Canon 100-400 mm L IS vs Canon 400 mm f/5.6 L

I am using 40D and Canon 300mm f/4. I also use 1.4x Tc with is combination. But recently I am facing some

sharpness problem with this combo 300 mm f/4 and 1.4 tc. Then what should I do? Should I sent the TC for its

proper functionality. If it fails further thinking to buy a lens with 400 mm focal length. Then what will be the best in

respect of sharpness between Canon 100-400 mm L IS and Canon 400 mm f/5.6 L,where I want to use 100-400

as 400 mm. Please give me some suggestion.

 

Regards,

Subhasis

<p>I'll sum up the forthcoming long and almost certainly increasingly bad-tempered post (this subject - "<strong>which is sharper, the 100-400mm or the 400mm f/5.6?</strong>" - must be one of <em>the</em> most argued-over questions on the internet).</p>

<p>Some people will say that it's impossible for a zoom to be as sharp as a prime and will therefore recommend the prime, especially if they've been exposed to a less-than-perfect version of the 100-400mm (they exist).</p>

<p>Others, who know better and who have (or have had) prime-sharp 100-400s (yes, <a href="http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/100_400is">they exist</a> too - and I've got one myself), will say that there's no sharpness disadvantage to the zoom, and a lot to recommend it from a versatility point of view.</p>

<p>The prime is a bit faster-focusing (although this advantage can be somewhat reduced by using the focus limiter on the 100-400mm); the zoom has a minimum focusing distance which is shorter - to a worthwhile extent - than the that of the prime.</p>

<p>And of course, the 100-400mm has image stabilisation, which I consider essential, and which can in itself make all the difference to sharpness in the right circumstances.</p>

<p>It comes down to a good, better, best in sharpness. Best is going to be a 300mm 2.8 and/or a 400 2.8 (both with IS and a whole lot of money). Better is a 300 f4 and/or a 400 5.6 (but not by much) Good of course is going to be the 100-400L... but... it does things none of the other lenses can do. It zooms from 100 to 400... fast. It is plenty sharp for most things. <br>

Here is an image shot with the 100-400L at 100mm.<br>

<a href="

<p>Here is one at 180mm.<br>

<a href="

<p>I could not have have captured these at this rodeo if I had a 300 or a 400 alone. <br>

When I know I'll be shooting long and want fast and sharp I'll go with my 300 2.8 (and a TC if needed) The 100-400 gets a lot of play time.<br>

Richard</p>

 

<p>At 400mm the difference is small, if any. Between 100mm and 399mm the zoom is sharper ;-)</p>

<p>I had a 100-400L for a while, bought used, and was never really happy with it. I just got it back from service at Canon, and WOW - difference like day and night. Great lens! I never saw that fruit-fly until I looked at the photo!</p>

<p><img src="http://www.fmueller.com/images/Virginia-creeper-699.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Virginia Creeper, T1i, 100-400L @ 400mm, ISO800, f5.6, 1/320s, handheld</p>

<p>The 400/5.6 wins in all categories except for the lack of IS and the fact that it is not a zoom. The 400/5.6 is frequently preferred for birds in flight (less light fall off, faster AF, less flare) although the zoom can be advantageous in that case as well.</p>

If you look at Canon's MTF data then the 100-400 and 300 f/4 IS + 1.4x are of similer performance and the 400 f/5.6 is

better. Real world issues and AF accuracy can swallow these deltas however.

 

I use the 300 plus 1.4x a lot on a 7D with very good results, the key brining to keep the shutter speed up.

 

So my view is the 400mm should in theory give better results this is probably only significant for aggressive cropping or

large printing. I regularly crop to 1/4 of a frame with a 7D and the 300 + TC for birds I can't get closer to, these are very

usable with good techneque.

 

Check your setup to see if you need to microadjust.

