p.2 #1 · Can anyone comment on the comparison between 400L f5.6 & 100-400L?
jason.alabama wrote:
This is a general observation:
The fact that these two lenses are often compared to one another with no definite winner implies to me that they are very close to being the same lens. I do understand that in some circumstances these differences can be significant. However, for more bang for the buck, I would spend my money on a lens that allows me to accomplish something completely different to the lenses that I already own. An example would be if I had the 100-400L, perhaps instead of getting a 400 f5.6, I would instead get a macro lens. Or maybe take the money that I would have used on the 400 f5.6, and save up another year or two and then splurge on the 400 f2.8....Show more →
good points, I have many many lens....most are L, I keep looking a the 400 2.8 but really cant pull the trigger for a $6k lens. I realize that as long as I take care of it there is a good chance that it will hold a large amount of its value.
I had a 17-35 2.8, 28-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 that I gave my daughter (in hopes that I would get more photos of my grandson). The 28-70 I really hadn't used for several years while the other two I had newer copies.
If I was going to get it, I need to get it while I am still working, I will find it even more difficult to spend the $ when I am retired.....
p.2 #2 · Can anyone comment on the comparison between 400L f5.6 & 100-400L?
dmcharg wrote:
i rented 300 f4, 400 5.6 and compared to my 100-400 and my conclusion was the flexibility of the zoom far outweighs any tiny differences in IQ.
perfect, thank you! I have a 300 f4 that I bought used, and gives great shots, but as you and others pointed out that the zoom flexibility is fantastic.
p.2 #4 · Can anyone comment on the comparison between 400L f5.6 & 100-400L?
I own both the 100-400 zoom and the 400 5.6 prime. The zoom is good for most types of shooting. Its AF does well even with small birds if you plan to stop down to f6.3 - f8 or more. However, the prime is the clear winner when used wide-open with fast, small targets. For example, you won't see shots of swallows in flight taken with the zoom wide open unless there is some kind of crutch used to augment the auto focus. What I mean by a crutch is pre-focusing, focusing on a nearby object, or shooting the bird when it is stopping in air and such. I'm not saying the 100-400 is a slouch, I'm just pointing out that when you push the performance capabilities of a 400mm lens then the prime is a clear winner.
p.2 #5 · Can anyone comment on the comparison between 400L f5.6 & 100-400L?
I had both and when I was using the 100-400, 99% of the time it was at the 400mm end. I used a friends 400mm and loved it. I sold the 100-400 and have been happy..It makes a great wildlife lens (with reach limitations) but I think BIF is what it's known for most:
p.2 #7 · Can anyone comment on the comparison between 400L f5.6 & 100-400L?
Wow, most recommended the zoom in this thread, I am supprised.
I've owned 3 copies of the 400f5.6L prime, and they are all stellar copies. While I can't comment on the 1-4 zoom, I am really impressed with the prime.
Since the lens is fairly simple (less elements/groups/no IS compared to the zoom), it's harder for anything to go wrong. Moreover, I use this lens for birds so I am still limitted by the 400mm, I don't care too much about the 100-399mm
Below are some shots, some with 1.4TC, and the last one with 2xTC:
p.2 #8 · Can anyone comment on the comparison between 400L f5.6 & 100-400L?
hsk06 wrote:
Wow, most recommended the zoom in this thread, I am supprised.
I've owned 3 copies of the 400f5.6L prime, and they are all stellar copies. While I can't comment on the 1-4 zoom, I am really impressed with the prime.
Since the lens is fairly simple (less elements/groups/no IS compared to the zoom), it's harder for anything to go wrong. Moreover, I use this lens for birds so I am still limitted by the 400mm, I don't care too much about the 100-399mm
Below are some shots, some with 1.4TC, and the last one with 2xTC:
p.2 #9 · Can anyone comment on the comparison between 400L f5.6 & 100-400L?
Romy, I am honored really !
I was inspired by your bird shots and some fellows' on FM back then when I first got into birding, and this shot was one of them I took in 2008 with 20D + 1.4TC.
However, I have more hummer shots that I don't see in your fantastic collections (what is the reason? no hummers in your area? I am really curious.)
Thanks for your comments.
p.2 #11 · Can anyone comment on the comparison between 400L f5.6 & 100-400L?
firstgear99 wrote:
thanks for the examples....by the way, damn you take nice photos!
Tony (Imagemaster) could take damn fine photos with a frigging point and shoot! Check out more of his work on the Digital Art forum, as well as the Nature forum! There is a reason he's got the moniker "ImageMaster"!
As to your question, I too tried all permutations of getting to 400mm. 400 F5.6, 100-400 zoom, and 300 F4 IS + 1.4 TC. For the way I shoot, I had to have IS, so while the 400 F5.6 is a marvelous lens for BIF, it simply didn't work for me. The 300 F4 + TC provided similar IQ to the zoom, but being a prime had limited uses FOR ME. So, I kept the zoom and it pretty much stays locked onto one of my bodies at all times. The versatility of it far outways any perceived issues with AF speed and IQ for BIF.
p.2 #13 · Can anyone comment on the comparison between 400L f5.6 & 100-400L?
If you know absolutely you'll always be shooting at 12+ feet (or whatever the MFD is on the 400) and at 400mm, then get the 400/5.6. Very fast nice lens, not heavy.
The 100-400's versatility is awesome, though, and the MFD is much better, which I surprisingly found pretty useful. The IS is pretty crappy, but better than nothing and I thought the IQ was great.
p.2 #14 · Can anyone comment on the comparison between 400L f5.6 & 100-400L?
wuchang wrote:
You might be interested in reading what this fella has to say about the differences
www.michaelfurtman.com/comparing_canon_400s.htm
And if you ever shoot an air show......take the zoom because you can't "foot zoom" fast enough when the jets make a run over the crowd
.....just sayin
Thanks Wuchang. Looking at the 3 compared images, I'd say the difference is significant between the 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400. For less than the sharpness shown there, I was willing to replace my 24-105 f/4 with a 24-70 II at more than 2 times the cost.
I'm glad I decided on the 400mm f/5.6L - costs less, better performance...why not . Unlike many of you, I found the lack of zoom and increased MFD a very minor inconvenience. Perfhaps because I shoot BIF mostly. I'd miss about 1 shot out of 200 shooting BIF for not having a zoom. I also shoot airshows...I have no problems...I situated myself so the main actions are at the right FL. Even if I couldn't situate, I'd just wait til the planes get a little farther away before I take the shot. I find the BIF and airshow action to be too fast to mess with the zoom anyways. The super-telephoto lenses (the big 400, 500, 600, 800) are mostly primes (except the 200-400)-- they don't seem to bother the BIF shooters none. The same apply, you situate yourself at the right FL where you can take most of the shots. If it's too close, I'd just take pictures of the eyes or the head...some of these end up being the best I've got.
Here's an example of what I did when things get too close - formation of 4 blue angels...I just aimed at one.
p.2 #16 · Can anyone comment on the comparison between 400L f5.6 & 100-400L?
Thanks everyone, I made the jump to a 500mm F4 w/IS (version I). In nice shape, I will be third owner. I really do appreciate the serious comments on the couple of threads I have had on long lens.
(what is the reason? no hummers in your area? I am really curious.)
