400 to 100-400

[sami_lahtinen]

<p>My friend proposed me a swap: his canon 400mm L 5.6 to mine 100-400 L.</p>

<p>I know that the 400 enables sharper pics but lacks the IS.</p>

<p>Would You do the swap?</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>it depends on what you shoots, the 100-400 is more versatile</p>

[hawkman]

<p>As Nate said depends on what you shoot. </p>

[matthijs]

<p>New the 100-400 is about $300 more.</p>

<p>See that you get compensated for that difference...</p>

<p>Plus I'd do some thourought tests before permanently swapping to see if the improvements in IQ and portability are worth it to me.</p>

<p>Maybe you shouldn't permanently swap but just now and then, without swapping ownership?</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Sami, take a look at your EXIF data for photos you shoot with the 100-400. If they are all at 400, or close to that, maybe it would work for you. The versatility of a zoom may outweigh differences in IQ for the prime. Only you can answer that for sure.</p>

[sami_lahtinen]

<p>can You explain the <strong>EXIF data for photos</strong> ?</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Turn the IS off, set your lens at 400mm and try and take some pictures. The choice of what to do will become obvious.</p>

[Michael Eckstein]

<p>After using a 100/400L for almost 10 years, a friend approached me with the same swap. After trying the 400 f5.6 for an afternoon I made the swap. I have always said that as a nature photographer if I could have only one lens it would be the 100/400L, but if I could have two lenses it would not be one of them. I use the 400L f5.6 and the 70/200L combo to replace the 100/400L, I feel these two lenses replace the 100/400L with superior results. My feeling about the 400L vs. the 100/400L, virtually every shot with the 400L is like the one or two best shots you get with the 100/400. It is sharper, but the main plus is the auto focus, it's much quicker to acquire AF and locks in better. My percentage of keepers for birds in flight is much. much greater. I took a burst of an egret in flight a few weeks ago and all 20 images were tack sharp. The same burst with the 100/400 woul;d have reuslted in only a few tack sharp images.<br>

The Barred Owl was taken with 50D and 400L f5.6</p><div></div>

[sami_lahtinen]

<p>Michael - thank You!</p>

<p>If I get some compensation (say 200 euros) I will do the swap and get the 70-200 + 400 combo.</p>

<p> </p>

[sami_lahtinen]

<p>BTW, does it matter how old the 400 mm is? has there bee some upgrades of this model in the last 10 or so years?</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Sami, the EXIF data includes the shooting information (aperture, shutter speed, <strong>focal length, </strong>etc) attached to your image file when the photo is taken. Most any image viewer will show this information. Of course, if you're shooting film...nevermind. </p>

[sami_lahtinen]

<p>currently I shoot with 40D</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I would not, but then it matters a lot what and how I photograph... and what and how you photograph. Neither lens is "better" than the other in an absolute sense. As is the case with most lens decisions, it is a matter of determining which compromises are best for your particular photography.</p>

<p>A 400mm prime can potentially produce slightly higher resolution at 400mm. (Of course, at other focal lengths the prime isn't quite so good... ;-) If you don't hand hold or if you only shoot at rather high shutter speeds (or if you aren't too concerned about image sharpness...) then the lack of IS may not be a big deal. If you need to shoot <em>only</em> at 400mm then the prime can be the better choice.</p>

<p>The 100-400mm zoom can produce excellent image quality. While on a test bench the prime will measure slightly better at 400mm, the difference is more one of degree than of "night and day." And, obviously, the 100-400 will work across wide range of focal lengths - if you need to adapt to varying shooting conditions the zoom can get the shot in more situations. (For example, if the wildlife is very large or very close, 400mm may be too long.)</p>

<p>So, you need to do some careful thinking about your own subjects and your own shooting methods before you consider a swap.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>I'm with G Dan Mitchell. The IQ of the 400L is only ever so slightly better at 400mm and drops of quite quickly at shorter focal lengths. </p>