<p>Hi Subhasis, I own the 400 f5.6 and have been perfectly happy with the performance, size and weight of this lens. I decided to get the prime lens vs the 100-400 zoom because I found that most of my images were going to be shot at 400. If I want to shoot around the 100mm focal length, then I grab a shorter and lighter lens, e.g. 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8 macro and a couple of other non Canon lenses that I use around that focal length. But that is just my personal shooting style, I like primes but I have to agree that IS does make a difference when shooting with the 70-200 f2.8 IS. This is a <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml">link</a> to a website that describes the virtues of the 400 f5.6 hope this helps. Cheers, Marco</p>

 

<p>Thanks a lot to all the members for your valuable suggestion. Through this valuable discussion I can conclude that if I go for 400 mm prime then I will loose nothing except IS and zoom. I think it will be better for me if I use a good tripod for 400 f/5.6 L lens. So I have to wait until I can manage sufficient money for the combination. Again thanks a lot to everyone.</p>

Do you ever use the 300 without the 1.4x attached? If you often do the versatility of the 100-400 may be better for you. I

used a 100-400 for a bit but realized that it was pegged at 400mm 99% of the time, so I got the 400 prime for sharper IQ

and better AF. The 100-400 is a great lens, but the one I used seemed to have flakey AF at the 400mm end. The IS is

handy and an advantage over the prime, but if you think you'll shoot mostly at the 400mm end then I'd go for the prime. It's

very light and very handholdable, but that's not to say that a monopod wouldn't help to make up for the lack of IS.

<p>I've had both lenses and I widely prefer the 400 f5.6. It's sharper wide open then the 100 - 400 at any f stop. Works well with 1.4x and 2 x converters. The 100 - 400 is hopeless with a 2x. Here's a 2x sample with 400 f5.6:<br>

<img src="http://meckstein.com/post/df.jpg" alt="" width="752" height="800" /></p>

<p>The problem is, assuming that you have a Canon EF 1.4X TC, neither of the lenses you're proposing will be that much sharper than what you have. You'd be better off showing us what's wrong and letting us suggest solutions with your current equipment. If you TC is not a Canon, then get a Canon.</p>

<p>The 400/f5.6 only works well with TCs on the 1D MkI, II, III and IV bodies using the single-point AF. With a T3i it'll be miserable for anything that moves.</p>

<p>I saved my pennies and got the 100-400mm.</p>

<p>It has a good range going from portrait to long tele on 35mm sensor, longer in effect on the APS-C body. I shoot fixed focal length lenses at 500mm and 600mm, so I know how much handier the zoom feature is for <em>most</em> shooting.</p>

<p>Against it is the fact that it is a fairly old lens, and someday Canon will replace it. But the new one will be lots more expensive, and you'll probably have to wait a long time for it.</p>

<p>Did I mention that it is white (or what passes for it) and is often mistaken by helicopter snipers for a rocket launcher? But those are true of the 400mms too, aren't they?</p>

<p>I personally wouldn't buy a new lens at this focal length without IS of some kind.</p>

<p>I had an older (no IS) 300mm f/4L and the 1.4x II. It was a good combo, but... the older 300 doesn't focus very close, having to add/remove the TC is slow, and focusing was very slow with the TC in place. Without IS, for me it was a tripod- or beanbag-only lens.</p>

<p>I replaced that with the 100-400 in early 2012. Now I have IS, much faster focusing, the convenience of zoom, and closer focus. I tested the zoom with a very solid tripod, and live view (mirror up) and found the optics are on par wide open with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS at f/4 (I consider this an excellent result).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I prefer the 400mm, f5.6 lens to the 100- 400mm lens. I read reviews of the zoom being less sharp. I already have a 100-300mm lens from canon ( discontinued unfortunately).<br>

The prime has no IS , but is cheaper and lighter. I use it for wildlife and bird photography. I add the 1.4 extender and get nice results. Autofocus with extender 1.4 tc works on EOS 3 and EOS 1V ( film bodies). I shoot handheld mostly.<br>

I use with my EOS 3 and its nice. I do notice a very slight focussing speed reduction when using the teleconverter, but its very minor. The focussing mechanism is twist type: one twists the ring . The 100- 400 uses push -pull and I dint like that. It also feels heavier.<br>

I never knew the 2x extender could work with the 400 prime. Thanks for the info: I will check that out ( will need to use manual focussing though, I guess)</p>

<p> </p>