I'm thinking about getting this lens. I mainly shoot surfing on a 7d though if the 7d ii comes out i will upgrade. I was wondering if this lens would be a good option, or if i should try something else.
Without knowing what you want to shoot with the lens, it's hard to provide advice. If birding, all the birders would probably unanimously say go for the 400 F5.6. However, I tried it and with IS it was just not workable for me. I moved to the 100-400 and have been very happy with that lens. The AF is not as fast as the prime, but it works for me and what I shoot. YMMV.
The IS can be very helpful if you're not panning to follow the action.
If you want to pan action, mode 2 IS designed to cater to that. I have both the 100-400 and the prime and both are very good but if I were to have only one I would opt for the zoom.
Lotuselite wrote:
...If you want to pan action, mode 2 IS designed to cater to that...
Agreed, but I now prefer to pan with IS off, as many subjects don't go in either just-horizontal or just-vertical directions, which is what Mode 2 is designed to cope with.
I don't think the 100-400 is weather resistant so if you are going to be in area's with a lot of sea spray it might be something to think about especially given the push pull design of the zoom.
The 400/5.6L isn't sealed, either. OTOH, when I photograph surfers on a windy day with my sealed 1D-series cameras and sealed L-lenses, I use Think Tank raincoats.
For the money, the 400mm f/5.6 is one of Canon's great deals. I use it for wildlife and landscape all the time. Quick AF and good IQ (on 1Dxx cameras). No, its not sealed, but not sure how much photography in these 2 categories is done in lousy weather.
Since surfing is usually a sunny experience I would opt for the 400 5.6. Having owned one it is a superb lens given enough light. The 100-400 is really a 100-380 or something like that. I have never used one but really liked the prime.
If you're going to have a 2 camera setup, then I'd go with the 400 f/5.6L on one of them, and the flexibility of a shorter zoom on the other. However if you're going to have only one camera body, I'd prefer the flexibility to zoom out, because if you want to catch any "atmosphere" and beach shots, 400mm may be quite a bit too long...The possibility of the 100-400L looks the best solution to me. Again, unless ALL your shots are long shots, get a zoom.
reno.peterson wrote:
If you're going to have a 2 camera setup, then I'd go with the 400 f/5.6L on one of them, and the flexibility of a shorter zoom on the other. However if you're going to have only one camera body, I'd prefer the flexibility to zoom out, because if you want to catch any "atmosphere" and beach shots, 400mm may be quite a bit too long...The possibility of the 100-400L looks the best solution to me. Again, unless ALL your shots are long shots, get a zoom.
I would agree with this...I have a 400 5.6L, but usually carry it in a backpack with my 70-300L, so I understand the need for flexability.
One more thing to consider- if you plan to use a 1.4TC with the lens, unless it's a 1D body, the 400 5.6L will AF much better than the 100-400, at least that's my experience using my 7D and a non-reporting Kenko 1.4TC.
I owned a 400L, and have used a 100-400 quite a few times. The 100-400 is simply more useful than the prime. Why would you want to have to swap lenses on the beach, when you could just use the zoom with the same IQ?
I went down this road years ago. As Timbop says the zoom is much more useful. The utility greatly outweighs the prime. I use mine mainly for surfing, airshows and wildlife.
When shooting the surfing competitions, there are many times when 100mm comes in handy for shooting pics. Whether it is people on the beach, or a surfer running to the water or a broken board etc. I think all my surfing pics on my site were shot with the 1-4. You can see them here: http://sscphoto.zenfolio.com/p7812882
I have thousands of other pictures using the 1-4 not on my site, from the surfing comps when 100to 250mm was helpful and 400mm was too much.
