compare 100-400mm IS to 500mm IS

[mary_kossik]

I currently have the Canon 100-400mm IS lens. I am considering upgrading to

the 500mm f/4 L IS. I am shooting wildlife - mostly, literally in my backyard

which has a large (1 acre) spring fed pond with lots of birds, deer, coyotes,

fox, mink, ducks, you get the idea. I love the 100-400mm, but would still like

a bigger... "more reach." Has anyone compared these two and/or know of a web-

site that might have images to compare. The 400mm is 92x189 and the 500mm is

146x387 diameter/length that seems huge to me. I also want the 1.4 extender

for the 500mm. I am also debating renting the 500 with the extender first

since it is quite expensive, but that adds another $300. This lens will stay

home with the tripod. I mount the 400mm on the BushHawk. I don't want the

600mm I'm too small and not a weightlifter! The 400mm wears on me when I have

it mounted on the BushHawk - so any help or advice would be appreciated, it's a

lot of $$$$$.

[mark_chappell]

I have both of them (for several years). Yes, the 500 is massively bigger than the 100-

400, but with practice it can be hand-held for high shutter speeds (I do this routinely for

shooting flying birds). Or it can be used inside a hide or vehicle by resting it on a window

edge, beanbag, or the like. Although I know people who don't ever use the 500 with a

tripod, I would not recommend that for 'normal' shooting. It's MUCH easier to compose

carefully on a tripod, or to smoothly track something walking, and of course, it's just about

mandatory for dim light when exposure is long. And to be honest, it's very nice to be

able to put the rig down on the tripod and rest now and then.

 

Optically, these two lenses are simply not in the same league. The 500, even with a 1.4X,

is superbly sharp wide open and gets better as you stop down to f16 or more. It's

remarkably good with the Canon 2X, especially when stopped down a bit. The 100-400 is

just not as good, especially wide open above 300 mm. I like my 100-400 but do my best

to use it stopped down to f8 or f11, and results with a 1.4X were disappointing. Caveat:

others have reported better results with the 1.4X.

 

You definitely should try renting one of these things if you are worried about handling it.

The 500 IS is another world than what you are used to with the 100-400. And you didn't

say what tripod you have: with an 8.5 pound lens, you need a very solid one and an

excellent head.

[beauh44]

I think Mark's right on the money. But I don't know how he can hand-hold that bazooka for very long! The few times I tried, I wore out really quick! I guess I gotta hit the gym.

[mark_chappell]

<I>But I don't know how he can hand-hold that bazooka for very long! The few times I tried,

I wore out really quick!</I><P>

 

Beau, if you're envisioning me heroically standing with the lens held in shooting position for

hours on end, think again. A few minutes and I definitely need to rest!

[beauh44]

<--- Can't make it even a few minutes! HA!

[sattler123]

i own both of these lenses as well. Yes, the 500mm is in a league on its own - I use it with the 1.4 and 2x extenders. There is hardly any degradation in IQ with the 1.4, but it does get more noticeable with the 2.0. While I love the 500, I use the 100-400 much more frequently - it is so much easier to handle and for the price and reach it performs very, very well. I use the 100-400 with the kenko 300Pro 1.4 extender, which has better IQ than the Canon for that lens ( you need to tape three pins to achieve Af, but it works fine). I thought long and hard if I should really spend the money for the 500 - $5,500 is no small amount to spend on a single lens - I ended up treating me for my 50th birthday and I must say, I am glad I did. Bird photography is a joy with that lens. I use the 500 on a Gitzo CF tripod with an Arca Swiss Ballhead and that Wimberley sidekick - works like a charm.

[mary_kossik]

Thanks for all the great answers! I do have a gitzo GT2530 tripod that is rated to 26 pounds and a G1278M head that is rated to 13 pounds, but I think I would be better off with something else....I like the ball head, but the Sidekick looks more stable. I do have the Arca Swiss quick release plate on the BushHawk, but I would have to invest in a new head like the Arca ball head and Sidekick because I don't think the Gitzo head I have is compatible with the Sidekick. Thanks everyone for your input.

[mark_chappell]

<I>.I like the ball head, but the Sidekick looks more stable. I do have the Arca Swiss quick

release plate on the BushHawk, but I would have to invest in a new head like the Arca ball

head and Sidekick because I don't think the Gitzo head I have is compatible with the

Sidekick. Thanks everyone for your input.</i><P>

 

If you are planning to get a new tripod and head, consider your options carefully. If you

ONLY want to use the new setup for the 500, get a dedicated gimbal head ('full'

Wimberley, Jobu Black Widow, etc.). OTOH, if you want to use short lenses as well as the

500 on the same tripod, a SOLID ball head (Arca-swiss Z1, Kirk BH-1, RRS 55) and the

Sidekick should work fine. To save a little weight and bulk, get a replacement foot instead

of a lens plate; I use <A HREF="http://www.naturescapes.net/store/product.php?

productid=94&cat=30&page=1">this one</a> and it works fine.

