How do the big boy lenses compare?

[davewalters]

Hi, I've got a budget of £1,500.00 for the best lens for photographing birds I can get. As far as I can see these are the contenders;

Canon 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 L UIS @ £1,197.99

Canon 400mm F5.6 L USM @ £879.99

Sigma 50 to 500mm F4 -6.3 Canon af fit @£700.00

Prime concern is quality however the zoom of the first lens would also be desirable.
I'm assuming both Canons are sharper than the Sigma?
At 400mm is the Canon zoom noticably softer than the prime or is this minimal?
Are there any other options?
Years back I used a film slr attached to a telescope providing a 1200mm effective. This provided some surprisingly good results. Through using this I can see that you're going to need a 600mm to really get ok shots of the smaller birds, will the 400mm be enough? I know I can get converters but then I'll lose the af.
Thanks in advance.

[Reyno]

Dave I don't own the 400 nor the 50-500 but I have a 100-400 and been very satisfied with the my captures. What I'd like to do is show you size comparison of a Cardinal taken about 45 feet away on four different setups. All posted shots are uncropped and the only PP done was to convert to jpeg. To view the shots, please follow the link...
http://www.pbase.com/reybeckfilms/birds_random&page=7
Also, if you'll notice on the members' signature line, many carry either the 400 or the 100-400.

[ZipDude66]

I have owned both the 400mm and the 100-400mm. I still own the 400! It's very fast, super sharp, easy to carry and might be the best lens out there for flight shots. If you want a lens just for birding this could be the one.

Zip

[jorj7]

I have both, and I use the 400 f5.6L much more for bird photography. The 100-400L IS
is more versital for general use, but it's a lot slower focusing and not as sharp at f5.6-6.3.
For birds I'm usually at 400mm, so for me the prime is the way to go. Another advantage
for me is the 400L takes a 1.4x TC better.

[Wayne Wood]

I own the 200 F2.8L and shoot primarily birds ,,, I am very happy with the quality of this lens but I have borrowed the 100-400 and have had some awesome results ,,, I have to agree with Zip though ,,, I haven't used the 400 prime but the results I see from Gary Fairheads images and Zips makes me want it more so than the 100-400 ,,, if I had the money I might look at the 300 F2.8

[PetKal]

Will try to keep it simple. If you feel you must have a decent IQ 600 mm relatively economically , then I think the best combo is 300 f/4.0 IS +2xTC.
However, that combo AF becomes excruciatingly slow (on Series 1 cameras) or you'd have to MF, or monkey around with the TC contacts.

I enclose couple of shots with that combo, taken handheld.

However, I think that the optimum starter Canon lens for wildlife/bird photography is the 100-400. It will still give OK results with 1.4xTC.
The IQ @400mm is perhaps somewhat inferior to the 400 f/5.6 prime.
Also, at 300mm it ain't quite as good as the 300 f/4 prime.
However, those are all minor IQ differences.

One needs to look at lens OPERABILITY and versatility in the field first and foremost. For example, the 400 f/5.6 is an excellent prime with two serious drawbacks....no IS and very long MFD.

[Anthony J Howe]

I own the 100-400 and I'm more than pleased with this lens. The versatility of the lens has been just right for me to be able to zoom in and out on the fly when necessary. But it is slower to focus than the 400mm prime and the 400 is not as heavy. I have rented the 400mm lens and found it better for in-flight shots.
The decision is yours, for sharp fast shooting then go for the 400, but if you want the versatility of the zoom like I prefer then go for the 100-400.

[davewalters]

Hi, thanks for all the help. Looks like the sigma isn't really a consideration then so it's down to the two Canons.
I presume both lose autofocus when used with the 1.4x and/or 2x converters?

[pttenn]

I've heard you lose autofocus with the Canon converters but NOT with Sigma/Kenko converters. Go figure.

[andydajo]

I also have the 100-400mm L, I feel that it's the best valve L series lens Canon has produced, sorry no expeience with the others you are looking at.

[johnstoy]

How does the EF 100-400mm L IS focus ring feel with the push/ pull method?

Personally, I'm just about sold on the lens, from all the posted reviews of the past couple of months...

