400L or 100-400 L IS?

[steve_wagner1]

<p>As I mentioned in the SA post, the prime is a very high quality lens, and considering you already own the 70-200 2.8, I would think very hard before getting the 100-400. You can shoot the 400 5.6 wide open all day and feel 100% certain you will get top notch results. Color, contrast, and bokeh are also excellent. I've taken tens of thousands of frames with this lens and it never disappoints.</p>

<p>Re: close-focusing. If you need to focus closer with the prime, simply use an extension tube - or tubes. I use it with the 12mm and 25mm, separately and stack together, all the time, and it's a fantastic, very high quality setup for shooting wildflowers, butterflies, etc. Absolutely gorgeous results.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

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

<p>Yes, it is, unquestionably IMO</p>

[richard_martin10]

<p>Diana D....while all these lenses perform well I still stand by the 400 prime being the best of the lot. Of the 3 pictures you posted the one taken with the 400 is crisper, just a nicer photo. My own results prove this out also, especially anything moving. There is just a sharper edge to the photos you take with it, nicer bokeh, a real keeper!</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Juan wrote:</p>

<p><em>"But wouldnt this disable autofocus? (400 5.6 with 1.4x tele) Being that the lens will be F 6.3? Let us know how this goes."</em></p>

<p>No, the Tamron 1.4x retains AF with the 400mm f5.6, provided their is ample light and contrast in the subject, which in "typical" nature shooting works out to about 75% of the time with this combo. AF response for birghtly lit subjects with high contrast and obvious edges is essentially no slower than when using the lens alone. AF performance for tracking movings subjects is severely compromised however, to the point of being almost useless. I test the Canon and for me at least it did not retain AF at all. I have been using the Tamron with this lens for years and the quality, while a bit softer than the lens alone, but holds up fine. It's not ideal, but it works.</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>Richard Martin: I agree, out of the three, the prime is the best judging by only the quality of the end image. It has the "wow" effect.</p>

<p>As Dennis Burger mentioned, the 100-400 it's not heavy at all, it can be easily hand held by the average person. The prime feels just a tad lighter. After using the push-pull, I can't understand why not all zoom lenses use this mechanism</p>

<p>Brett Cole: that's a great idea. I never thought using extension tubes with it. I have seen people are using the 500D diopter (77mm thread) but since I already have macro lenses I never bothered looking into it more. I'll try out your solution as I shoot a lot of butterflies on flowers but I need to run backwards 5 meters to get a focus lock :)</p>

[herb_cunningham]

<p>What about the 400mm f2.8? Lot more $$, is it worth the price? I thought the photo Diane made with the 5.6 was about as good as it gets.<br>

If the only argument is for the extra two stops, it would seem a non pro photographer could wait until he got a shot with more light.</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>Herb: the best thing about the "high end" primes is that you can add the 2X and 1.4X TC's without loss of quality (sort of). Indeed you loose 2 stops with the 2X but still, you'll get 560mm f/4.0 and 800mm f/5.6 using the TCs.</p>

<p>The 2.8 is good during morning and evening when the birds are mostly active, and there's not much light to work with. Then there's the nicer background (bokeh) which you get from these.</p>

<p>Other than that I don't think there will be much difference in sharpness/image quality. The difference is $6000 in price and 24 pounds in weight :)</p>

[robert becker]

<p>I own the 100-400, but if I had to do it all over I'd go with the prime 400. I like the 100-400, but I rarely use it at less than 400 and it weighs more than the prime so I'd be better off with the prime.</p>

[dk.]

<p >Hi, it’s been awhile since I have been back to this site but saw your question and thought I would add my two cents since I have the 400mm F5.6L prime.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > You said - I wanna get more into birding and my 300 is barely cutting it.</p>

<p > Between the two you mentioned - 400 f5.6 L and 100-400 f4-5.6 L IS -</p>

<p > </p>

<p >And for what you want it for, you really only have one option as the 400mm F5.6L prime is sharper and faster and with birds this is a must. If you had said you need a long lens and are going to Africa or something like that, then I would say the zoom, as the zoom feature would have much greater importance.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But for what you want it for the prime is the only way to go. You will find you need to bump up the ISO on cloudy days unless you use a tripod. I personally always handhold it when in use and use an ISO of 400 most of the time.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But if you really get into the birds you will want the 500mm F4L IS in time as it can do many great things. But we can dream for now (me included) and get the 400mm F5.6L in the mean time.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Take care.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >DK.</p><div></div>