final push - long telephoto.

[cmM]

I'm getting closer to my purchase of a longer lens.

I'm debating between a Canon 100-400 L, and a 400 5.6 L
I know, I know, there have been many threads about this but I want another push, especially from the ones who own both.

I want this lens for wildlife and sports, more wildlife than sports. So far I've been leaning towards the zoom, but now I'm confused again.

I know that with the 100-400 I will have: Zoom, IS. (most of my shots will be taken using some type of support)

I also know that with the 400 prime I will have: Sharpness, better focusing, and very important: 3-400 $ extra.

[Scottes]

Chris, how long can you wait before you order? (Note that B&H is closed for a while right now...)

I have not yet had time to really test the 400 Prime. I have some impressions, but not enough to state. I have not yet measurebated between the two. I haven't had good luck finding flying birds in order to really test the AF.

For sports though, I think that the ability to zoom out would be absolutely crucial beyond belief. 400mm all the time just won't cut it I'd think. If some player started running at you then you'd probably end up with a nice head shot and no action.


And of course: If I only had one lens it would be the 100-400 L IS.

[cmM]

For sports though, I think that the ability to zoom out would be absolutely crucial beyond belief. 400mm all the time just won't cut it I'd think. If some player started running at you then you'd probably end up with a nice head shot and no action.
That passed through my mind too, but my solution to that was: I save a few hundred on purchasing the prime, add another one or 2 hundred and can buy the 70-200 f/4 L.

It can wait.... not too long, though, I'm starting to visit B&H more often... it's a sign.

[Scottes]

Have you ever tried to switch lenses when some running back is doing a 40-yard dash?

[cmM]

Have you ever tried to switch lenses when some running back is doing a 40-yard dash?
lol
Hold on Scottes.... I had a solution for that too: 20D is coming out soon... My next major purchase after this lens will be a 20D, and I was thinking of keeping my rebel and using it as my second body.

Crap.... okay, you just confused the crap out of me Scottes, now I'm leaning back towards the zoom.

[Andy_T]

You said you wanted a push...

... why not go all the way and get a push-pull (pun intended).

Best regards,
Andy

[cmM]

You said you wanted a push...

... why not go all the way and get a push-pull (pun intended).

Best regards,
Andy
:mrgreen:

Ok, so It's 2 in favor of the zoom, and one person voted for the prime.

[tofuboy]

I also know that with the 400 prime I will have: Sharpness, better focusing, and very important: 3-400 $ extra.

Hold on Scottes.... I had a solution for that too: 20D is coming out soon... My next major purchase after this lens will be a 20D, and I was thinking of keeping my rebel and using it as my second body.

I see 2 conflicting views there. On the first you say $300-$400 difference is very important in making your decision... then you justify buying the prime by planning to buy a 70-200 f4L AND a 20D. You go from saving $300-400 to spending $2k+ :p

My vote is for the zoom :)

[Roy NN7DX]

100-400L/IS w/1.4x Kenko Pro auto focuses and works on my 300D... But, zoom/TC won't AF on my 10D... Hummm...

The zoom with TC combo gives me slightly better pix than PS resizing to 1.4X... It's actually easy enough to see with my eye so my use of "slightly" is so your expectations are not too high... It may make a difference for you or it may not AF at all… Taped contacts!... Zoom doesn't hunt too much to AF @ 560mm but, of course, seems snappier when used w/o teleconverter...

The same may be true of the 400mm tele prime... I'd think it's worth a try... 560mm is a lot of extra grunt for just the price of an added TC... Again, taped contacts...

Looking forward to my new 20D hoping my telelens/TC good luck will hold up... Canon (and reviewers) claim better low light AF so “f8” glass may work fine if the camera thinks it's looking at f5.6 on an overcast day...

Good luck in your choice... I'm a 100% handheld shooting guy... I don't know how I lived without IS for long lenses...

