenses that I own, 300mm F2.8, 100-400mm F5.6, and 500mm F4. If the 500mm is out of the question due to weight, then I would get the 400mmDO. It is an F4 lens and the difference between F4 and F5.6 can be huge under many conditions you will encounter in the field. You can also use it much more effectively with converters. BTW: I had a 400mm F5.6 and the 100-400mm. I decided I didn't need both, so I sold the 400mm F5.6. I have no regrets about this. I bought the 400mm F5.6 from Artie (the famous toy lens). After a few weeks Artie bought it back at the same price and sold it to someone else. It was a wonderful lens, but it wasn't any sharper than my 100-400mm.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

If you have the 70 - 200 f/4 and the 400 f/5.6, how serious is the "hole" between 200 to 400?

I realize that you can fill it somewhat with a 1.4 making the 200 into a 320. Is that the answer?

Now Jay it is very serious when you get maths lesson from ME but a 70-200 + 1.4X Con. makes it into a 98-280 not 320.

As someone else posted the ideal combo IMO is a 70-200 f/4, 300 f/4ISL, 400 f/5.6 plus a 1.4X Con giving you a potential 98-280, f/5.6, 420mm f/5.6, 560mm f/8.

PS as no maths wizard I always use the calculator on my phone (which I have only recently learned to use)

[Jay Gould]

Now Jay it is very serious when you get maths lesson from ME but a 70-200 + 1.4X Con. makes it into a 98-280 not 320.

As someone else posted the ideal combo IMO is a 70-200 f/4, 300 f/4ISL, 400 f/5.6 plus a 1.4X Con giving you a potential 98-280, f/5.6, 420mm f/5.6, 560mm f/8.

PS as no maths wizard I always use the calculator on my phone (which I have only recently learned to use)

OK; the end result is I am going to have the 70 - 200 f4; 300 f/2.8; and 1.4 and 2.0 TCs.

Cheers, Jay

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

OK; the end result is I am going to have the 70 - 200 f4; 300 f/2.8; and 1.4 and 2.0 TCs.

Cheers, Jay

Sounds good to me Jay, I would definitely have a 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8 + 2x Cons if they would fit in my Motorcycle Panniers but they won't but I am thinking of the 600mm f/4 for use if we go in the wife's car and take my Barramundi punt for use in the mangroves, I have already designed gunwale mounts to fit Wimberley heads for it so it looks imminent.