100-400 impressions from 400 5.6 owners

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Had all my gear stolen and am considering a 100-400 as part of my replacement kit just for upcoming long term field work in India. Will be used on a 5d2. I have used the 400 5.6 prime exclusively for more than a decade for many thousands of shots and I am very used to the consistently outstanding image quality from it wide open.<br /> <br /> I would like to get impressions about relative image quality at the supertele end from people that have actually owned and used both of these lenses. Not to be rude, but <em>please </em>only respond if you have actually owned and used both. The flexibility of the 100-400 is a big draw, but I have a high expectation of IQ at the 400mm focal length. What have been you're experiences in going between these two?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>As I recall Brett didn't believe me in another thread a couple weeks back when I said I used to own an 400 5.6L and 7D, so whatever, rock his world.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>If you have something helpful to say, contribute, if not, quit wasting people's time. You should know that after ten years here.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Your attitude is inspiring Brett. Amazing guy. You disagreed with me in the 400 5.6 thread and publically called me a liar, writing I couldn't have owned the 400 5.6 since my experience wasn't the same as yours. And now you've changed for the better and desire to actually read differing opinions than yours? I hope so. God bless you for going the extra mile.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Brett, I own both. The 100-400 is a great lens, and its versatility is why I like it so much. But for top image quality at the 400 end, I'll stick with the 400 5.6. As someone else once said, the 100-400 is much better than the 400 5.6 at all focal lengths from 100-399. I see you do a lot of wildlife shots, and I think the 100-400 makes it much easier (safer?) to get the shot you want since you can recompose with zoom. I do like the lighter weight of the 5.6, but I find it sometimes restricts my composition when I can't move for fear of spooking my subject or other physical restrictions.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Thanks Mark, I appreciate the input.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0">This tells it all</a>.</p>

[richard_crowe4]

<p>I have not owned both lenses, but I have used the 100-400mm on several ocasions and I own a 400mm f/5.6L. I bought the 400mm f/5.6L as part of a package deal along with a 300mm f/4L IS. Here's the way I look at the 400mm f/5.6L and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L...<br />I always use at least two cameras so being restricted to 300mm and 400mm is no big problem. However, there are times, as when flying around Alaska, my kit weight was drastically restricted and I didn't want to carry a pair of lenses. I made do quite well with the 300mm f/4L IS and a 1.4x TC. The 300mm (without TC) also gives me a stop of extra light because the 100-400mm is f/5.6 at 300mm.<br />The 400mm is a great lens but, I really wish that it had IS. Even though the IS on the 100-400L is old school, it still helps.<br />The 400mm doesn't focus as close as the 100-400mm. I find 11.5 feet MFD as pretty restricting. The 100-400mm focuses down to 5.6 feet.<br />I don't notice a great difference in the weight of the two lenses. The .3 pounds difference is hardly noticeable. However carrying the extra camera with 300mm lens along with the 400mm lens and camera is pretty heavy.<br />I cannot say if I noticed any great difference between the lenses in either a/f speed or I.Q.. There might be a difference but, it must be fairly slight. The 400L has blazing A/F speed an accuracy and its I.Q., even wide open, in phenomenal. I didn't shoot fast moving objects with the 100-400L.<br />The problem I sometimes have using the 400mm is picking up a small object such as a plane or a bird that is fairly far off. With the 100-400mm; I could simply zoom back to a shorter focal length, center the object and then zoom out to 400mm. However, I have this old Topcon wire sportsfinder which allows me to get the subject in the view of my lens. It weighs next to nothing and puts me in the ballpark regarding framing my subject.<br /><br /><a href="<a href="http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/Photo-Equipment/12760684_a6QWH#1049079880_Sk7CZ-A-LB">http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/Photo-Equipment/12760684_a6QWH#1049079880_Sk7CZ-A-LB</a>" title="Photo & Video Sharing by SmugMug"><img src="<a href="http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/Photo-Equipment/Topcon-Sportsfinder/1049079880_Sk7CZ-M.jpg">http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/Photo-Equipment/Topcon-Sportsfinder/1049079880_Sk7CZ-M.jpg</a>" title="Photo & Video Sharing by SmugMug" alt="Photo & Video Sharing by SmugMug"></a></p>

<p><br />If I were going to buy long lens(s) again, I might just select the 100-400mm over the 400mm f/5.6L IS. This decision would be influenced by the versatility of the 100-400L. If I did not own the 300L; I would definitely opt for the 100-400L.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<blockquote>

<p>The 400mm is a great lens but, I really wish that it had IS</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that's a common refrain: if Canon would offer an IS version of this lens I think the sales numbers would outstrip the non-IS version.</p>

[martin-s]

<p>I don't own either of these two lenses, but if I were looking to extend my reach to 400mm, I would definitely prefer the zoom for its flexibility or as Mark sums it up:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I see you do a lot of wildlife shots, and I think the 100-400 makes it much easier (safer?) to get the shot you want since you can recompose with zoom. I do like the lighter weight of the 5.6, but I find it sometimes restricts my composition when I can't move for fear of spooking my subject or other physical restrictions."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The slight quality advantage of the fixed-focal lens is academic for real world use.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Thanks for the feedback. Appreciated.</p>

