I have the 400 5.6 and a 70-200 2.8 and the 1.4X and 2X VIII TCs, but when I go out for birds and critters, it is almost always the 100-400 that I grab. The flexibility to zoom in to 400 for a few shots then to quickly zoom out to 100-200 to allow some of the surroundings in a shot is great. I'll usually throw the little pancake 40 in my pocket too.
My vote is for the 100-400 and sell or keep the 400.
I have the 500/4 and had the 400/5.6. The 400 is a wonderful lens, no doubt but I never used it after gettinng the 500. Given the $, why not the new Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS? I am not a fan of the Canon 100-400.
lowa2 wrote:
Thanks for that. Up to now, I've only heard good reports.
Charles
Don't get me wrong IQ of the 300 f/4IS + 1.4x is good, but it needs to be stopped down a little for best results, but 100-400L is fine wide open and takes a 1.4x remarkably well, whereas a 300 f/4L IS + 2x is not a pretty sight at all.
gasrocks wrote:
My experience was that the 100-400 was not fine wide open and did not take a 1.4x TC well at all.
That was my experience as well, but there are a lot of FM'rs that have posted great results wide open with this lens. If internet lore is to be believed, there was a lot a variability in early batches of this lens. If it was me, I'd only buy a new, or a newer used version.
I have both a 100-400mm and a 400mm f/5.6. I tend to use the 100-400 most because of its versatility. But the 400 is definitely sharper wide open than the 100-400 is at 400mm, and the 400 autofocus is quicker. I'll opt for the 400 for BIF when the light is good and I'm sure I'll be focal length limited.
drobertfranz wrote:
70-300mm L is what I'd go with!
Plus 1^ It is an excellent lens to go with what you have. I have both the 100-400 and the 70-300 and find myself carrying the 70-300 and my 500 f4 the majority of the time.
Norm
gasrocks wrote:
My experience was that the 100-400 was not fine wide open and did not take a 1.4x TC well at all.
Sounds like you have a rare dud.
Mine was as good as my 400 f/5.6L wide open @ 400mm, or so close as to not make a difference and it's still excellent wide open with the 1.4x TC attached. I sold the 400 f/5.6L, but it does have significantly faster AF than the zoom for action work.
tarnis wrote:
Was hoping for a 100-400 mkii by now...have heard very 'mixxed' reviews on that one.
Mixed reviews on the 100-400L bascially go:
Wow that's a great lens
Wow that's an excellent lens
Wow, this is a wonderful lens
Most of the others are bogus, unless they specifically got a dud, and then you shouldn't be wriitng reviews until it's fixed.
Nearly all the bad press for this lens is traced back to a Luminous Landscape article many years ago, that showed the 400 f/5.6L trouncing it. Based on their massive sample, size of one, it became internet folk lore that 100-400L was crap.
Some claim lenses built after 2005 seem to have better QC and IQ, but whether or not this is true 100-400L is IMO best all round semi-budget wildlife/close-up lens you can get.
drobertfranz wrote:
70-300mm L is what I'd go with!
+1
I really like my 100-400, but the 70-300L is sharper, smaller & lighter.
If 300 is long enough for you, then it seems to be the better of the two.
My trusty 70-200f4IS is the only reason I don't own one.
Agree the 100-400L deserves consideration. My copy is very sharp throughout the zoom range. At 400mm at f/5.6, it is considerably sharper than my 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X III, which is the only other Canon "zoom lens" that matches its 400mm reach, speed, and portability.
About the only negative aspect of the 100-400L (other than the 2-stop IS system and the push-pull configuration which you may like or not) is that the bokeh at 400mm is a bit nervous compared to a 400mm prime. However, this is less of an issue on full frame, and in many shots won't be noticed.
