100 - 400 L VS 400 Prime

[billsh]

Another which lense question for comment. I thought I had all my bases covered for lenses until I switched to digital. I shoot mostly nature and wildlife. My main lenses are the 70-200 2.8 L and Sigma 400 5.6L APO macro. After getting the 20D, I find out my Sigma 400 isn't compatable. I can only shoot at max aperature or it locks up. Sigma says they are out of parts to upgrade, so I need to replace it.

My first inclination is just buy the prime, as I'm accustomed to the 400. But I was ruminating about the 100-400 so I wouldn't need to change lenses as often. Has anyone used both? How much better is the prime in sharpness?

Thanks for your help!

[cmM]

I asked myself the same question:

It's been debated quite a bit. Search for some comparisson.
I think Scottes wrote a review on both. I decided to get the 100-400 for zoom and IS. Purchase got delayed a bit, but I'll have it soon enough.

[cmM]

here you go:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43436

[billsh]

Thanks Chris. I had done a search of the forum but somehow missed that thread. It sounds like the prime is best for me with the exception of macro. I love to shoot butterflys and dragonflys and other close-up subjects, so I guess I'm still conflicted.

Thanks for the info.

[Scottes]

I'd say that it would be just about impossible to shoot butterflies & dragonflies with the 400 Prime. You'd need a lot of tube on there, so you'd lose a lot of light.

However, keep in mind that the 500D should be equivalent on both lenses. I think. Perhaps someone here who likes/uses the 500D can comment on this? If not, I'll give it a quick test on both lenses tonight, if you're interested.

[billsh]

Thanks Scott. I have never used the 500D for fear of optical degredation. Instead I've always used extension tubes. But the light loss can be a killer. I would be interested to see what your tests would show.

[Scottes]

Well I really don't think you're going to notice any optical degradation on a 1.6x crop camera. I've never tested the 500D for quality, and won't - I simply don't like the fact that you're stuck at a certain distance from the subject. On my 400 Zoom I can be anywhere from about 18" to 22" from the subject. That's it - no closer, no further. I find this very limiting, since BFs & DFs won't always stay that far away.

However, I have seen some masterful work done with the 500D. It's just not my style.

I was going to do a test more for magnification and distance, nothing fancy. But test the 500D on the zoom at 100mm and 400mm, and compare that to the prime. I'm not really one to test optics - I either like it or I don't and there's not much you can do anyways except sell it. But I do like to test usability.

[billsh]

Scott,
I would be very interested in your distance and magnification test. Thats what I would be most interested in. I'm curious why you don't think there would not be optical degradation. I assumed adding another piece of glass would always decrease the quality.

Thanks

[Scottes]

Scott,
I would be very interested in your distance and magnification test. Thats what I would be most interested in. I'm curious why you don't think there would not be optical degradation. I assumed adding another piece of glass would always decrease the quality.

The 500D is a very high quality piece of glass. Everything I've read states something about "degradation near the edges" which is a much, much smaller concern on a 1.6 crop image. And I have yet to see anything noticable - though I've never measurebated it.

I'm sure that another piece of glass would degrade, but can you really tell? The Canon 1.4 TC has 5 elements and you'll find many people here who'll state that the images remain great, or have little to no degradation, etc. The 500D only has 2 elements.

I doubt that you'll be able to see a degradation on a 1.6 crop camera - you might be able to measure it, but I doubt that you'll see it.

[billsh]

That makes sense. I've wondered if the 1.6 crop helps create better images since it doesn't use the edge of the glass. Most lenses tested show the weakest points to be at the edges. Just a thought.

[ScottE]

I had a Sigma 400/5.6 APO, probably the verion before your Macro version.

I considered replacing it with either the Canon 100-400 L or Sigma 50-500 EX and did a series of comparison shots. The sharpness of both those lenses is about the same, with maybe a slight edge going to the Sigma, but difficult to judge and certainly not significant. (That was before I went digital and I was looking at negatives with a 8x loupe.)

My conclusion that the advantage of the 100-400 was IS and the advantage of the 50-500 was longer focal length and lower price. Since I almost always shoot a telephoto lens from a tripod I opted for the 50-500.

When I got it home I was suprised to find it was sharper at 400 mm than the 400/5.6.

For butterflies I use the 50-500 with one or two Kenko extension tubes. This gives you enough magnification and lots of working distance. The trick is to use the zoom ring for focusing because of the limited focus range of the focus ring when using extension tubes.

[montyl]

Popular Photography & Imaging November 2004 issue has a very good article on this very subject. I found it very informative and enlightening. It is on page 88, and unfortunately is not available through their web-site at least when i looked yesterday.