[peter_langfelder]

<p>A direct comparison is described in an <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml">old article on the Luminous Landscape</a>.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>5DII and 7D are very tough on lenses (especially the 7D) so I suggest that you go with the prime. If you don't need the 5DII IQ and high ISo performance then the 7D is a great (and cheaper) alternative. For the best of both world buy both (this is what I did and the 7D has pretty much replaced my old 1DIIN). If you do take the 7D option then the 300 f4 L IS is a great lens and gives a 420mm equivalent. I have personally never used the 400 F5.6 but onw the 300 f4 and have used the 100-400 quite a few times. I am persoinally not a big fan of the 100-400 but I don't get on with slow lenses and hate the push pull zoom design. Optically the 100-400 is not bad but it is not in the same league as a prime or L series 70-200 zoom. It is getting old and I suspect must but up for replacement soon. Indeed perhaps the 70-300 L is part of a replacement strategy that will see a 200-400 zoom arrive - there have been runours for years although if it is F4 it will be very expensive (the Nikon is $5700)</p>

[gavin emmons photography]

<p>Brett, I've owned and used both lenses, and ended up selling the 400mm F5.6 lens and keeping the 100-400mm lens. The 400mm prime is certainly a sharp lens with fast and reliable AF, but as others have mentioned, I appreciate the convenience of the zoom, especially when trying to travel light overseas and in the backcountry. I actually used both the prime and the zoom together while visiting the Falkland Islands... As noted previously, the shorter minimum focus distance of the zoom lens was critically important, particularly for images of small birds, and the IS was a welcome addition for long periods of hand-holding the lens. The AF of the prime lens did seem superior for flight shots, but not exceptionally better, at least in reasonably good light.</p>

<p>As for image quality of both lenses wide open... I think it depends a lot on the copy variation of the 100-400mm lens you pick up. After using and being a bit unsatisfied with an initial copy of the 100-400mm lens, I searched carefully and picked up a second copy that was demonstrably sharper at all apertures and particularly wide open. With this current zoom I use it frequently for wildlife and landscape photos. It isn't a perfect lens by any means, but it is extremely versatile.</p>

[elliotte_harold]

<p>It all comes down to what you shoot. I've used both for birds, and I find that I almost always have the 100-400 stretched all the way out. At 400mm the prime demonstrably outperforms the 100-400. Not that the zoom isn't a great lens. but the prime is even better at 400mm. It's cheaper and lighter. The IS on the 100-400 just isn't all that useful for what I shoot (birds) where subject movement dictates a fast shutter speed anyway.<br>

If you're shooting something else (not birds) where you'll actually need the range from 100-399mm, then the zoom's incredibly useful. Personally though, I find 100 to 399mm to be a dead zone. Everything I want to shoot is either wider or farther than that.<br>

One other combo to consider that a lot of people like is the 300mm f/4 plus a 1.4x teleconverter. This gives you even more length (420mm), image stabilization, the option to shoot at 300mm if you actually find anything that's framed better at 300mm than 400mm, and much closer focus. It's a killer combo for butterflies and other flying insects.<br>

Ultimately it comes down what you'll shoot with the lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[dillan k]

<p>I faced a similar dilemma back in May, and the ultimate winner for me was the 300mm f/4L IS. I was less than thrilled with the handling of the 100-400mm, and to be honest I'm not really a zoom kind of guy. I decided to try for maximum sharpness, so it was down to the 300 f/4L IS and the 400mm f/5.6L. The 400mm is a great lens: it's relatively light and blazingly sharp, but I immediately saw the advantage of IS. Honestly, IS wasn't even on my list of 'must haves' before I played with the 300mm f/4L IS in the store. I'm glad that I bought the 300mm, because IS really helps me. I tend to be pretty casual about my photography, and I like to travel light (no car!), so IS helps me get a lot of shots that I would have missed with the 400mm f/5.6L. The 100-400mm comes with the same IS, so if you want a zoom, it's not a bad choice. It all comes down to what YOU feel you need.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>Brett, I have the 100-400 L lens, I bought it used from a local camera shop, it was a rental lens. Got a great price. I only have a 40D, get great photos with it. I have a heavy Induro tripod with a Manfroto ball style head that can handle 25 lbs-30lbs. I found when doing wild life at about 100 yards, 380-400mm I do manual focus I can get very sharp images. though auto focus is hit or miss at that range. It may be that it is just the age of the lens. When shooting stuff closer and around 100-200 mm I usually get good results with auto focus too, though I am preferring to manual focus on a lot of lenses I use when I have the time. <br>

To the point, it is a great lens though not a fast lens, especially on the 40D, but with a higher end full frame camera and higher ISO capability you may be even more pleased with the lens than me and I am pretty darn happy to have it in my arsenal of lenses.</p>