Which is preferable between100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM and 3

[subhasis_roy]

<p>Sir,<br>

I have Canon EOS 400D with 75-300 mm USM lens. I want to upgrade my lens. my hobby is bird photography. I am confused with two lenses 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM and 300mm f/4 L IS USM. I want quality photo with fast and sharp focus in handheld photography. Pls. suggest which will be preferable for me?<br>

Subhasis Roy<br>

Sikkim,India</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM is more flexible because it is a zoom, it also has longer reach and costs more</p>

<p>The EF 300mm f/4L IS USM has f/4, it's shorter and costs less than the 100-400. Generally fixed lenses are sharper than zoom lenses.</p>

<p>For bird photography you want the longest posible focal length that you can afford. IMO the 100-400 is better for bird, simply because it's longer.</p>

 

[pto189]

<p>Please check here: <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00BzEO">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00BzEO</a></p>

[2008.]

<p> I use the canon 300mm with the 1.4 x and some time 2x extender that is what i think is best the 300mm is a nice sharp lens and not has so large or heavy as the 100 t0 400 mm owing to all it glass! if you were taking zoo shots i would think the zoom would be a good lens owing to it 100 mm setting !cheers.</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>If your main subject is birds, then the 400mm F5.6 is the best out there. Sharper than any other in this range or price/focal length. Only problem it has is the lack of IS.</p>

<p>The next one I'd recommend is 100-400mm, although it's not that sharp as the one above, unless stepped down a bit (e.g. f6.3. At f7.1 it's almost as sharp as the 400mm prime). </p>

<p>And then there's the 300mm, a great, sharp prime lens but to use for birding you need the 1.4x extender. Good luck</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Subhasis:</p>

<p>What's wrong with your current lens?</p>

<p>I favor the 300/4 IS over the 100-400. If you don't care about IS (which I did), the 400/5.6 is a contender.</p>

<p>If you are really serious about bird photography, none of these is a good choice. You'll probably end up getting a 500/4 or 600/4 at some point. </p>

<p>Eric</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>If your main subject is birds, then the 400mm F5.6 is the best out there. Sharper than any other in this range or price/focal length. Only problem it has is the lack of IS.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope.</p>

<p>Current 100-400mms are as sharp as any lens needs to be - there's nothing to choose between them and the prime - and you get a better minimum focusing distance, <em>far</em> more versatility and, as you say, IS.</p>

<p>Certainly in <em>Real World</em> use (as opposed to basing my opinions on whatever I read on the web that happens to play to my prejudices, which seems to be what many people do) my 100-400m lens (a 2006 lens) wide open is capable of producing images <em>that want for absolutely nothing compared to the prime</em> , and I've got 100-399mm to play with too - I use focal lengths less than 400mm a lot in my bird photography.</p>

<p>Subhasis,</p>

<p>you really can't go wrong with the 100-400mm as an all-round, versatile, capable birding lens - and with a 1.4x TC attached you get 560mm.</p>

<p>A few randomly-selected examples of birds and beasts:</p>

<p>http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/carrion_crow_st_marys_1a.jpg<br>

http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/mute%20swan%201af.jpg <br /> http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/horse%202.jpg <br /> http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/lapwing%201f.jpg <br /> http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/mandarin%203f.jpg <br /> http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/mandrill%201f.jpg <br /> http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/farm%20goose%201f.jpg <br /> http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/canada%20goose%205f.jpg <br /> http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/pheasant3ff.jpg <br /> http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/canada_goose_fav_2.jpg <br /> http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/0136b7a1.jpg</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Urghhh...</p>

<p>I've no idea why the forum is turning the first URL into "(link)"...</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>Keith:</p>

<p>On this forum I would not make a statement like this if I did not test it myself. I will never say "this is better than that" if I have no real experience with both "subjects". I don't really trust internet reviews :)</p>

<p>I have both lenses (400mm f5.6 and a last year made 100-400mm). I have also tested/tried 300mm F4 before getting these two.</p>

<p>I am not saying the 100-400mm is not sharp, I am saying the 400mm is sharper than the zoom, and that's a fact. You will indeed read this on most of the reviews on the net, this is one time they are right. I took many thousands of pictures with both lenses, various cameras (50D, 300D, 350D, 400D etc), and 400mm outperforms the other in terms of sharpness.</p>

<p>Versatility, now that's another thing.</p>

<p>EDIT: I have looked at your photos, yes indeed they are sharp and I get the same sharpness from my photos using this lens. But I am talking about pixel-peeping the photo at original size.<br>

