Canon 100-400mm f4-5.6 L IS vs. 500 mm f4 IS L

[fotogen]

Does anyone have experiences with both of these lenses to see which one produces

sharper images? I own the 100-400 mm but compare my images with other bird

photographer who own the 500 mm lens and mine are not as sharp as some of the

people who have take similar images with the 500 mm Lens. I do understand that

you get what you pay for, but is it really true for this lens?

 

Here is an example of my images with the 100-400 mm

http://www.pbase.com/fotogen/bald_eagle

 

Is this lens really worth the $5500.00 it is priced at?

 

Thanks

Hadi

[bryan_lardizabal]

"Worth it" is a relative to how much you're willing to invest for 500mm focal length. At $5,500, the 500mm f4 is not cheap but look at what is gained: constant f4 prime lens and top notch IQ. You could add the 1.4x TC to your lens but you would lose autofocus and a stop and IQ.

 

If you have the money IMO it is worth it -- I surely want one someday

[John Crowe]

Yes the big expensive L prime lenses are incredible. You have to decide if its worth the investment.

[ken munn]

It may be a 'better' lens, but looking at your bald eagle shots, it seems to me that you getting

terrific results with the 100-400, so you have to ask yourself whether you really need a

longer lens.

[mary_kossik]

Hadi:

I posted the same question about 2 months ago. Shortly thereafter I purchased the 500mm and a bunch of accessories including a full gimbal head. There is a real learning curve (at least for me) using this lens. It's big, it's nothing like handling the 100-400 and it takes a while (at least for me) to "get it." I'm not saying I am anywhere close to great with this lens yet. I was much better, quicker with the 100-400. I used my 100-400 on a BushHawk and found the transition tedious at first (I am impatient). In any event the 500 is way sharper than the 100-400; just like everyone told me. Is it worth the $? It depends on how much $ you have and what you want to do with the pictures. It's personal or professional and it's not cheap. I bought the insurance through B&H. The one thing I will say is that I now can get pictures I could not, but sometimes I cannot get pictures I could....In other words, when I'm sitting with the 500 and another bird sits out in front of me and I have an opportunity for a great shot, I can't get it with the 500, but I could with the 100 and it would be a sharp shot, cuz it's damn sharp except wide open. Overall the 100-400 is still a great lens. Rent it first and see what you think, but use it to death while you have it. Another thing is I am having a tough time adjusting to the gimbal head, never having used one before. I have been eyeing that Arcatech Long Lens head and I am waiting for the reviews to come in as it is new. One last thing, I got a shot of a junvenile bald eagle out of my house, while it was snowing, all bad light, eating on a bait carcass, unheard of in southern Wisconsin. I never would have gotten the shot without that lens! Good Luck!

[mark_chappell]

I have had both lenses for a number of years. The optical quality of the 500/4 is far

better than that of the 100-400, and the difference is even larger if both lenses are used

with 1.4 X converters. The 500 is good even with a 2X converter, while the 100-400 with

a 2X is pretty much mush. But there are some caveats: you won't see that much better

image quality of the 500 unless the lens is firmly supported and handled appropriately.

The IS helps but is not a cure-all for everything.

 

As others have said, the handling qualities of the two lenses are also worlds apart. But if

you can deal with those issues, the 500 will yield considerably better images under the

vast majority of circumstances.

[fotogen]

Thank you everyone for your invaluable remarks on my question. It is a huge investment and I would only use that lens for the hobby part of my photography. I was about to sell my 100-400 and purchase the 500 mm, but I think I am going to put off on it until at least summer.

 

Thanks again everyone

Hadi

[geoffs1]

FWIW, I like shooting with two bodies, one with the 100-400mm and another with a fast prime. The 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 are favorites (thank god for CPS loaners - no way I could afford the "big glass" right now).

 

Unless you know your subject well enough to know that a prime will work (and the birders generally do), then the flexibility of the zoom is indispensable.

 

Are they worth the cost? Only you can say. The 100-400mm is a pretty outstanding value (IMHO). If you've got a few extra thousand dollars lying around I'd say "go for it". If you do, consider the flexibility of the 300mm f/2.8 and the 1.4x and 2x TCs (300mm, 420mm, and 600mm for about the price of the 500 f/4).

[davyjo]

It's fun to poke my nose into the realm where people consider buying 500mm f/4's. I just traded another entire hobby to buy a 300mm f/4 IS. If my wife ever finds out what I spent, the divorce will be swift.

 

Are those big pieces of glass worth it? Every cent. That 300mm is a marvel.

 

I can always find another wife. Well wait a minute...