<p>The IS is helpful and you can speed the focus on the 100-400 by properly setting the limiter. The primary reason that the 400L focuses as quick as it does is that it has a terribly long close focus distance (11.5 ft! vs 5.9ft for the 100-400). The upshot is that your ability to do close-in work is substantially degraded if you switch. I don't know if this is a consideration for you, but does occasionally matter to me. </p>

[vishi_anand]

<p>Like already mentioned, it depends on what you shoot often. If you main interest is birds or better yet birds in flight then 400mm f5.6 all the way. Superb AF and picture quality. But 100-400L is more versatile. I had both and used my 100-400L for people, sports, birds and landscapes. Prime was defnitely sharper wide open at f5.6 but hard to see difference in print when shooting at f8.<br>

Regarding larger MFD of the prime, get kenko extension tubes.</p>

[richard_martin10]

<p>I waffled between the 100-400 and 400 prime for my auto racing needs. The zoom is certainly more versatile but its image quality and AF speed are nowhere near as good as the prime. Here is one of the test results that swayed me off the zoom and onto the prime; <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml</a><br>

The 400 is a lens that will never leave my bag! Here's a recent shot from the American Le Mans Series race in Mosport Canada, the quality of this image is the rule rather then the exception with the 400.</p><div></div>

[alin_daju]

<p>100-400 is not sharp and I have a 2009 version.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Vishi, sure you could rectify matters with extension tubes but you would constantly be popping them on and off (and losing a bit of light for that matter). Kind of annoying if you need to do it often.</p>

<p>Just another tradeoff. </p>

[mbkissel]

<blockquote>

<p>100-400 is not sharp and I have a 2009 version.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Send it back, you obviously have a bad copy. Mine is razor sharp.</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>The 400mm prime is a bit sharper, but you need better light to nail the shots, since it doesn't have IS. The 100-400mm is very close in terms of sharpness alone, but you also have the 100-399mm range in addition :)</p>

<p>Richard: I've seen that review, but they must've had a pretty bad copy of the zoom lens. The difference in sharpness is nowhere near that big, as shown.</p>

<p>I have both, and I'm equally happy with them.</p>

[sami_lahtinen]

<p>Thanks for good set of comments.</p>

<p>Actually my option is this: keep the 100-400 or get the 400 L F5.6 AND the 70-200/ F4.</p>

<p>So the latter lens would cover the versatility issue to some extent? Also it is lighter than my 100-400 for general purpose zoom.<br>

But I am still thinking.</p>

[steve santikarn]

<p>I find the IS to be essential at 400mm, so I wouldn't trade. If you always shoot with a tripod on solid ground then maybe it is worth the exchange.</p>

[sami_lahtinen]

<p>I never shoot with a tripod - so the IS maybe important issue?</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>100-400 is not sharp and I have a 2009 version.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correction. Your experience tells you that <em>your</em> 100-400 is "not sharp." That experience cannot be generalized to the lens as a breed. Many of us who use it find it to be a very sharp lens.</p>

<p>Regarding the basic question, a way of framing it:</p>

<ul>

<li>If you do not have a 400mm lens at all and you are <em>not certain that you'll only want to shoot at 400mm</em> , get the 100-400. While the prime may be every so slightly "sharper" at 400mm if the stars align correctly (and your technique is great) the difference is small and, in most cases, not worth giving up the flexibility of the zoom.</li>

<li>If you don't have a 400mm lens at all and <em>you are certain that you'll only want to shoot at 400mm</em> then the prime is a fine option.</li>

</ul>

<p>I'd guess that the 100-400 would be the better choice for the vast majority of folks getting their first lens to cover this focal length.</p>

<p>Of all the factors that might drive your choice between the two lenses, in my opinion "sharpness" should be way down the list for most people.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[prasad_apte]

<p>I don't have any of them, but I am about to get 100-400. Prime wont work for me! But... just out of curiosity - by how much percent of sharpness 400 prime will win over the zoom at the 400mm end? (I use 400D and 5D)<br>

prasad</p>