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

Yes, please rent first to see how you like it.

 

I don't have the 100-400 so really can't compare them for you. Others have done that pretty well already, anyway.

 

I can tell you the 500/4 is a terrific lens that can get shots you didn't think possible. I use it with 1.4X II and 2X II with good results. There's very slight degradation with the 2X, but virtually none with the 1.4X. Mostly, images seem to warm up with the 2X, but maybe that's only with my lens and TC. Easily fixed in Photoshop, though.

 

And, yes, it is primarily a tripod lens.

 

"I use the 500 on a Gitzo CF tripod with an Arca Swiss Ballhead and that Wimberley sidekick - works like a charm."

 

Me too, except that I use a Kirk BH-1 ballhead instead. You should anticipate purchasing a good tripod and head, possible the Sidekick, if you don't already have them.

 

Note, both the Canon 600/4 and the 400/2.8 are larger and heavier lenses. In fact, the Wimberley Sidekick is not recommended for either of these. For a gimbal mount, you have to go to a full head, from Wimberley or any of the other manufacturers, which is installed on a tripod more permanently.

 

So, using the 500/4 and the Sidekick, your tripod quickly and easily converts back to standard use. Where with a larger lens you pretty much need to dedicate a tripod to use with it (it can be converted, too, but takes tools and time).

 

Even with I.S., the 500 has a lot of reach and calls for good handling techniques. That's especially true if using it with any of the crop sensor cameras!

 

Have fun trying it out! Wish I had your back yard to shoot in!

[richard_crowe4]

As Rodney used to say, "I don't get no respect!" Well neither does the Bogen-Manfrotto 3421.

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/126663-REG/Bogen_Manfrotto_3421_3421_Heavy_Tele_Lens.html

 

Perhaps this begins with the fact that even Bogen-Manfrotto cannot figure out what to call this gimbal mount! Every time I look at their website, they have called the 3421 by a different name: "Long Lens Support","Long Lens Monopod Support", and most recently "Heavy Duty Gimbal Type Telephoto Lens Support", which is probably the most accurate description.

 

The lack of respect may also come from the fact that Bogen-Manfrotto persists in using an illustration which is upside-down from the way that most photographers use this mount. Most photographers I know (including myself) use this gimbal with the open ends of both "U" shaped supports - UP and the camera resting right-side-up.

 

However, despite what the Bogen-Manfrotto folks call it, IMO if the 3421 is used in the correct way - it is an excellent heavy duty gimbal style mount which is not terribly expensive. It costs about $180 including lens plate and it was considerably less expensive last Summer (August 2007) when I bought one.

 

It works equally well on a tripod or on a monopod (which may be the reason that the Bogen folks are confused). I have followed 150+ mph hydroplane racing boats crossing my field of view at a relatively short disance with a 400mm lens with no problems. The 3421 is a very sturdy rig and could be used with lot longer and heavier lenses with no problem.

[gary_ferguson1]

I own the 500mm and I used to own the 100-400mm.

 

You really can't compare the two, the 500mm delivers stunning corner-to-corner sharpness,

handles both the x1.4 and x2.0 extenders superbly, and gives a creamy out of focus

rendition with no double images or harsh highlights. It's simpler a far, far better optic.

[mary_kossik]

"The 3421 is a very sturdy rig and could be used with lot longer and heavier lenses with no problem."

 

Now that looks very interesting for the $! I like the fact that it will go on a monopod since sometimes I like to zip outside and walk around the pond quick and fire off a couple of shots. Thank you for the link to B&H.

[mark_chappell]

Perhaps it's only me, but the idea of using a gimbal mount on a monopod seems

counterproductive. The nice thing about a gimbal is that you can point the lens easily and

it stays in balance to the point where you can let go of it and it doesn't move. With a

monopod you always want to have a death grip on the rig, especially if there is $$$$$ of

camera and lens on top of it.

 

To me it also seems a little penny-wise and pound-foolish to spend a lot of money on

lens and camera and then skimp on the tripod head. The Wimberley (regular and sidekick)

and the Jobu are extremely well made, with excellent performance and are widely

recommended. I've used both Wimberleys extensively and have been quite impressed with

a Jobu that I was considering (didn't get it because it's a little less compact than the

Wimberley).

[m_barbu1]

I have owned the 100-400, but not the 500. Of all the "L" lenses I've used, the 100-400 is the only one that has caused me to question why Canon chose to give it the designation. There are many lenses that are sharper than the 100-400 that I had (wide open, of course).

[matt_elber]

How about a 300 f2.8 IS? It depends what camera you have, though. On a 1.6 camera like a 40D it would be a good choice but on a FF or 1.3 camera you'd be better off with a 500mm. It's cheaper, lighter and will work with your current tripod setup.