I’m making the move to Canon for owl and eagle photography. I’d like to stick to L lenses. Any opinions on these two lenses with and without a TC on a crop body?
I've owned both of these lenses. Still own the 100-400 V.II. In my opinion, the 100-400 V.II is the better choice. Sharper, better contrast and allows racking it back for shorter focal length when the need is there.
Here is an example of what you can expect from the 100-400 V.II on a 7D MkII .......
Let's throw one more wrinkle in and compare the 100-400 ii to the 400 5.6 L, zoom aside. I don't anticipate zoom being too big of a deal. The 400 5.6 is half the price of a 100-400 these days.
Owned the 400 5.6 and own the 100-400 II. The 400 5.6 does not have IS. It is was made in the 90’s and as a result represents optical tech which is 20+ years old. Regardless of no IS, it is a capable bif lens. Another issue is TC’s. Adding a 1.4 TC does not allow for AF focusing unless a newer body is used that will AF at f8. The 400 5.6 also has a pretty long mfd compared to the 100-400 II.
I’d still pick the 100-400 II over the 400 5.6 for better contrast, mfd, IS and IQ.
If your crop body will AF at f/8 then either lens works. I had the V1 400 DO and it performed excellent with and without a TC for me on a 40D body. I have not used the new 100-400 VII but all I have seen with it are top notch and they do work best with VIII TC's where as the older 400 DO will perform fine with the older VII TC's.
Sometimes 1 stop of light is pretty important.................but isn't everything a compromise
How about a 300 2.8 V1 lens with TC's............that gives you a very sharp fast focusing lens at 300 and nice performance with TC's................just a thought if fast glass at 300 has appeal to you.
Karl
Karl, I had a 300 2.8 Nikon and sold it. Way too heavy to walk around with. I tend to favor primes and had considered a 300 f4, 400 5.6, and 500 4.5 combination depending on what Im shooting, but that 100-400 ii is so tempting...
p.1 #10 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
I wouldn’t be without either one of those two lenses. The 100-400 ll is great for relatively close subjects and is very versatile with respect to zoom.
The 400 DO ll is a great lens and perhaps my most used. It has the F4 advantage and typically has a 1.4 lll attached for 560mm. Between the two, the DO has the reach advantage @ F5.6 VS F8 for the zoom. I shoot in early morning and late afternoon, so the F4 really Helps.
p.1 #13 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
Get the zoom and never look back. The original DO is not that good and has lost a ton of value. The 100-400 ii is super sharp and an excellent value. It also works very well with the 1.4x iii on the 1dx2 that I had. In addition it has close focus of about 3 feet so can be used in ways they DO never could.
p.1 #16 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
jwolfe wrote:
I can only afford a DO I not a II since it’s a hobby! Any thoughts on that lens?
I passed on both the DO I and the 100-400 I a long time ago and went with the Sigma 100-300/4 instead.
Enter the 100-400 II, and it's a keeper. If you are looking for something even longer, the newer Sigma 150-600 and Tamron 150-600 are options that I think would still be an option. Early reports of 60-600 seem good too.
Imo, the DO I was too soft for my taste. It may be that it requires a different processing to bring it to life, or you need to shoot it in contrast lighting to offset the gen 1 DO optics. But, I wasn't that impressed with first gen DO. Recommend you get one from a reputable place like KEH, B&H, etc. that has a rock-solid, no questions asked (i.e. just changed my mind) return policy if you go that route. Normally, I'd suggest renting one ... but, I don't know if anyone has the first gen DO for rent these days.
The 100-400 II ... that's a safe bet (and it plays well with the TC III). Putting a TC on the DO I ... I'd think that soft light with that combo might be less than stellar, but it might hold up better in good light. As to the 400/5.6 ... optically, you aren't gaining anything (I considered it too before biting the bullet for my 100-400 II). It is a bit lighter, both in the bag and on the wallet ... but, not better (imo).
p.1 #17 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
Had both on crop and full frame. Found the DO to work better (consistent) with a 40D than the 7D. No complaints at all with the 5D II and III, with or without TCs (v2, 1.4x and 2x) 1-400L II seems better in lower light than the DO and works well with the 1.4x. DO required a little more PP. I shoot more mammals than birds (do like owls though) so I kept the zoom.
p.1 #19 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
So I'm a poor guy as well. Poor meaning I won't be following the crew around here with their new 500 or 600 III lenses. I wish I could. For BIF unless you have a 1DX or 1DX II BIF is tough with the 2X.
I got it because I wanted 800mm for stills and I haven't really used for what I want. Grizzlies and other big game. One day. The 100-400 II is easier to shoot with. I haven't really done much birding with it and the 1.4 but I plan to try.
However my initial tests showed I could hit BIF with the 2X but the keeper rate goes way down. It is not easy and just my first week out with it. The 3rd shot was with my 100-400 II because I don't get these opportunities very often and I knew that lens so I used it. Just got the DO last summer.