[calicokat]

I have both, and I use the 400 f5.6L much more for bird photography. The 100-400L IS
is more versital for general use, but it's a lot slower focusing and not as sharp at f5.6-6.3.
For birds I'm usually at 400mm, so for me the prime is the way to go. Another advantage
for me is the 400L takes a 1.4x TC better.

I am exactly the same way, have both, use the 400L for birding and the 100-400L for Flowers, Insects, and lots else. The 400L is a better bird lens IMO

[Billginthekeys]

the 400 prime is one of the best birding lenses out there. and probably the BEST flying bird lens avaliable. it has super fast focus, its very very sharp, and is quite light for a super tele. If the lens is for birds i say go with the 400 5.6. with birding there are few times you will want to zoom out more, but many times you want the focus to be spot on while the bird is moving. i vote for the 400 prime. although i have used the 100-400 and it is a very capable, and certainly more versitale lens.

[johnstoy]

the 400 prime is one of the best birding lenses out there. and probably the BEST flying bird lens avaliable. it has super fast focus, its very very sharp, and is quite light for a super tele. If the lens is for birds i say go with the 400 5.6. with birding there are few times you will want to zoom out more, but many times you want the focus to be spot on while the bird is moving. i vote for the 400 prime. although i have used the 100-400 and it is a very capable, and certainly more versitale lens.

Well now...that brings me back to two again, on my wish list...

[superdiver]

I dont own any of the ones being discussed, and I wish I did, but I would like to have a birding lens that the TC worked well with...becuase very often the birds you are trying to shoot need more then 400mm...

[Billginthekeys]

I dont own any of the ones being discussed, and I wish I did, but I would like to have a birding lens that the TC worked well with...becuase very often the birds you are trying to shoot need more then 400mm... the 400 prime takes the tamron (non pro) TC and i believe the kenko TC aswell without loosing AF. i havnt tried it personally. but Romy uses this combo, and it seems to work well for him.

[Geostant]

I have a Sigma 50-500
it's not bad as long as you take extra care on the technical aspect
(tripod, shutter and aperture)

Still,
I would like to upgrade to a 100-400
it's 100mm less but it's L lens and there is IS inside

[inthedeck]

While I don't have the 400L, I do have a 300L IS and used with the Canon 1.4TC, it doesn't loose autofocus. Though, depending on conditions, the AF becomes a little slower than I would like.

I think I might have to try a 400L with the TC, and see how it does, as compared to the 300L IS.

[Geostant]

While I don't have the 400L, I do have a 300L IS and used with the Canon 1.4TC, it doesn't loose autofocus. Though, depending on conditions, the AF becomes a little slower than I would like.

I think I might have to try a 400L with the TC, and see how it does, as compared to the 300L IS.

100-400 with a 1.4 canon TC works fine
as long as you close 2 of the contacts on the TC (with a plastic tape)
on Canon 20D

What means that upto F5.6 it would be fine

So the 400mm Prime would work as well


* I'm talking about sunny days, never tried on cloudy

[inthedeck]

Yeah, I Guess...it could be done with tape, etc. However, I don't think that I need another zoom...since I basically have all the focal lengths from 70-300 covered. It's just the larger ones that I would like...so maybe some day, I will pick up a 400L.

Also, too bad Canon doesn't make something in between 40-70mm...otherwise, that would also be great, as a zoom. I don't necessarily want to go with the 24-105, or the 24-70, so I guess I will have to go with a 35, 50 & 85 prime, when I have the money for them. L's get rather expensive....hehe....especially at those focal lengths.

[Geostant]

too bad Canon doesn't make something in between 40-70mm...

I use the 17-85 by Canon for this range
I found it good enough for my needs (ain't printing posters out :cool: )

[inthedeck]

Well, I guess the 17-85 would be OK, but that would mean I would have no use for the 17-40L, which I really like. It's a great lens...and I use it frequently. Oh well..for now, I just need a new camera, after selling the 20D. I still use my film Elan IIE, but, it's not as fast (focusing speed is a little slow), as the 20D, plus, I have to pay for prints...hehe.

I was looking at the 5D, but have read numerous reports of banding, in low light situations, so, I might change my mind...argh!

[johnstoy]

Well, I guess the 17-85 would be OK, but that would mean I would have no use for the 17-40L, which I really like. It's a great lens...and I use it frequently. Oh well..for now, I just need a new camera, after selling the 20D. I still use my film Elan IIE, but, it's not as fast (focusing speed is a little slow), as the 20D, plus, I have to pay for prints...hehe.