This one is taken with 400mm: http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8693734-lg.jpg<br>

The fact is, this sharpness is the same at the 100%. I can't say the same for pictures taken with the 100-400.</p>

<p> </p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I don't do birds as a rule, but I noticed that all the images linked to so far are in bright light. I have noticed however, that birds tend to like the morning and evening when the light is not so good. Eric stated it well if you are very serious about birds eventually you will go the 500 or 600mm lens. I personally use the Sigma 100-300 f/4, but, again I do not normally do birds except for my camera club contest.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Although I own a 100-400 I am not going to join this debate. Mine is also fairly new. It works for my purposes. </p><div></div>

[kentw]

<p>I agree with Diana. I too own both the 100-400 and the 400 f/5.6 prime, and I believe that the 400 prime is sharper. (This is not to say, obviously, that the 100-400 is not sharp.) I also believe that the 400 prime is faster in attaining focus and holding focus (important for photographing birds). But I still like my 100 - 400 for its versatility: for example, its minimum focusing distance is 5.9 ft as compared to the 400 prime's 11.5 ft.<br>

I also agree with Eric and Manuel: for birds, 400 mm is not long enough. This is the bird photographer's lament. Yes, I expect you will want the 500 or 600 whether or not you can afford to drop $5K or more on a lens for your hobby. But I predict that these won't be long enough either. Go for the 800 mm IS lens! Hey, it's only a little more than $10.6K. I plan to trade in my car for one. Of course, when I do that, I'll need an even longer lens, since I won't have transportation to get to where the birds are! Until I get the 800, I'll work on my stalking skills, exercise patience in just sitting and waiting for the birds to come closer, or invest in a blind (over $10K cheaper than the 800).<br>

Good luck.</p>

[sattler123]

<p>It's a questio of needs/prioroties. I believe that the 300 will not satisfy you for bird photography. So, it's between the 100-400 and the 400 prime. The 100-400 is a great versatile lens and it has IS, which is a life saver in many situations. You also get a minimum focus distance that cannot be beat by the prime. The 100-400 will allow you to shoot hand held even with relatively low shutter speeds.<br>

For bird in flight photography, IS becomes much less important (although the 100-400 has a panning IS mode) and the 400 prime would be the better choice. It locks on to the subject faster and has generally speaking faster focus than the 100-400.</p>

<p>It really is up to you now to chose - the facts have all been stated by the numerous posters above. If it were me, I'd get the 100-400 for its versatility.</p>

[stillbound]

<p>from what i've seen and gettign to play with both lenses (in a store unfortunately) the prime (as usual) is the better lens<br>

The 100-400 is definitely more flexible but the prime to me is sharper with better colors...<br>

Not to turn this into a wish thing but if they'd just add IS to it then it would truly be a no brainer<br>

Stark-Arts</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>The decisive factor for me is handholdability (if that's a word), and that's why I opted for the 100-400. It's just not practical for me to carry and use a heavy tripod while I'm hiking, and that's when I tend to use that lens most. My walkabout kit consists of a 100-400, 24-105/4 L, 17-40/4 L, and, sometimes, an 80-200/2.8 L. If I were to add a tripod to that load, I'd need to hire an assistant to help me carry it.</p>

<p>Since you want "sharp focus in handheld photography," Subhasis, it seems that the 100-400 is your best choice. And, as others have implied, 400mm is the minimum focal length you'd want to have for birding.</p>

[david_wu6]

<p>I had the same question before and ended up getting the zoom for versatility.</p><div></div>

[marco_hidalgo]

<p>I agree with Diana and Kent. The 400 prime is sharper, the 100-400 is more versatile, and any 400 falls a bit short for bird photography. I decided to get the 400 f5.6L instead of the the 100-400 because I rather use a smaller and lighter zoom lens for the very much used 100-200 focal length, like the 70-200 f4 L or even better, the IS version of this lens.</p>

[bob_howdeshell]

<p>I equate a photographers "kit" to a set of golf clubs. There is a correct club for each "shot" depending on your game, abilities and the situation. When I decided that I really enjoyed bird photography I gave away my "god awful" 75-300 lens and purchased a 100-400. I was very happy with the lens (and still am). After a bit I purchased the 400 f/5.6, mainly because I did not have good luck with a teleconvertor on the 100-400, even when taping the pins.</p>