[cmM]

I see 2 conflicting views there. On the first you say $300-$400 difference is very important in making your decision... then you justify buying the prime by planning to buy a 70-200 f4L AND a 20D. You go from saving $300-400 to spending $2k+ :p

lol, well I was actually reffering to the lens purchase. In the long run, a lot more will be spent ! :D

[cmM]

Roy, thanks for the input. it's very much appreciated.

[stuartf287]

I assume you've seen the direct comparison of these 2 lenses on the Luminous Landscape site. Reichmann comes down strongly in favor of the prime over the zoom. I don't own either myself (Bigma), so I can't help (or confuse) you directly. Here is the site:

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

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'd grab the prime now..

..try it out.. "run it up the flagpole and see if it floats"

....you have a few days (weeks) to decide if it is "all that" and to see if the zoom will be missed.

If it doesn't "Float yer boat"...

... send it back to B&H in exchange for the costlier Zoom.. they give you that time anywyas.. and will be more appreciative of the fact that you are deciding to spend more.. rather than losse the sale all together.

[cmM]

stuartf287, thanks. I did go through that review before... that's what got me confused in the first place :x

CDS, I might just do that. Should I let them know ahead of time of my intentions (possible return)?

[roanjohn]

You said you wanted a push...

... why not go all the way and get a push-pull (pun intended).

Best regards,
Andy

Tee-heee :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sell your 300D, use the extra money to fund the additional cost for the zoom, and get the 20D.

One lighter body, and a more versatile lens.

;-)

Ro1

[CyberDyneSystems]

....Should I let them know ahead of time of my intentions (possible return)?

I wouldn't ... :roll:

Double check on there mail order return policy on lenses.. but I know a few who have had no problems.

[cmM]

It's 80% for the zoom and 20% for the prime as far as votes.

I'm just affraid that if I get it then I won't be able to let it go... It's a very sharp lens, much sharper than the 100-400 even stopped down, according to the charts.

[MediaMagic]

I assume you've seen the direct comparison of these 2 lenses on the Luminous Landscape site. Reichmann comes down strongly in favor of the prime over the zoom. I don't own either myself (Bigma), so I can't help (or confuse) you directly. Here is the site:

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

This head to head comparison is based strictly on lens performance at 400mm but really isn't indicative of task suitability. The 400 prime will give you much cleaner and crisper images at 400mm (kicking the 100-400's arse every single time), but it will give you zero images at say 150mm. Any zoom (and especially the 100-400 in the L zoom line) sacrifices a small margin of sheer performance for versatility.

I'm guessing the 100-400 would see more actual use than the 400 for sports, but since you say "more wildlife than sports", the 400 may be the better choice for you. If I were shooting mostly wildlife, I'd go for the 400 prime. You're the only one who can really make that determination. How's that for ambiguous? :-)

[cmM]

You're the only one who can really make that determination. How's that for ambiguous?

God only knows.... it might come down to flippin' a quarter :P

[Scottes]

The 400 prime will give you much cleaner and crisper images at 400mm (kicking the 100-400's arse every single time)


Not at 1/200 shutter speed handheld it won't. 100-400 will kick the prime's butt. Period.


So let's just say that in an optimal setting for the 400 prime THEN the 400 prime will kick the 100-400's butt. In an optimal setting for the 100-400 then the 100-400 will kick the prime's butt.


However, if you rack both up on a tripod and use a cable release then the 400 Prime will be sharper and more contrasty. Period.

[MediaMagic]

The 400 prime will give you much cleaner and crisper images at 400mm (kicking the 100-400's arse every single time)


Not at 1/200 shutter speed handheld it won't. 100-400 will kick the prime's butt. Period.


So let's just say that in an optimal setting for the 400 prime THEN the 400 prime will kick the 100-400's butt. In an optimal setting for the 100-400 then the 100-400 will kick the prime's butt.