I was looking at the 5D, but have read numerous reports of banding, in low light situations, so, I might change my mind...argh!

How is the
300 F/4 L IS
with a TC, for birding?

[Billginthekeys]

How is the
300 F/4 L IS
with a TC, for birding?
as he mentioned. the TC slows the focusing down a whole lot, especailly in low light. and the IQ is a bit better than the 100-400, but not as good as the 400 5.6. once again, if you want a birding lens, go with the 400 5.6. if you want an all around nature/psudo macro/sports/all around tele then the 100-400 and or 300 prime are all around more versitale.

[johnstoy]

as he mentioned. the TC slows the focusing down a whole lot, especailly in low light. and the IQ is a bit better than the 100-400, but not as good as the 400 5.6. once again, if you want a birding lens, go with the 400 5.6. if you want an all around nature/psudo macro/sports/all around tele then the 100-400 and or 300 prime are all around more versitale.

Thanks for the feedback,

I also need the lens for Pennsylvania White Tail Deer and Wild Turkeys...also there is an active 12' nest near by...I might just as well get the 100-400mm cause it has IS, can be hand held to some extent and will cover the mammals too.

[inthedeck]

How is the
300 F/4 L IS
with a TC, for birding?

Basically, billg summed it up. It's a little slower...than just the prime alone. The 100-400 design is what makes me a little nervous, in that it is a push-pull design. If you like that sort of design, then, it's a great, heavy lens. I am not too keen on push/pull designs, as they tend to suck in dust, over long periods of time...which to me, isn't worth it in the long run. Some may not have experienced this...but it's a likelihood that it can happen.

Me, I figure if I am going birding, the 300 + TC works OK, as long as I am close. The 400L would probably make it even easier...and coupled with the TC would extend the reach a bit. AF would be maintained, and effectively, I would have a 400*1.4 lens = 560mm lens. Now, imagine that bad boy with the 2x converter...hehe. You do lose the 5.6 with the 1.4 or 2x converters, (maybe one stop or so), but, the range can't be beat.

[johnstoy]

Yeah, me too inthedeck,

I do wonder about that push/pull thing...The vacuum created just yields itself to something other than air...There is a reason why we power wash our house every so often...the air is dusty every where...

But I love the TC potential of the primes...the only thing is, the 400mm prime is not IS...I'm thinking of the 300mm IS with a doubler...yet, the 100mm-400mm IS sounds like the one I'll be getting anyway...I'm a careful guy and will face away from the wind if necessary, right?..I hopes so...

[inthedeck]

The IS is a nice touch, on the 100-400. But, seeing as I have no need for that range, the 400L makes it a wiser option, for me at least. The 400L prime is 300+ dollars cheaper anyway...so that's what I would go with. Ah...some day...

I used to have a push/pull Canon len (75-300). When I first got it, it was great...and push/pull meant exactly that. A few years of owning it, it was more like slide in/slide out. Maybe not the quality of an L, but I don't want to go back there again! Dust...well, hopefully, you won't get much...but, who knows.

[clivingston]

I own the 100-400L and I am very happy with it . When I first got this lens I thought it was the hubble telescope . I thought I could take a picture of a nuthatch from sixty feet away and crop it and get an 11 x 14 print. After asking around on this forum I was told that I needed to fill the frame. So I started using a blind . This has allowed me to get very close to the subject. So the close focus distance is very important.The 100-400 close focus distance is 5.9' . The 400 has a close focus distance of 12.5' . This means when I am 6' - 12' away from my subject I get a larger field of view than the 400mm and even a 500mm .So I can fill the frame and have to crop very little.I also love the zoom capabilities . When I am setup in my blind to get a shot of goldfinch and a cardinal comes by I can't backup so I zoom out and then I am able to get the shot. My most recent example of this is the red-bellied woodpecker I posted (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=225295). This is a full frame shot at 235mm and he was 6'-6" away . The only downside is it has a slow autofocus. As far as image quality goes I do not see much difference between the 100-400 and 400.

[canonloader]

I do wonder about that push/pull thing...The vacuum created just yields itself to something other than air
They don't call it the "Dust Pump" for nothing. Although, it's all I've had on the camera in the last 2 weeks and I haven't gotten any dust yet.