<p>The 100-400 had advantages over the 400 and the 400 over the zoom, but I was happy with both. I found that I did better with the 100-400 hand held and better with the 400 on a tripod, no doubt due to the 100-400's IS feature and my own skills and abilities. But I was able to get lucky at times and get some wonderful images with both.</p>

<p>Next up I purchased a 70-200 f/4L IS, which I still have and really enjoy as well. It has become a loyal and trusted "club" in my bag. Of course there was finally (well probably not the final addition) the gift from Santa this Christmas of the 500mm f/4L IS. Wow, just does not seem to sum up this lens.</p>

<p>After all my rambling ...... If I were starting over I would probably get the 400 f/5.6 and then the 70-200IS. Of course if the budget allows then skip ahead to the 500, or the 600. But the 600 is another whole discussion due to size and weight. Oh and somewhere in all that the purchase of a 1.4 teleconvertor is recommended.</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents worth ... Oh and if anyone has a 300mm f/2.8L IS laying around, that they don't want .... I'll take it off your hands! :-)</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>The original poster was asking about the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS vs. the 300mm f/4L IS. He/she never mentioned anything about the 400 f/5.6L, you're all wasting your time and went off topic discussing whether one is sharper or focuses faster than the other.</p>

<p>Subhasis Roy,<br>

<br />For bird photography you want the longest possible focal length that you can afford. For you in this case 100-400 is better than the 300, simply because it's longer. If you're also interested in the 400 f/5.6L, please let me know and I will gladly tell you how it is.</p>

 

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>A 300 f/4 with a 1.4 teleconvertor gives you a 420mm lens with f/5.6. 420 is longer then 400 and the 300 is lighter. Personally I prefer not have a push pull lens.</p>

<p>Sinh if we are sticking strickly to the subject your last paragraph is off topic, it was not needed so you are wasting your time;-)</p>

[rogerleekam]

<p>I use the 400mm 5.6 which gets a very high optical rating (as primes generally do). No IS but a light monopod is adequate and easy to carry attached to the lens. 100-400 is not as optically sharp (see Michael Reichmann's www.luminous-landscape.com) but for practical purposes is extremely good. It has IS but is larger and heavier to carry than the 400 prime, also more expensive. Most birders seem to prefer the 400 even though it isn't as versatile.</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>Manuel, perhaps you should read that paragraph again, I'm still sticking to the subject and recomemding the 100-400 over the 300 prime. If the OP wants to know more the 400 prime, then we can tell him about it, if not there's not point of talking about that lens if the original OP has no interest in it, and to this point we haven't heard anything from the OP. Most of the posts are about the 100-400 vs. 400 prime.<br>

BTW, at least you stick the the topic :)</p>

[marco_hidalgo]

<p>Sinh,<br>

The OP asked about two lenses and the interest in bird photography. This forum is about giving advice, sharing and showing options previously not foreseen. Talking about the use of other lenses and equipment makes the posts richer, with more options and of course, much more valuable for everyone.<br>

If you can't see the benefit of these posts, don't waste our time with your comments outlining limits.</p>

[derrickdehaan]

<p>Although I have never used either lens, I too will "enrich" this topic with my personal experiences. I got interested in bird/wildlife photography and purchased a Sigma 50-500. After a few months of correcting CA, I decided to purchase a Canon prime instead. I never used the Sigma anywhere except 500mm, and always wanted more reach. I bought the 600mm f/4 IS. My advice....get the longest you can afford. And stick with a prime for quality. A 1.4 teleconverter works fantastic on most primes.</p>

<p>Derrick</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>Marco, go back and read all the posts. Some of the stuff has nothing to do witht he OP's interest. What I see is people trying to prove whether one lens is sharper than the other, one of those lenses is the 400 f/5.6 which we have no idea if the OP is actually interested in. BTW the OP asked about two specific lenses, and which is preferable to him, it wasn't about a general question like "I want to get into bird photography, can someone recommend me a lens". I'm going to stop here, I've already made my point clearly.</p>

<p>I agree with people who recommend the 100-400 in this thread. </p>

<p>Subhasis for bird photography, if you can afford the 100-400, go for it. It's sharp and focuses very fast and it's a zoom so it's very versatile. If you want something cheaper then the 300 is a good choice. I see no reason to buy an extender for the 300, because the cost of both the lens and the extender would be equal to that of the 100-400. One thing I like about the 300 is its 1.5m mimimum focus distance, with a long focal length and short MFD, the 300 makes a great close up lens. Viewing samples from both lenses at 100% the 300 has an edge, but that's just pixel peeping.</p>