I'm looking to buy a new telephoto lens. I used to use an 80-400mm sigma at my old job, but after the two years I used it while it took great pictures it pretty much was falling apart by the end...

Anyways, I guess my main options are canon's 100-400mm, 300f/4, and the 400 f/5.6. I predominantly shoot wildlife.

Was wondering how much sharper the primes were compared to the zoom? To my understanding the canon is very similar to the sigma I used to use which wasn't bad but never helf a candle to the 30year old(or so) nikon 300 2.8 my wife used. I never used it under 300mm, so the wider angle doesn't do anything for me on the 100-400 really.

I primarily shoot birds and wildlife, was thinking the 300 IS with a 1.4extender just because of the IS. The 400 looks nice, but I don't think it'll handle an extender too well at that aperature although I could be wrong.

Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Matt

I have the Sigma 100-300 f/4 and it was never long enough for birding alone so I always used the 1.4x TC on it. I recently got the Canon 400mm f/5.6L and cannot recommend this enough! It is ultra sharp, great contrast and colours and very fast AF. I almost always have relatively low shutter speeds (<1/300s) so a tripod/monopod or beanbag is required but this hasn't limited me yet. If birding is your thing (especially BIF) then the 400mm is your king.

For the photography you do the 400 f/5.6 is the best of the three options you provide. If you have good light the lack of IS is irrelevant (I normally turn if off on my 100-400). If you have a 1D series body (you don't say which camera you use) then you can use a 1.4TC and still retain AF. The 300 f/4 is a non-starter for bird photography (the 300 f/2.8 is a different matter), and the 400 f/5.6 is sharper than the 100-400 zoom at 400 and also has more responsive AF. It is also cheaper, lighter and has a much better lens hood.

I use it with a 1D MkIII and often prefer it to my 500 f/4 for BIF photography.

Others will disagree.

Colin

400 f/5.6L for birding, 100-400L or 300 f/4 for a wider variety of subjects including close-ups (with an extension tube their awesome for dragon flies etc).

Agree with everyone else. Get 400mm f5.6, period. Sharpest lens for birding for $1k. Next step is over $6000 with accessories.

You are going to find that 400mm can be short, the 400mm fixed takes a Tele Converter very well. The bad news is f/5.6 can be slow but the good news is the lens is absolutely sharp and colorful wide open!

Mine is 13yrs old and awesome! You won't regret that purchase one bit

Karl

Why f5.6 is slow for birds?

Most folks use 1.4xTC on their 500/600mm f4 IS, so they are at f5.6 wide open. Most will stop down to get more DOF. Atleast in birds aperture is not important, reach is more important.

Thanks all, was leaning towards the 400 anyways. Have a decent tripod but need to update the head as well.... just need to wait for the rebated in a week or two.

thnx - Matt

i like my 35-350L its my everywhere lens. when in doubt grab the 35-350L f/8 & f/11 are sharp handheld at 350MM craigslist score $500 cheaper than used fleabay

I'd also recommend 400/5,6
You won't have the zoom, but you'll have awesomely sharp pictures with nice bokeh. I know some people who dropped 100-400 in favour of the 400/5,6, just because it was not good enough.
This is one of the better photos from 400/5,6, but the best part is, that the full resolution looks almost as good as this does. I can post it later if interested.
Fallow Deer

I recently got the 400/5.6 and am still on the learning curve. While I can hand hold the 300/4 for most pics, I,m finding the 400 is requiring me to use a monopod or tripod more often than I am used to. Can't afford a 400/2.8 IS. A 400/4 would be nice...Canon are you listening?

There already is a 400 f4 The DO lens

I've had the 400 5.6 and the 100-400. The 400 5.6 is sharper to a degree, but, in my humble opinion, the 100-400 is no slouch. I think the difference may or may not be noticeable if you had pictures of the same object taken with both lenses alongside. I've seen tests of these on the internet, and I can concur that the 400 5.6 lens is sharper, but many would not notice. I like the versatility of the 100-400, and the ability to focus at six feet instead of eleven and a half feet. I have pictures of birds that were taken at less than 10 feet, and although that does not happen often, its nice to get that shot. By versatility, I mean that it is nice to be able to zoom back to capture mammals. You can photograph deer and fox in close proximity. On the other hand, I believe the 400 5.6 focuses faster, so it may be a better option for birds in flight.