On the other hand, it is nowhere near as sharp as I thought it would be for an L lens. I still use a D60 with a 30D due here Wednesday. I reserve the right to change my mind. ;)

Listen to Chris though. There is way more to screwing on a lens and shotting hummingbirds and peewee's from a block away. You need a blind, you probably need to feed them, and you need to be patient.

[johnstoy]

Thanks Chris, I too, am interested in the 100-400mm lens...

It looks like sooner than later, all you guys are going to sell me on it, I know it....

[Canuck]

What's the 120-300 F2.8 running these days...seems that might be in your ballpark, right? 1500 quid ought to be about where it is??

[johnstoy]

They don't call it the "Dust Pump" for nothing. Although, it's all I've had on the camera in the last 2 weeks and I haven't gotten any dust yet.

On the other hand, it is nowhere near as sharp as I thought it would be for an L lens. I still use a D60 with a 30D due here Wednesday. I reserve the right to change my mind. ;)

Listen to Chris though. There is way more to screwing on a lens and shotting hummingbirds and peewee's from a block away. You need a blind, you probably need to feed them, and you need to be patient.

If you find it's not that sharp than what's the point of forking out $1500 smackers... I for one would avoid the dust conditions...and am interested, hopefully the Camera body will make a difference for you canonloader.

I, for one found Chris Livingston's photos to be stunning in detail....


I hope the original poster davewalters, of this thread is reading all of this...

[Permagrin]

Thanks Chris, I too, am interested in the 100-400mm lens...

It looks like sooner than later, all you guys are going to sell me on it, I know it....

I do have trouble w/my 5D 100-400 combo (dust wise). Sometimes I get very frustrated with it BUT the photos with that lens are amazing and frankly, I can't bring myself to sell it.

This photo has the sensor dust that I missed cloning out, but for illustrative purposes, I had it on the 400mm for the shot....and that boat, the bridge and the gulls were way away across the harbor from where I was...and it was handheld. In fact, I find this lens very hand-holdable...the fog was really messing with the light that day too and it focused extremely well.

http://static.flickr.com/70/230784773_b1fe508a9b_b.jpg

[johnstoy]

The Buoy and boat and all the pillars look pretty sharp...

I still have 5 days to make my mind up...that's when the stores reopen in NYC (I have some credit there), plus the Canon Lens Rebate starts on the 15th of October, (or shouldn't I have told you that?)...

[Gary Fairhead]

I had quite a dilema choosing between the 100-400 and the 400. The 100-400 has that versatility and of course IS. It is quite a bit heavier and bulkier though so figure that into the plan. The Bigma has proven itself over and over again on this Forum and I think its all in getting used to the lens and developing your technique to make whatever you chose work for you. I had been shooting a 200 F2.8 Prime ( a great lens) and combined it with the Canon 1.4 TC for 280mm at F4. Worked well for me so i was already used to using a prime. I chose the 400 F5.6 and I do not regret a second of that decision. I do use a monopod consitently but many times i do not ( hummingbirds, and kinglets don't allow me to). The AF blows away the competition. I have photographed the same bird(s) alongside other photographers using the other 2 lenses and I get comments like " you took 2 shots and I haven't even focused yet" except the language is often more colorful. On the subject of taped contacts.....slows the AF down too much as far as I am concerned...I manually focused for many years so i go that route with the 1.4X TC. If I know I might be getting closer than 12 feet ( and this is not often) then I start using extension tubes and this worked wonderfully for me with hummers and Bluejays this Summer. And finally....the difference in cost between the 100-400 and 400 put a 580 EX on my camera and that pricey little item has opened quite a few ( hundred) otherwise lost opportunities :D Good luck with whatever you chose!

[canonloader]

Gary, I was after the 400L, but coudn't afford it. Got the next best thing and I love it too. And your right about using flash. I use flash with the 100-400L a lot, and it gets me shots I would have lost otherwise. It's not that obvious though is it? ;)

[davewalters]

Hi - original poster here. Brilliant load of input there from everyone, thanks hugely. To summarise (I'm paraphrasing and this is how I read the postings)

100-400mm got roughly nine votes with the main comments being; "image quality difference between this and the prime is only slight"; "half the close focus distance of the prime"; "heavier and bulkier"

400mm prime got roughly nine votes too with the main comments being; "sharper and faster"; "lighter"

I must admit that the weight and size of the lens has no bearing to me nor does the price difference. I am very interested in the close focusing distance and a fast focus would be ideal. I'll also be using the lens for mammals but not for other wildlife, I have a 150mm macro for that so I think in this instance we can class my use as birding or very similar. IS would also be a plus. I think I'm being pointed towards the zoom I just really need to know how different the image quality is at 400mm - would it make the difference of say cropping a 50% frame filler into a publishable picture, could it be done with both? Thanks.

