opinions of 400mm f/5.6L vs. 100-400 zoom

[Belmondo]

I'm trying to figure out if I'm any better off selling my 400 f/5.6L and picking up a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 USM IS lens in its place. Do any of you have any experience with the two lenses sufficient to render an opinion? The 400 is one of my favorite lenses, and I'm really reluctant to get rid of it if the zoom isn't as good---or at least almost as good.

Thanks for your help.

Tom

[MediaMagic]

belmondo wrote:
I'm trying to figure out if I'm any better off selling my 400 f/5.6L and picking up a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 USM IS lens in its place. Do any of you have any experience with the two lenses sufficient to render an opinion? The 400 is one of my favorite lenses, and I'm really reluctant to get rid of it if the zoom isn't as good---or at least almost as good.

Thanks for your help.

Tom

Hi Tom,
I can't give input about the comparison because I've never used the 4005.6L but, I would have to say that it *must* be sharper at 400mm than the 100-400. I've stopped using mine beyond 350. Between 150-350 it is *very* nice. At 100, it's damn good. At 400, the softness is quite evident. The prime would have to be cleaner. If you can deal with a useful zoom of 100-350 you'll probably love it. If you are needing the 400 zoom to compete with the prime, there not much of a chance unless you get the 1.4II converter and keep the focal length shorter than 350 max, but then you will lose AF.

I do *love* mine as I am happy with it's strengths contrasted with its limitations. Just be aware that it does get soft over 350.

Take care,
David

[Belmondo]

David:
Is the softness at 400mm at all aperture settings? Or does the sharpness improve if you stop the lens down a little? I've noticed that on my 400, at f5.6 (which is wide open), I can get a little softness. I usually shoot at f/8 or smaller. On the other hand, it might just be my imagination.

Thanks for the feedback.

Tom

[MediaMagic]

belmondo wrote:
David:
Is the softness at 400mm at all aperture settings? Or does the sharpness improve if you stop the lens down a little? I've noticed that on my 400, at f5.6 (which is wide open), I can get a little softness. I usually shoot at f/8 or smaller. On the other hand, it might just be my imagination.

Thanks for the feedback.

Tom

I'm sorry Tom I should have included that in the original reply. It does clean up considerably at f6.x-f11 with f8 being this len's honey shot (now there's a surprise, huh? heh). Even so, it is still visibly softer than at focals of 350 or less, but that's expected with a zoom and it is still very workable. At the smaller apertures, either C1 or USM can make some fantastic shots. I don't mean to come across as saying that this lens is *bad* at 400, because it isn't. But, shorten it to 350 and it's borderline stellar. I can't imagine it producing as sharp an image at 400mm as your 400L prime. I'll shoot a few comparison shots of a common subject.

Take care,
David

[BrettD]

Look here,

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

This is a review from someone who went from the zoom to the prime, because it was that much better.

Brett D

[pcho]

Hi Belmondo,

I have the 400mm F5.6 and was able to use my friends 100-400 but all these comparisions are very subjective. No two pictures are the same and unless you do it in controlled situations, it is pretty had to tell. Also in real life, the IS on the 100-400 might be the diff. My only comment is that I like the IS on the 100-400 but it is however a bit slower to focus and hunts a bit more than the 400 prime. So it comes down to choice. I decided to purchase primes and so I bought the 300f4 IS (and with my 1.4 extender I do have a 420mm lens with IS) as well as the 400mm F5.6. I have been shooting birds and I have not had to use anything less than 400mm. Sure zooms are good but you will soon learn that good pictures do not need to show full body of subjects as shown by pictures taken with my 300mm f4 IS Lens. Half bodied are sometimes more effective

my 2 cts worth

Perry

Hope you like picture, enjoy

300mm F4 IS (not full bodied shots)

http://h000625ee612c.ne.client2.attbi.com/perrycho/Koala-480x720_8593.jpg
http://h000625ee612c.ne.client2.attbi.com/perrycho/Koala-480x720_8596.jpg
http://h000625ee612c.ne.client2.attbi.com/perrycho/Koala-480x720_8597.jpg

Here are samples of my 400mm F5.6

http://h000625ee612c.ne.client2.attbi.com/perrycho/Blue-Wren-480x720_8967c.jpg
http://h000625ee612c.ne.client2.attbi.com/perrycho/Blue-Wren-Female--480x720.jpg
http://h000625ee612c.ne.client2.attbi.com/perrycho/WW-480x720_8867c.jpg
http://h000625ee612c.ne.client2.attbi.com/perrycho/480x719_8942c.jpg

Here are some photos taken with 100-400
http://h000625ee612c.ne.client2.attbi.com/perrycho/480x720_9069.jpg
http://h000625ee612c.ne.client2.attbi.com/perrycho/480x720_9089.jpg
http://h000625ee612c.ne.client2.attbi.com/perrycho/480x720_9116c.jpg
http://h000625ee612c.ne.client2.attbi.com/perrycho/480x720_9056.jpg

[CyberDyneSystems]

pcho,

These are some amazing images!

