About to own the 400 5.6L - will I be happy?

[paulhillion]

As I aim to be doing a great deal of travelling in the next few years I've decided to reflect this in my lens line up and try to minimize weight. I'm in the process of selling my 100-400L and instead of this lens I've ordered the 400 5.6L prime. From what I've read it's a tad sharper and certainly faster in the AF dept? I know it's a bit lighter and I like the idea of the built in hood. I have a 1.4X converter which I aim to use on my 70-200 and then use the 400 prime for those longer wildlife shots. I'm getting the 1DMkII soon and so I presume I can use the converter with the 400 prime and still get AF? I'm hoping that with decent light I could still get a decent shutter speed on the 400 prime with and without the converter?

Another decision I have to make is also whether to sell my 70-200 2.8 non IS for the IS version as I quite like the idea of having the weather sealing :confused:

[Scottes]

Some people say it's a little sharper, but I've never noticed. If the shot is good the 100-400 is definitely sharp. If there's a difference then I think it's small.

The prime is most definitely faster in the AF dept.

The built-in hood is very nice indeed.

The 1DMkII + 1.4 TC will still AF with the prime.

You'll see no difference with shutter speed to the 100-400, with or without the MkII. It's still f/5.6 or f/8 with the TC. Don't be afraid to increase the ISO to get shutter speed. The noise can be cleaned, and a noisy shot looks better than a missed shot.

Congrats. It's a great lens. (Thoughthe 100-400 is also a great lens.)

[paulhillion]

I do VERY spontanious orders sometimes but I think this time I may have done the wrong thing? I think that if I do get rid of my 100-400 that I'd really miss the zoom? I realise it's a little heavier but not that much of a difference.

I think the 400 prime maybe 'return to sender'? Unless anyone in the UK wants one for a decent price? ;)

[gasrocks]

After seeing some test shots/crops comparing the 100-400 vs. 400 5.6 There is no way I'd get the 100-400! I think it was on the Luminous Landscape site. 400 5.6 is great! even with the 1.4x. Yes zooms sound better on paper for variety, but how often are you going to use it at 400 anyway?

[paulhillion]

Oh dear! :confused:

[paulhillion]

I'm going to use both for a week and then make a decision! Right now, I'm going to bed!

[HJMinard]

I've been extremely happy with mine ... although I've never used the zoom so I have no basis for comparison. I wanted to challenge myself to compose shots with the prime ... either by zooming with my feet or by accepting what is available at 400mm (perhaps ending up with something a little different than the "standard fare" shot I may have ended up with if I had been able to zoom out). That was my theory, anyway ... that and the lower price and faster autofocus.

[CoolToolGuy]

You will lose AF with the 20D, but that is not the worst thing in the world. I think it is a good move. Personally, I think the 100-400 is overrated

If you use the 1.4 with the 70-200 you will get most of the range, and the 400 will fill in at the top end.

Have Fun,

P.S. I have a friend originally from Guernsey named Fooks - know any?

[Scottes]

Everyone quotes that LL article when comparing the two. It *is* very compelling, but after having shot many thousands of shots with both I still can't tell the difference. In the field, it's the shot that matters I guess.

I will say that I've never set up a comparison like LL.

Have you seen the article I wrote comparing the 100-400 to the 400 prime? It may make for interesting reading: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43436

[CyberDyneSystems]

Luminous Lanscapes has an odd tendancy to make sure that one of the lenses tested in any side by side performs terribly!

It just happens too often to be shear coincidence. Someone has an agenda and lets it show in these side by side comparisons,. whether it is intentional or not.

Although I am very attached to primes,. and agree that they have certain image qualities that out shine even the best zooms,. I have allways described the images I get from the 100-400mm as very near "primelike" and others post images with the same insanely high quality on this forum daily.

We have no Idea why LL can not get such satisfaction from a 100-400mm

[cmM]

We have no Idea why LL can not get such satisfaction from a 100-400mm
Maybe they got a bad copy :lol:

[SDK^]

The 100-400L also has IS which the 400 prime doesn't have.
If Canon made a 400mm L IS F4 then it would be worth selling the 100-400L but until they do that the zoom is the choice for me.

I've got some superb images with it

[Panza]

.... If Canon made a 400mm L IS F4 then it would be worth selling the 100-400L....

Very good point, and I would love to have a 400mm IS f4 too, but I imagine the price of the 400 would be very different then. It would close in on the $2000 mark very quickly with IS and f4.