[canonloader]

In my limited experience with it, the 100-400 will give excellent quality images. But it needs light. A LOT of light. You need to shoot at above f/8 and 1/500s to get the best pics. Sound easy? Not when you live where it's cloudy a lot. ;)

[Permagrin]

The Buoy and boat and all the pillars look pretty sharp...

I still have 5 days to make my mind up...that's when the stores reopen in NYC (I have some credit there), plus the Canon Lens Rebate starts on the 15th of October, (or shouldn't I have told you that?)...

They are! The birds are too...the only dust spot I didn't clone out was at the top left...everything else is a gull. I'm telling you, I have a love/hate relationship with this lens, and it gets used all the time. I've discovered if I'm very careful how I change the lens (camera off, pointed down and not in any wind whatsoever) I don't have too much trouble.

In this photo, the lens is on 400mm, the seal lions were the focus, the fog was much worse than the previous photo and I was in a different place when I took it (it's been quickly resized too, because I'm on my way out to dinner so I hope this works) The crop photo that follows is a 200% crop. Both were resized for the web so the quality isn't like the previous post (I don't have these downloaded at flickr yet)...but the idea that in bad light, through the fog and at 200% crop AND resized, well, I hope you can see why I'm sold on the lens :D All terrible conditions and no CA either.

[inthedeck]

DaveW...

Here's a couple of pictures that you are welcome to check out. They are very high quality images:

1) 400L prime: http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1809525&forward=browse

2) 100-400 at 400: http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1744942&forward=browse

[inthedeck]

Either has it's strengths and weaknesses. For me, there's no logical reason to get the 100-400. The 400 prime would be better, for me at least.

Good luck with your decision.

[johnstoy]

DaveW...

Here's a couple of pictures that you are welcome to check out. They are very high quality images:

1) 400L prime: http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1809525&forward=browse

2) 100-400 at 400: http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1744942&forward=browse


The humming bird result is what I'm looking for...It's the lack IS that's throwing me off...side by side is what I needed to see with these two photos, and I tell you , both are great bird shots...I do see the difference with the hummer though...thanks...

[Paul A]

I read most of the posts and I didn't see mention of dust. I owned the 100-400 and my sensor was constantly dirty. I sold it and bought the 400 f5.6 and my sensor now rarely needs cleaning. Not sure if all zooms are dust magnets but my 100-400 certainly was. I do miss the versatility of the zoom but I do not regret trading lenses for one second.

[johnstoy]

In my limited experience with it, the 100-400 will give excellent quality images. But it needs light. A LOT of light. You need to shoot at above f/8 and 1/500s to get the best pics. Sound easy? Not when you live where it's cloudy a lot. ;)

I hear you, on the light...It's a good thing that we can bump up the ISO with these new DSLR's...I'm not in the Southwest anymore...I'm back in the NE for a long while...Sun days are numbered differently here...

[inthedeck]

100-400 L IS weighs - 48oz = 3 Lbs.
400L weighs - 2.75 lbs., and costs 300+ less than the aforementioned lens -- i.e. the price of a slave flash.

Both are fairly heavy, one has IS, the other doesn't. Superb optics...well, I am sure that both do. Push/Pull design, on one, and the other is a prime. Dust on sensor and in lens, from one, not the other (at least in lens). 5.6 at 400 for both. Faster AF on the prime versus zoom. Both accept TC's.

Tough choices. I still think that the 400L prime is good to go.

[canonloader]

Well, thats the thing, go too high and you get noise. Go to iso 400 and still only get 1/350s, it makes a LOT of noise. You really need 1/750 or 1/1000 for good sharp pics.

[Permagrin]

I read most of the posts and I didn't see mention of dust. I owned the 100-400 and my sensor was constantly dirty. I sold it and bought the 400 f5.6 and my sensor now rarely needs cleaning. Not sure if all zooms are dust magnets but my 100-400 certainly was. I do miss the versatility of the zoom but I do not regret trading lenses for one second.

