400L or 100-400 L IS?

<p>I wanna get more into birding and my 300 is barely cutting it. <br>

I see these two lenses, EF 400 f5.6 L )$1100) and the EF 100-400 f4-5.6 L IS ($1259) and I say to myself, its a no brainer. For 150 bucks more I get IS and a zoom.<br>

But is it really that straight forward? Am I missing something? Is there anything that makes the 400 L more desirable besides the zoom having Kenmore heritage?<br>

I am sure that 99% of the time, the lens will be used at 400.<br>

I don't want to mess with the Sigma due to it being 6.3 on the long end. If you have other suggestions, bring it on.<br>

Thanks! /bing</p>

 

<p>If you will always use your lens on a tripod, then get the prime. If you want to shoot birds in fligt with IS engaged for panning, then get the zoom. I have the 100-400 and I love that lens. I alos have th 500L IS when I need the reach, but it is 99% on a tripod. The zoom I can hand hold for hours - it is very light! Personally I find IS indispensible - it is a life saver!</p>

<p>Just got my 100-400 and love it. I don't think you can go wrong getting the IS and zoom. Some people don't like the push-pull, but it works for me...</p>

<p>I own a 100-400L and love it for all-around wildlife and landscape shooting. The IS is wonderful, as you'd expect. I like the reasonably close focus for images of butterflies and the like. Having said that, I suspect you'll be happier with the 400L prime for the purposes you mentioned. Mainly because you are looking at shooting birds. Unlike you, I seldom shoot birds beyond grabbing the easy low-hanging fruit. Autofocus with the 100-400L is plenty fast for most mammal shots, but it is awful for flying birds.<br>

Many birders consider the 400L Canon's best lens for birds in flight. Focus is very fast, and it is very sharp. For the speeds you'd shoot birds in flight, IS won't be worth much. The lens doesn't focus very close, but you probably won't be shooting birds from seven feet away very often anyway!<br>

For more stopped-down photos or dimmer light photos of perched birds, the 400L will benefit a lot from being on a tripod, of course. Image quality will beat the 100-400L. of course, the 400L totally stinks at 100mm, or even 200mm! But when shooting birds you'll usually want as much focal length as possible, as you are finding out.</p>

<p>400 f/5.6L is sharper wide opened than 100-400 f/3.5-5.6L IS, focus is faster too because there's not much to move around inside.</p>

<p>400 f/5.6L is sharper wide opened than 100-400 f/3.5-5.6L IS, focus is faster too because there's not much to move around inside.</p>

<p>Juan:</p>

<p>I see you already have a 300. Have you tried a 1.4x on it?</p>

<p>If it were a choice between a 400/5.6 IS and the 100-400 zoom, I would have gone with the 400. I chose the 300/4 IS + 1.4x because IS is important to me.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>I have an EF 70-300 IS. Not compatible to 1.4X. I need more reach, but the 500 prices requires me to change careers :)<br>

<img src="http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a218/bing123/heronflight.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I have both.<br>

At centre both 100-400 and 400 prime are equally sharp. At corners the prime beats the zoom by a wide margin.<br>

However most photos taken by long lenses have their corners out of focus anyway.<br>

The hand holding capability with the zoom make me use it much more than the prime.</p>

<p>

<p>Yes Juan, it is a no brainer. Get the 400 f5.6 L!<br>

ha,ha... this is just to prove how everybody feels different when it comes to lenses. I have the 400 fixed and love it, and I am not particularly fond of Canon lenses. I chose the fixed tele instead of the zoom, because, for my shooting needs there is no space for a heavy, bulky and not so sharp lens from 100 - 200 mm. For that focal length I grab the 70-200 f4 L. If I need a longer focal length, then I choose the 400. I don't see the real need for IS when shooting birds in flight, your panning technique will be more important to achieve good results. The tele is faster, lighter and sharper. But sorry, no zoom, you have to give up something in this life.<br>

I just went to Antarctica this past November - December. And was shooting the albatrosses and petrels from the boat, the 400 focuses super fast and spot on and I never felt uncomfortable or limited by a fixed lens. A few other passengers were using the 100-400 ( in total 4 of them ) no Nikon contender in the same focal range. There was only a guy, with a Nikon 70-200VR + 2X extender. But that will diminish the quality quite a lot. On the Zodiac landings, I was using the 70-200 to photograph the penguins and sometimes the 400 if I wanted to isolate the subject or if I needed to keep distance from the seals.<br>

If you have the space to move around, the 400 is a good choice, if you want to carry just one lens then the zoom makes more sense. But beware that the quality of the 100-400 zoom between 100-200 will be much better with a shorter zoom of that particular range.<br>

Regarding the argument about main subjects being in the center of the image. I don't want a lens that has soft corners. I don't buy the story that most subjects are placed in the center of the photograph. If I need a sharp image from corner to corner, then I want a lens that can deliver. If I choose to center my subject and leave the rest out of focus, then it is my choice to do so.</p>

</p>

<p>But Marco, where you in the Beijing Corral? hehehehehehe. Just kidding. Kinda liking the 400. Justifies me keeping my 70-300 :) Speed in focusing also is very very tempting. I am sick of the AF hunting. Thanks!<br>

/bing</p>

<p>Artie Morris calls the 400/5.6 the best lens there is for capturing birds in flight.<br>