And they do tell quite a tail a far as I can see,.

The 100-400 images are very good,.. but to my eyes all of the images taken with both primes are superior!

As you say,. it is subjective and could be shooting conditions etc... but I have thinking Primes is the way to go as well. hmmmm.

[Belmondo]

Thank you all for your feedback.

They are obviously both excellent lenses, but the prime is predictably the clearer of the two at 400mm. The pictures tht BrettD provided the link to are extremely convincing and have me thinking I might not want to get rid of the prime when (and if) I do decide to buy the 100-400.

Why not? I already have way too much equipment for one person to carry anyway. What's one more lens?

[MediaMagic]

belmondo wrote:
Thank you all for your feedback.

They are obviously both excellent lenses, but the prime is predictably the clearer of the two at 400mm. The pictures tht BrettD provided the link to are extremely convincing and have me thinking I might not want to get rid of the prime when (and if) I do decide to buy the 100-400.

Why not? I already have way too much equipment for one person to carry anyway. What's one more lens?


Yes, indeed, those pics from that review really do tell the story. I thought the prime would be cleaner, but man, it's waaaay more crisp at 400. The 100-400 is a fantastic workhorse lens but it's a tool for a variety of jobs and in no way can it replace your 400 prime if 400mm is the length you need/want to shoot.

Hell, I want YOUR lens now! :-)

With the age of the 100-400 I'd surmise that a new generation of this lens may be just around the corner which would make a better addition to your collection, or, drive the price of the existing 100-400 down so you could pick up one of these present models very inexpensively.

David

[MediaMagic]

Great shots pcho... looks like the primes win again! :-)

[pcho]

MediaMagic wrote:
Great shots pcho... looks like the primes win again! :-)


Thanks for compliment MediaMagic

Perry

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
pcho,

These are some amazing images!

And they do tell quite a tail a far as I can see,.

The 100-400 images are very good,.. but to my eyes all of the images taken with both primes are superior!

As you say,. it is subjective and could be shooting conditions etc... but I have thinking Primes is the way to go as well. hmmmm.

Thanks CyberDyneSystems,

I love my primes, but that doesn't mean I dont like Zooms, the chances are I will eventually end up with the 100-400. I do have the 70-200IS. But since I purchased my primes, I seldom use my zooms.

Perry

[Belmondo]

Well, I broke down today and ordered the 100-400 f/4-5.6L zoom. At first, I thought it would be an either/or situation, but it looks like I'm going to stick with both. I'll use the prime for strictly long shots, and I'll use the 100-400 for most of my everyday shooting. I know it's big, heavy, and not all that sharp on the long end, but it's a vast improvement over my 75-300, and fills the gap between 300 and 400mm. I'll lose that little bit between 75 and 100mm, but I have a 28-135 IS for that, and when (if) Dell ships my 70-300, I'll have L glass for everything up from 70 to 400mm.

I tried explaining all this to my wife to no avail. Just as well---she completely lost interest long before we had to discuss the money thing. When she got totally bored with the discussion, she just said, "Go ahead. Just get whatever you need. I'm going to bed"

These words will come back to haunt her---just as soon as the credit card statement arrives.

[NickC]

belmondo wrote:
I tried explaining all this to my wife to no avail. Just as well---she completely lost interest long before we had to discuss the money thing. When she got totally bored with the discussion, she just said, "Go ahead. Just get whatever you need. I'm going to bed"

These words will come back to haunt her---just as soon as the credit card statement arrives.

LOL!

There are so many tales here of cameras and lenses vs. wives and credit cards. Thank goodness my fiance is a photographer and understands why camera gear is expensive.

She has a Nikon film camera and I have my D30. It will be a mixed marriage!

[ChrisNardone]

Thank goodness my fiance is a photographer and understands why camera gear is expensive.

You're a lucky man!