I mentioned the dust. It's my only issue with this lens because I find my copy to be quite sharp....but I started a whole thread on the dust issue with it (it's one of those "don't get me started moments" ) ;)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=225325

[davewalters]

Wow you guys are thorough here and so helpful - thanks immensely!!!!!!
Right I'm pretty much sold on the prime now. The difference on the two shots posted earlier isn't huge but it is noticable. They're both still stunning btw. K I'm going to sleep on it now as it's nearly 4.00am here - thanks again and nighty night.

[canonloader]

I mentioned it. And I don't have any problem with dust at all. But I don't stand there and pump up my tires with it either. It's usually set at about 350mm and tightened down and stays that way for most of the shoot.

[inthedeck]

But I don't stand there and pump up my tires with it either.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Funny.

[johnstoy]

While davewalters is sleeping over yonder, I bet we could continue to try and figure this out...Although, it's already past 11PM here in the N E too...

This is a pretty intense, but cool discussion on some fabulous lenses...I really appreciate it too...

The birds will win at the end...The bird pics will bring more awareness on a local level...I try to pass on the best pics for publication in our community publication for our local residents...

[nitin]

Hi-
This is the first time so I hope the images upload OK. These are a couple of shots I took with my Rebel XT and a 100-400L (handheld)- a golden eagle and a black-crowned night heron. I think the 100-400 is an excellent lens for birds, mainly as it has IS which allows me to shoot handheld.
Nitin.

[inthedeck]

Nice. Eagle's face is a tad on the shawdowed side, but detail is quite nice. The heron is nice..nice bokeh, good detail, eyes, etc...but need the feet, imho.

Otherwise, glad to see that you too, are a fan of the IS.

Happy clicking.

[inthedeck]

While davewalters is sleeping over yonder, I bet we could continue to try and figure this out...Although, it's already past 11PM here in the N E too...

This is a pretty intense, but cool discussion on some fabulous lenses...I really appreciate it too...

The birds will win at the end...The bird pics will bring more awareness on a local level...I try to pass on the best pics for publication in our community publication for our local residents...

Nice...most welcome to share here...as long as the OP doesn't mind. If they are publication worthy..or even otherwise..shots are shots. Attempts. Nothing goes unnoticed. Better to try, than regret.

[foxbat]

Ask professional nature photographers and the answer you will get (after you've discarded all the 500L and 600L recommendations) will be the 400 f/5.6L. Nobody will recommend the 100-400L over the prime for birds. Thanks to extension tubes close focus becomes a non-issue.

[Choderboy]

Ask professional nature photographers and the answer you will get (after you've discarded all the 500L and 600L recommendations) will be the 400 f/5.6L. Nobody will recommend the 100-400L over the prime for birds. Thanks to extension tubes close focus becomes a non-issue.

Agree with that.
I have not seen this link posted yet:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

[johnstoy]

Agree with that.
I have not seen this link posted yet:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

The comparison review is very informative and the photos help visualize the differences...Thanks for the link...

[inthedeck]

Definately. I still believe that primes are much better than zooms...save for a few, like the 17-40 F4L and 70-200 F2.8 or 4 L (and possibly others). I have always liked long primes...and that's why I decided to get the 300 LIS, when I did. Too bad they didn't have the non-IS version, at the time...since that would have been my choice.

Thanks for the link...just adds to my notion that I feel -- the 400 prime is 'better' than the 100-400LIS. By better, I mean in useful focal lengths, for ME. Others using the zoom are quite happy with it...but, I have no use for it's features.

Some day, I will buy the 400 prime. First, it's going to be a camera, followed by a 180L macro, and then maybe the 400 prime.

[nitsch]

The comparison review is very informative and the photos help visualize the differences...Thanks for the link...

Be warned, the images in this review are not representative. I believe Michael Reichmann has even acknowledged since doing this review that the 100-400 he used was probably a duff copy. Why this review is still on the internet I do not know, it is the biggest single source of the misinformation that gets banded about on the subject of the optical performance of these two lenses.