And it would also begin to look too similar to the EF400 2.8 from Canon's point of view.

I have the 400, the cheaper price than the 100-400 made the difference for me, and the puch-pull zoom which I can't stand.

[paulhillion]

I have a friend originally from Guernsey named Fooks - know any?[/size]I used to work with a guy named Gareth Fooks?

As for which lens I'll end up keeping, the 400 5.6 should arrive tomorrow and then I'll do some side by side testing. Like I say I am also getting a 2nd body soon (1D2) and my intensions were if I were say in a wildlife enviroment to have the 70-200 on my 20D and the 400 5.6 on the 1D, using the 1.4x on either when needed. Doing it that way though I'd obviously lose the range from 300 to 400 which maybe a strong case to keep the 100-400, especially if there's no visible difference in quality between the prime and the zoom.

[malla1962]

let us know what you think.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Canon has a 400mm f/4 IS .. it's the first DO lens,.. and it's over $4k!!!
And even with the Diffractive Optics,. (which means you can make lenses much smaller) it is still a beast. If it was not "DO" it would be another 25% or so larger and heavier.

[foxbat]

I think that you'll only find the 400 f/5.6 unsatisfactory if you spend most of your time at or below about 300mm, above that you can always do the foot-zoom shuffle assuming you're not standing on a cliff edge! For the bird photography that I do nothing is long enough but the light, super-sharp and cost-effective 400mm represents great value. I would never trade it for a zoom, only the 500, 600... a pay rise...

[mr.photoguy]

I wish you the best of luck with the 400...
I have a 70-200 with 1.5x extender, and 300mm is just way to short for me.
400 5.6L is on my to get next list..

please post, or link images when you get it.

[wiselion]

You will lose AF with the 20D, but that is not the worst thing in the world. I think it is a good move. Personally, I think the 100-400 is overrated

If you use the 1.4 with the 70-200 you will get most of the range, and the 400 will fill in at the top end.

Have Fun,

P.S. I have a friend originally from Guernsey named Fooks - know any?

Will the 400f/4 prime still AF with the 20D by itself w/o the teleconverter? Just a little confused. I'm thinking of purchasing this lense thats why I'm asking?

[CoolToolGuy]

Will the 400f/4 prime still AF with the 20D by itself w/o the teleconverter? Just a little confused. I'm thinking of purchasing this lense thats why I'm asking?

Not sure which lens you are talking about, but the EF 400 f5.6L will AF on the 20D by itself. It will not when used with the EF 1.4x TC.

The 400 f4 DO will AF on the 20D by itself. According to the compatibility chart it will AF with the TC on, but I have not used that lens.

Have Fun,

[wiselion]

That's exactly what I wanted to know. Can you send me some pics you took at long distance with the 400mm 5.6 w/o the teleconverter? You can send them to Wiselion@nycap.rr.com.


Thanks brother...............................


Mike

[johnbs]

Not sure which lens you are talking about, but the EF 400 f5.6L will AF on the 20D by itself. It will not when used with the EF 1.4x TC.


The 400/5.6 will AF with some cheaper 1.4 TCs, like the Tamron, I believe. I think Daniella on DPReview uses this setup with excellent results.

John

[CoolToolGuy]

That's exactly what I wanted to know. Can you send me some pics you took at long distance with the 400mm 5.6 w/o the teleconverter? You can send them to Wiselion@nycap.rr.com.


Thanks brother...............................


Mike

I have some, but I can't send fullsize images with my email. I can resize them down, or ???

Have Fun,

[wiselion]

I have some, but I can't send fullsize images with my email. I can resize them down, or ???

Have Fun,

Yeah whatever you have. Just want to get an idea. You can post them if you want.

Mike

[mr.photoguy]

Did you get the lens yet?

[paulhillion]

Did you get the lens yet?I've been promised delivery tomorrow :). As soon as I get home from work and weather permitting I'm going to get out and do some comparisons. My new 1DMk2 and the 24-70L should also arrive tomorrow so I'm likely to be overcome with photographic joy :D :D :D :D

[paulhillion]

Well the lens arrived today. 3 hours later and lot's of test shots it's back boxed up ready to make it's return journey to B&H!!

I'm not even going to bother posting comparison images between it and the 100-400L, why? Because there wasn't any difference, if anything the 100-400 was a shade better in overall sharpness (in some detail at extreme distance). I know the AF is a lot faster than the 100-400 but the advantage of having the zoom and of course the IS of the 100-400 is enough for me to send the prime back. Holding the 400 prime I realised just how much I'd miss the 100-400 if I switched.

