Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2014 · 100-400 vs 400 f 5.6

  
 
gocolts
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · 100-400 vs 400 f 5.6


ggreene wrote:
Yeah, I would say they are more complimentary instead of replacements for each other.

If the Sigma sport zoom is anywhere near solid at 600 it will be a pretty sweet option to have. It's 2.5lbs lighter then the Canon prime and $10000 less in cost. Plus, I'd rather have the zoom.


I would agree about them being complimentary. I am currently using a 70-300L and Tamron 150-600 on my 7D for racetrack season. I couldn't see going with only one or the other.



Sep 22, 2014 at 05:54 PM
Garylv
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · 100-400 vs 400 f 5.6


Kathy White wrote:
.... you won't get the image quality out of either of your specified 400mm options at 560 mm that would compare with the 300 2.8 IS with a 2XIII at 600. I've had the 400 5.6 and currently have a 100 400 as well as the 300 2.8 IS with the 2XIII and if I want image quality at 600,mm I go for the 300 combo every time. Have you thought about the 70 300L on a cropped sensor camera.


Thanks Kathy. I'm not actually trying to replace the 300 f2.8 with the 400mm options. I have the 400mm f5.6 prime that I use sometimes, the 100-400 zoom would be bought to replace that one. But I was hoping for their latest stabilization in a new version, and hopefully even better optical performance than the older 100-400.

The two new Sigma 150-600mm zooms are the ones that might be considered to replace my 300mm + 2X combination. Especially the "Sport" version. Not sure I'd actually sell the 300 f2.8, that fast aperture is not easy to replace at 300mm. I bought mine when the price was still reasonable, years ago. The Sigma 150-600mm could be very handy in good lighting.




Sep 22, 2014 at 05:56 PM
sleepy717
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · 100-400 vs 400 f 5.6


I added images above and have been reading comments. Thank you to everyone, it is very helpful. Of the many things I think I need to work on, the biggest issue is involving technique. The images I posted were hand held, stabilizer off. So, I'll try my mono pod, work on my panning technique, among other things. This is the first summer I have really put time and effort in to motor sports photography, despite being involved in racing for almost 30 years and photography for a lot more. I really appreciate that you all have taken the time to comment and add your opinions. I have a great deal of respect for you all.


Sep 22, 2014 at 06:09 PM
Cicopo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 100-400 vs 400 f 5.6


Your samples are pretty much head on & because of that you can use a higher shutter speed since you won't be getting background blur (from the panning motion) nor wheel / tire blur as they rotate. Even at 1/400 the car will have traveled towards you enough to soften your image a bit. You will however need to shoot at a slower shutter speed for the correct effect if the cars are passing across in front of you. This is old but shows what I mean. (1/60 sec.) It's all about developing the right stance & a smooth panning action.

http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-mZ5bbrF5DqE/SF8IMPvXIQI/AAAAAAABMLI/yGWiB0wS_M4/s1024/IMG_0913%2520copy.jpg



Sep 22, 2014 at 07:30 PM
sleepy717
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · 100-400 vs 400 f 5.6


Here's one that I thought worked well.







Sep 23, 2014 at 05:28 AM
mikeengles
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · 100-400 vs 400 f 5.6


Hello

It is equally possible that the 100-400 is actually a dust extractor.
When I had a 7D the lens was always on the camera. I checked the sensor when I sold the 7D. I was really surprised at how clean it was. I checked by taking pictures at f22 of a sheet of white paper and scrolled around at 100%. The buyer was pretty impressed also.

Mike Engles



Sep 24, 2014 at 05:06 AM
ashley138
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · 100-400 vs 400 f 5.6


So, I'm wondering if anyone has thoughts on comparing these two 400mm lenses to the 400mm f/4 DO? I KNOW its not in the same price range but not considering price how do people think it holds up?
I have a 100-400, and I'm trying to decide if I wanna go for the 400/5.6 prime or the 400/4 DO. I really want faster focus speed and higher quality IQ. Love my 500, but it's too heavy for me to haul around 90% of the time.
I know that this is starting to get a little off topic from the OP but I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this.



Sep 25, 2014 at 07:21 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · 100-400 vs 400 f 5.6


There are reviews and threads on the DO on this site.

Doubt you will notice better IQ than the 400 f5.6. Maybe more background blur. F4 is giving you twice twice as much light and will allow AF with a 2x TC on the right body. Lighter than your 500 and a lot easier to handhold.



Sep 25, 2014 at 08:55 PM
Eric Mastilak
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · 100-400 vs 400 f 5.6


It is pretty simple on the 400mm 5.6. It can produce outstanding results, but, and that is a big but, it needs a TON OF LIGHT!!














Sep 25, 2014 at 09:16 PM
Bsmooth
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · 100-400 vs 400 f 5.6


I have the 100-400, and got a refurb 400 5.6, to shoot birds in flight. The 400 5.6 got sent back right away. It wasn't even as sharp as the 100-400, not even close. This was on a tripod and with static objects.
There was something not quite right with the 400, not sure what. I sent it in to have it checked and they said it was front focusing. Well when I got it back it was back focusing.
I had an issue with getting the first 100-400 as well. Just wasn't sharp at all, so they sent a replacement which is the one I have now. Very sharp. I really think Canon's quality leaves a bit to be desired.
I like the 100-400, but its not the fastest focusing for sure, thats one thing I noticed when I had the 400 prime, how fast it acquired targets.
The 400 needs a replacement, why its taking so long I don't know, maybe to make more money on the new 400 that just came out.
That and the rather long min focus for the 400 prime, what is it 11 feet I think ? I had birds coming so close I couldn't take an image, never a problem with the 100-400.



Sep 26, 2014 at 11:51 AM
mr.jboy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · 100-400 vs 400 f 5.6


I had the 100-400 liked it though sometimes AF was a bit slow for BIF, sometimes, IQ was ok.. I thought contrast could have been better, I should add that this was an early issue. Now I have the 400 prime and absolutely love it IQ is great it is tack sharp @5.6 and very fast AFing and great bokeah.. It is lighter then the 100-400 integrated lens hood, so, very satisfied. All this was on a 40D now I have the 7D and AF is even faster, what a lens, what a camera, a great combo!!!

John



Sep 26, 2014 at 09:54 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.