If you have a good copy of each of these lenses the difference in sharpness wideopen at 400mm is slight. Unless you are printing poster prints you won't notice it. Any comments about needing lots of light are equally irrelevant, they are both f5.6 at 400mm so they both need lots of light! The difference being that the IS of the zoom allows significantly slower shutterspeeds than the prime.

Where the prime wins is on AF speed and being a bit lighter than the zoom, where the zoom wins is in the versatility of it's large focal range, IS and close focus without resorting to extension tubes but be aware that it's AF is slower than the prime.

FWIW I own both lenses. The zoom is on my camera almost permanently. The prime is reserved for in flight birding shots. They are both good lenses, and it's pointless arguing which is better than the other as they serve different purposes so if you can only afford to get one of them you must decide which suits your shooting style and subject matter best. HTH! :)

[canonloader]

They are both good lenses, and it's pointless arguing which is better than the other as they serve different purposes
Hear, hear. Absolute truth right there.

[inthedeck]

Here's another few, to compare by...

100-400 -- http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1444409&forward=browse

100-400 -- http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1270829&forward=browse

400 -- http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1831349&forward=browse

400 -- http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1832536&forward=browse

Again, I didn't say one was better than the other, nor can I claim that, as I haven't used either or. To me, I just would prefer the prime...as it serves my purposes better. Hope you enjoy these shots as much as I did. Definately proves that each lens is capable, given the right photographer.

[Permagrin]

I didn't think anyone was saying one was better than the other either. The OP just asked for comparisons...so people posted shots/opinions on what they had. If I was a birder, I'd definitely consider the 400 prime.

[canonloader]

These are obvious, even the earlier shots were obvious to me that the prime gives better pics.

[inthedeck]

OK...OK....ONE LAST ONE...hehehe...

400 prime -- http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1824765&forward=browse

I just LOVE this shot.

[johnstoy]

Let's see if we can put this one to rest...

What about the 300mm 4.0L IS Prime with the TC?

Does the TC kill the IQ?

Is the 300 anywhere close to the 100-400mm IS, or the 400mm 5.6?

[PetKal]

For completeness sake, it is also good to take a look at an obsolete lens.....EF 300mm f/4.0L USM. That lens was replaced by the current IS version.

I have had a chance to shoot rather extensively with the following telephotos, talking 300 mm and longer : 100-400, 300 f/4 IS (2 different copies), 300 f/2.8 IS and 400 f/5.6.

Based on several hundred shots with the 300 f/4.0 (non-IS) yesterday, I believe the lens copy I had in my hands was the sharpest one of the bunch. More important than sharpness alone, the overall IQ was quite impressive too.
Here are couple of major crops, JPGs straight outta camera, handheld at marginal shutter speeds relative to the 1/FL rule of thumb.

The lens can obviously be obtained only 2nd hand othese days. I also have no information whatsoever on copy-to-copy variability. You could probably get a well preserved copy for $700-$960.

[nitsch]

Let's see if we can put this one to rest...

What about the 300mm 4.0L IS Prime with the TC?

Does the TC kill the IQ?

Is the 300 anywhere close to the 100-400mm IS, or the 400mm 5.6?

IMHO I would rate these 400mm/420mm options on both AF speed and IQ in this order:

1st - 400mm f5.6
2nd - 100-400
3rd - 300 f4 + 1.4x TC

If you are talking just the bare lens then the 300 f4 would jump up to 2nd place knocking the zoom down to the bottom but is 300mm enough?

[Wayne Wood]

In my limited experience with it, the 100-400 will give excellent quality images. But it needs light. A LOT of light. You need to shoot at above f/8 and 1/500s to get the best pics. Sound easy? Not when you live where it's cloudy a lot. ;)

sorry bud I have to disagree with you here ,,, shooting at F8.0 gives you the DOF you would want to capture the whole subject ,,, if the subject is static meaning perched or not moving you could shoot at 1/60 sec and get tremendous results, however if its a moving or feeding target you need more shutter speed,,,, anyways all these lenses that have been mentioned especially the primes are going to be at there sharpest wide open ,,,, all the lenes that has been mentioned in these discussions are really good glass and I dont think you could go wrong with any of them ,,, this gentleman has to figure out what style of shooting he wants to do

[canonloader]

sorry bud I have to disagree with you here ,,, shooting at F8.0 gives you the DOF you would want to capture the whole subject ,,, if the subject is static meaning perched or not moving you could shoot at 1/60 sec and get tremendous results, however if its a moving or feeding target you need more shutter speed,,,,
Very little, if anything, of what I shoot is static, just sitting there. If your outside, using it hand held, something is going to move, whether from the wind or hand shake, it moves to some extent. You need fast shutter speeds to get the real keepers. Also, 5.6 on my copy is soft, every time, tripod or not. I just don't like soft for bird shots. So it's still a lot of light for shutter speed and squeezed down to f/8 or more to get the best IQ.