Thanks for all your above thoughts on this.

Paul.

PS. If anybody in the UK would like a brand new 400 5.6L at the US price I paid for it (a big saving on the UK retail price) then please give me a call on 07781-147-146 before tomorrow PM as I will be posting it back Wednesday afternoon.

[Jon]

The 400/5.6 will AF with some cheaper 1.4 TCs, like the Tamron, I believe. I think Daniella on DPReview uses this setup with excellent results.

John

It'll only AF if you use the "tape trick", and you risk it burning out the motor through hunting with the too-dark image.

[jfred]

Good thing that you tested the two lenses together before perhaps getting rid of the zoom and regretting it later!

Sometimes it's good to be cautious.

[cc10d]

I sure like my 100-400. No issues.

[Scottes]

Wow. That takes some resolve.

And it says a lot for what many of us have been saying for a while - there's very little difference in sharpness between the two. LL be damned.


"You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers." - Scottes (and Paulhillion?)

[malla1962]

so thats another thumbs up for the 100-400.

[wiselion]

I'm glad I kept following this post. I have been juggling back and forth between the 100-400, 300 f/4,and 400 5.6. It is obvious that the 100-400 has alot if not all going for it. By Scottes saying he would never give up his 100-400 no matter what, and seeing the pictures he has taken with it, NUFF SAID.. The only question I have for Scottes is what do you recommend me setting the camera on (shutter and apeture) for low light Deer pictures with a tripod.Also does this lense loose any sharpness at 400mm, compared to having it 100 or 200mm. I am using a 20D camera.

Mike

[DavoMrMac]

CoolToolGuy mentioned that you will lose AF on the 20D.

Was this referring to the 20D and the 100-400L or to another combination.

I have just ordered a 100-400L and would be very sad if I cannot use AF :cry:

[cmM]

CoolToolGuy mentioned that you will lose AF on the 20D.

Was this referring to the 20D and the 100-400L or to another combination.

I have just ordered a 100-400L and would be very sad if I cannot use AF :cry:
You will lose AF if you want to use a teleconverter in combination with this lens and the 20D. The 20D and 100-400 alone will focus just fine.

[DavoMrMac]

Thanks for clarifying that :-)

[Scottes]

The only question I have for Scottes is what do you recommend me setting the camera on (shutter and apeture) for low light Deer pictures with a tripod.Also does this lense loose any sharpness at 400mm, compared to having it 100 or 200mm. I am using a 20D camera.
Settings? Whatever it takes... I'd be looking at ISO 800, f/5.6 and a prayer (to find the deer).

I'll have to think that this is not a great deer lens, actually, because of the habitat of deer. Low light and lots of obstructing branches are probably the 100-400's two worst enemies. Getting focus in this situation is tough. It can be done, but it's tough. Also, the tripod negates the usefulness of IS. For deer, I'd probably look at the 300 f/4 (and a TC for the long option) and a ghillie suit or blind.

Now, that's considering deer only. It many other cases the 100-400 excels, and it will do deer but you may have to be a bit picky with shots.

Sorry, Wiselion.


Edit: The lens is a bit sharper at about 350mm or less. Not a lot sharper, but you can tell when pixel-peeping.

[Photowell]

I have both lenes and find as others have said that the 400 prime is faster focusing but you have to use tripod most of the time. I have not seen any difference in sharpness plus you can hand hold the 100-4400 zoom. Just my opinion.

[wiselion]

Settings? Whatever it takes... I'd be looking at ISO 800, f/5.6 and a prayer (to find the deer).

I'll have to think that this is not a great deer lens, actually, because of the habitat of deer. Low light and lots of obstructing branches are probably the 100-400's two worst enemies. Getting focus in this situation is tough. It can be done, but it's tough. Also, the tripod negates the usefulness of IS. For deer, I'd probably look at the 300 f/4 (and a TC for the long option) and a ghillie suit or blind.

Now, that's considering deer only. It many other cases the 100-400 excels, and it will do deer but you may have to be a bit picky with shots.

Sorry, Wiselion.


Edit: The lens is a bit sharper at about 350mm or less. Not a lot sharper, but you can tell when pixel-peeping.

Thanks Scottes. Maybe I should have taken up smoking crack rather than photography. But with all this lens dilema I hope I don't start smoking it anyhow.:D :rolleyes: :cry: ... Now it's back to the 100-400 vs the 300f/4 for me. What to do, what to do?