[davyjo]

Oh... I should have said that my last purchase options came down to the 100-400mm IS or the 300mm IS with the 1.4 TC. Jury is still out on the 1,4 but the 300mm is an amazing piece of machinery.

[colinsouthern]

If sharpness is your main concern, and 400mm is sufficient, have you considered upgrading to the EF400/5.6 tele-prime?

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[mary_kossik]

Hadi:

One other thing...you can always resell the lens if you don't like it. Buy it now and use it for the entire spring and if it does not work out sell it. I took this approach, because I tried to buy a used one and people were paying almost new and sometimes over the best online price on sites like Ebay. It would be same or better $ than renting and you would have the entire hot season to use the lens and find out if it is worth it.

[alan_myers]

Like all of the Canon super teles, the 500mm is a top performer. At their prices, they'd better be!

 

I haven't compared it directly with the 100-400, have only occasionally used that lens and don't own it. But there's no way any zoom can approach this prime lens' quality, particularly at it's widest aperture. The same is true of the 300/2.8.

 

Just to clarify one thing, the 500/4 is big, certainly, but it's actually small enough and light enough to use with the Wimberley Sidekick gimbal head, rather than completely dedicating a tripod to long lenses only with a full gimbal head. The 400/2.8 and all the other longer lenses are heavier and larger than the 500mm, so really should use the full gimbal and, thus, a dedicated tripod.

 

Now there's nothing wrong with using a full gimbal and a dedicated tripod with the 500/4, if you wish and as Mary reports she's doing. That's probably good for some extra margin of safety. My point is that with this lens you have a choice. In fact, one reason I opted for the 500/4 instead of either the 400/2.8 or 600/4 was because it allowed me to quickly and easily use a single, good tripod for all purposes, via the Sidekick when the purpose was handling a long lens.

 

Now, some have reported getting by with the the Sidekick gimbal and the larger lenses, but I'd be a bit reluctant to risk that. Still others have reported rapid wear & tear of the Sidekick and the ballhead they were using with it, even with the smaller/lighter lenses. Personally I've used a Sidekick for 6 years now without any problems, knock on wood. Works great for me!

 

A gimbal head of any type takes a little getting used to. Generally you use a longer Arca-Swiss style quick release lens plate that allows you to move the entire lens/camera assembly back and forth a little to achieve good balance. Then leave loose both the tilt axis of the gimbal and the pan axis (either of the ballhead if using a Sidekick, or of the gimbal itself if using a full head). This supports the lens and camera very steadily, but allows you to move and swing to keep up with moving subjects.

 

It's helps a lot to have the tripod level, too. For that reason I added a leveling platform to my Gitzo fairly soon after starting to shoot with the longer lenses and the gimbal. The platform adds quite a bit of weight unfortunately, but makes accurate and level set up a whole lot faster.

 

It's not as flexible and gets more tiring, but you can get by with just a monopod. Just be darned sure it's a sturdy one capable of supporting the weight (Recently there have been some photos of a 600/2.8 that fell into a Florida swamp making their way around the Internet... A ballhead on a monopod broke and let the lens fall into the murky depths. Ouch!).

 

The 300/2.8 is hand holdable, at least for a little while. The 500/4 is pretty much not, although I've managed it for a quick shot once in a while.

 

Cheers!

[sattler123]

I have both lenses. tthe 500 is clearly the better lens, but it is a lens that needs planning for shots. My 100-400 on the other hand is a more spontaneous lens - wip it out, aim and shoot and you've got the shot. The 500 needs a tripod, no matter what anyone will tell you - it is heavy. You should have a gimbal head - I use now the full Wimberley head. When I'm at a NWR and spend all day shootimg birds, then there is no better lens than the 500. When I am out casually walking or hiking, I always bring the 100-400. If I could only have ONE of these lenses, it would be the 100-400 because of the versatility. The 500 was a huge gift to myself for my 50th birthday - that's how I justified spending all that money:-)

 

Juergen

[geoffs1]

<p>I'm not convinced the 500mm f/4 "needs a tripod". It's heavy, for sure, but I carried one around all day and never felt it was too much. I'm a big guy, but I've got elbow and shoulder problems, so I don't think my upper-body strength is above average. Same with the 300mm f/2.8.</p>

 

<p>The 400mm f/2.8, OTOH is a monster. It's the first lens where I had to remind myself to "breath!" while I had it hefted up for a series of shots.</p>

 

<p>Here's a handheld shot with the 500mm @ 1/250s:<br>

<img src="http://moving-target-photos.com/2007Oshkosh/medium/KP3B1028-015.jpg"></p>