<a href="http://www.birdsasart.com">www.birdsasart.com</a><br>

You will be shooting at 400mm nearly all the time, and probably wishing you had more reach, so the prime makes more sense IMO.</p>

<p>I think there is a lot of untested opinions in this thread so I'll insert a couple of my own. I have a 100-400 and use on a XTi it fairly often, mostly trains, wildlife and the odd bird a rest. I recently printed an A1 size of an elephant and it came out surprisingly well. For this general telephoto work the zoom and the quality is fine. Contrary to the post above I find my lens to be excellent at all focal lengths, especially at 100-200, it seems equal to my 70-200 2.8. The IS, versatility and quickness of the push pull zoom all add to its value. Now the crunch. I don't own the 400 5.6L. But I think for birds in flight you need all the focus technology and handling you can get. Hence if this were my 99% use I'd choose the prime and a camera with a good reputation for being able to follow BIF. Finally, I think I'd take more notice of the Birders here than the general users (like me)</p>

<p>I’m in the same boat having been considering either of these two lenses.<br>

However <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml">this article</a> made me tend towards the prime despite its lack of IS.</p>

<p>Juan,<br>

I have owned a 100-400/4,5-5.6 since 2001. I use a 1DIII and a 20D. Bought a 300/2.8LIS several years ago but just sold it and bought a 500/4 after a South Africa/Botswana trip because the 300 just did not have enough reach. The 100-400 is a great all around wildlife lens but just does not AF fast enough for me for birds in flight. Have taken great shots with birds perched on something. Am going out with a professional wildlife photographer this weekend in SoCal who swears by the 400/5.6 even though he owns a 500/4 and an 800/5.6. Will give you my take on Sunday night.<br>

Ted</p>

<p>I have the 400 5.6, I use it on a 40D for mostly auto racing but also for other stuff and its fantastic. I have minimal experience with the 100-400 but I thought the few pics I shot with it were softer then the prime, and the AF speed was a bit slower. You can't beat the AF speed of the 400, it locks onto fast moving race cars and tracks them with ease. Very sharp, great colors, I've included a photo for your amusement. </p>

<p>I have the 400 5.6, I use it on a 40D for mostly auto racing but also for other stuff and its fantastic. I have minimal experience with the 100-400 but I thought the few pics I shot with it were softer then the prime, and the AF speed was a bit slower. You can't beat the AF speed of the 400, it locks onto fast moving race cars and tracks them with ease. Very sharp, great colors, I handhold it all the time, I've included a photo for your amusement. </p><div></div>

<p>I have a similar concern, since I have just bought myself a trip to South Africa this May. My longest lens now is a 70-200 f/2.8L IS, though I have a 2x converter. I am considering getting the 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS, though when I have held it before it seems VERY heavy (and from what I understand, using a tripod on the game drives in SA is not really an option. So what to do?</p>

<p>For me, handholding the 400 5.6L is not difficult. The lens is long and can be a bit ungainly to carry but it is not hard to keep it pointed in the right direction. Heres a shot of the Moon I recently took, handheld, to show more of what this lens is capable of.</p><div></div>

<p>If you were using the entire range of the zoom, it would be worth considering. However, if your going to be at 400mm, get the prime. Sharper IQ, quicker focus and a lighter lens. The zoom has a nice edge with the IS, but the bottom line for me would be the image quality.</p>

<p>Shooting birds in woods, IS is almost a must-to-have.<br>

Shooting at an airshow, a zoom is also a must-to-have.</p>

<p>Neill:<br>

Fair enough, maybe you got lucky with an above average sample of the 100-400. It is a shame not all Canon lenses are manufactured with equal quality, so we never know what we are talking about. But I reckon if they have a much higher quality control, then the prices would go up as well. Canon must be making a compromise between quality, price, sales and customer satisfaction.</p>

<p>Juan:<br>

Regarding extra tele power, I am still considering adding the 1.4X to the 400, to get 560 mm. I have read that IQ is still very good with this combo. </p>

<p>"Juan:<br /> Regarding extra tele power, I am still considering adding the 1.4X to the 400, to get 560 mm. I have read that IQ is still very good with this combo."<br>

But wouldnt this disable autofocus? Being that the lens will be F 6.3? Let us know how this goes.<br>

/bing</p>

<p>I have both the 100-400 zoom, and 400 5.6 prime. I also had the 70-300 IS but sold it last month due to obvious reasons of "redundancy" :)</p>

<p>If you shoot birds most of the time, get the prime. It focuses faster, it's a bit sharper and once you get used to it (and bump a bit the ISO to get faster shutter speeds) you won't need IS to get great shots. On the other hand the 100-400 focuses much closer (the prime is focusing ridiculously far at the closest distance), is not "fixed" at 400 and it has IS.</p>

<p>The 70-300 IS is a very capable lens, almost "L" quality, so my suggestion is keep it, and get the 400 f5.6 prime.</p>

<p>If you want to compare, here are some shots I took with the three:</p>

<p>- 400 F5.6: http://www.photo.net/photo/8455002&size=lg<br>

- 100-400 IS: http://www.photo.net/photo/8243379&size=lg<br>

- 70-300 IS: http://www.photo.net/photo/7632221</p>

<p>Diana D gave you very good advice. I personaly own the 100-400 for about 3 years. I think for hand hold, wild life etc it is the best for me. It is not as heavy and the push pull is fast zooming. I think just for birding the prime will be the best.</p>