However, if you rack both up on a tripod and use a cable release then the 400 Prime will be sharper and more contrasty. Period.

I stand corrected (or rather sit). You are right of course. Which leads right back to task suitability. This one is a tough call.

[Scottes]

This one is a tough call.

And THAT is why I now own both!

In my 2 days of shooting with the Prime (and 100-400) I have come to the conclusion that having both is fine. I still need to do more testing, but they have their place. The 100-400 rocks in low-light or zoom or short-focus. The Prime beats it in AF, sharpness, and contrast - if there's sufficient light and distance.

I did take a few shots with the 1.4TC attached to the Prime and I was quite pleased. Not a comparison, mind you, but it was a very usable shot.

[cmM]

I have come to the conclusion that having both is fine.
http://www.chicagohotness.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/banghead.gif

[Scottes]

Chris, what the heck is that little icon supposed to be?

It looks like a falling potato. I think.

[cmM]

LOL, that's me bangin my head against the wall !

[briangig]

if you are could only have one, wouldnt you rather have a smaller, more versatile lens?

[Scottes]

Yeah! Versatile!

The 100-400 will do anything from 1:1 macro (with tubes) up to 400mm, and do it well.

Versatile is nice.

[cmM]

okay.... it's 82% to 17% for the zoom.


I think the people have spoken. I think it will be the zoom. I'll have to wait a little longer for this, but not too much.

[robertwgross]

As Scottes knows, there is wildlife, and then there is wildlife.

I'll be in my favorite spot by the creek all set up on a green heron. The bird is across the creek, so I am using 100-400mm plus two 1.4 teleconverters. The bird is effectively framed, and I have shot about a dozen frames to get it absolutely right.

All of a sudden a great white egret pops up on the same side of the creek with me, and that is a much larger bird. With the lens setup, I can zoom in and capture that larger subject, but if I were using only a 400mm fixed with the same teleconverters, then I'm stuck. I would have to change lenses, and the bird would be gone by then. With an egret, you get about three seconds to get it right, and then it is gone.

I need the flexibility of a long zoom.

---Bob Gross---

[Scottes]

As Scottes knows, there is wildlife, and then there is wildlife.

...

I need the flexibility of a long zoom.

No doubt. I use the 100-400 at 400mm about 90% of the time when I'm out. For the other 10% the zoom is priceless.


If B&H pulls through, then I'll spend the weekend with the Prime on the 20D and the 100-400 on the 10D.

I was excited about that for about 2 seconds until I remembered that I'll probably be standing next to someone with a 500mm and 1.4TC on a MkII, and a 100-400 on a 20D.

[Roy NN7DX]

Just pinged my order number through e-mail and my 20D shipped...

2 day UPS to Oregon...

I made a new e-mail with "tracking@bhphotovideo.com" as the address and their order number as the subject... Nothing else... It came back in seconds with my tracking number...

Good luck... Enjoy your 2 lenses...

[JZaun]

cmM. I have 4 lens :? The 100-400 IS in on the camera 90% of the time. I doubt I could hold the 400 prime still enough to get a hand held shot.. IS is KING!!!!


JZ

[nosquare2003]

I vote the zoom because you will use it for sports and wildlife. You can use the zoom in the wildlife any time.

If you're saying that you will use a long tele for birds, I'd say the prime.

[cmM]

Thank you everyone.

I am leaning hard towards the zoom, it seems like it's the best way to go for now, but I might just get both and see which one I like best, and keep that one.

[lomond]

I pondered the same question, zoom or prime?
I read the Luminous Landscape comparison and could see the merits of the 400 prime in some circumstances.
I came down on the side of the zoom for one reason, not the flexibility ( although it's certainly that ) but rather the IS.
Some times when shooting wildlife the light can be low.
Last week I was shot a heron in a shady river scene. The shutter speeds were between 100 and 200
Not easy hand held with the prime.

Heres one of the shots.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=295253&highlight=#295253
Cameron