[Alex Paul]

I love my 100-400 "Dust Trombone" and find it amazingly versatile and with IS it is very manageable at the upper focal lengths handheld and stellar with use of a monopod or tripod... The zoom is said to take getting used to and some people hate it..... I love it as it works smoothly enough to change framing quickly while maintaining a constant hand position for stability.... I generally set the focal length before shooting but it is a non issue as far as I am concerned..... Sharpness between the lenses you mention varies copy to copy.... I find I am satisfied with the sharpness of mine, and I have seen direct comparisons between the 100-400, 300 prime and 400 and they have gone both ways on the sharpness comparison testing.Of course the advantage given to the 300 and 400 at f4 using Tx's for faster auto focus function.... It really is based on the specific lens you buy however I doubt you will see any difference other than the usual Pixel counting lab tests.........Alex

[davewalters]

Just to let everyone know that I'm still here (OP) and thoroughly absorbing everything - wish someone would decide for me :-(
Thanks to everyone who's contributed.

[jorj7]

Dave,

No one can decide how you're going to shot. That will determine which lens will
work better for you. They are all good lenses, they just can do some things better then
the others. I have had the Sigma 50-500, and currently own the 100-400L, 300L, 400L
and 500L. Depending on what I am going to shot and where, I pick the right lenses.
Not everyone has that luxury, so you need to determine the best compromise for
you.

[canonloader]

I took the 100-400L out this morning. Cloudy and windy. All I could get was 1/250 @ f/5.6 with ISO 200. Every one I kept (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=227552) had to have some USM added to it to be anywhere near acceptable and some of these I was resting the lens on the car door for stability. Either I have a bad copy, a bad camera, or this lens isn't everything people claim it is.

All I want is some sharp pictures worth the money I paid for it.

[nitsch]

I took the 100-400L out this morning. Cloudy and windy. All I could get was 1/250 @ f/5.6 with ISO 200. Every one I kept (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=227552) had to have some USM added to it to be anywhere near acceptable and some of these I was resting the lens on the car door for stability. Either I have a bad copy, a bad camera, or this lens isn't everything people claim it is.

All I want is some sharp pictures worth the money I paid for it.

Hi Mitch, sorry to hear you don't seem pleased with the results from your 100-400. Just had a look at the pics on your link, they seem soft and and a bit smeary (is that a word?) to me plus there is definately some odd bokeh going on. Are you using a filter on the lens? If so have you tested it both with and without? Also just out of interest why did you limit yourself to ISO200 if the light was poor? Which body was this with. On the 30D I generally find anything up to around the ISO640/800 mark very useable with no need for any noise reduction (if the image is well exposed).

[Alex Paul]

Mitch you may have a bad copy,..... They certainly are out there along with random copies of most Canon lenses unfortunately..... I bought mine used from a shooter that claimed it was a sharp copy and fortunately he was right.... As near as I can see... I went to buy a 400 prime from a friend of mine and he refused to sell it to me because we are friends....The reason?? "It isn't a sharp copy and I don't want you mad at me". I am afraid it can be the luck of the draw unless you can do side by side comparisons, copy to copy, in a controlled environment which for the most part isn't usually an option..... I would send the lens in to Canon and tell them you are unhappy with the performance.... It is my understanding they will do all the required tweaking and make it as sharp as the lens is capable of......Alex

[canonloader]

My 30D will be here this coming week. I used the D60 today. I have a UV filter on it and I shoot in RAW. The filter is new, nothing really seems to have changed since I put it on. I am almost forced to use lower ISO speeds as 400 gives me too much noise. I think at this point, the old D30 with half the mp of the D60 actually shot better pics.

I'm not bummed out yet though, the new 30D is paid for and on it's way. I'm just hoping it makes better pictures. And I appreciate the interest in this problem. Not sure what else it is, unless it's me. ;)