Need a sharp lens around 400mm [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Simon Spiers

22nd of May 2005 (Sun), 04:29

Hi everyone i am looking for a good lens around 400mm for taking pictures of birds and also for use at airshows etc. I have my eyes on the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM which seems to be my favourite at the moment.
Are there any lens ,prime or zoom that are sharper at 400mm than this one? I need to keep the money side of things under some control as well. Would i be better off geting a faster 300mm and put a 1.4 multiplyer on it?
Thanks

tommykjensen

22nd of May 2005 (Sun), 04:37

EF 400 mm f/5.6 L

RbrtPtikLeoSeny

22nd of May 2005 (Sun), 07:39

Well, if you could afford this that'd be cool because it has the fastest AF in the world, and would go great with a 1.4 t-con since it has a f/2.8 apeture. Never owned it, used it, or seen it so I'm not sure about how great it really is, or image degredation with the t-con, but it sure does look nice!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=183202&is=USA

Four thousand dollars is probably a lil much though huh? Tommy made a good suggestion. The 400mm f/5.6L. It's about 300 dollars cheaper than the 100-400L. That's the most affordable one. The other 400mm primes are 5,000 on up.

I'm not an expert on this, never used any of these lenses, but honestly I think primes 400mm and less are a complete waste of money. The ability to quickly zoom and frame your subject is very valuable in many situations. Especially when it's people your shooting. Facial expressions and movements change in a split second and you don't want to miss it because you couldn't zoom your prime. Also, people always say primes are sharper than zooms. From what I've read, they are, but not by that much..... and with a prime you'll most likely be cropping a lot of images to make up for the lack of zoom and that'll degrade the image far worse than a zoom.

I would only recommend primes for over 400mm. Like the 500mm and 600mm primes. Since there really aren't any good zooms that go that high. But anyway that's just my opinion and hopefully someone who has owned some of these lenses will post and give you some better information.

I've seen great bird and aviation shots taken with the 100-400L though. So, my vote is for 100-400L.:lol:

condyk

22nd of May 2005 (Sun), 08:06

Have a look at some shots taken with the Sigma 50-500mm Bigma, the Sigma 100-300mm F4 (with and without the Sigma 1.4x TCon), the Sigma 80-400mm OS, and the Canon 100-400 IS. Primes I don't know as I have not used one for 3 years, when I had a 400mm Sigma. I found it restrictive on its own, but I would buy a 500mm F4 to suppliment what I had lower in the range zoom wise if I had the cash.

The latter two have Image/Optical stabilization. The Bigma is good at the 400mm range and has an extra 100mm to go ... but I never tested direct against the Canon. The 100-300mm F4 is VERY well regarded and seen some great shots taken with it. Range is great, at least for me and my future direction upgrade wise. Mine is due on Tuesday.

The 80-400 OS seems a tiny bit softer than the Bigma from shots I saw but you have OS with it and the soften may be user rather than lens. Bigma likes tripod/monopod/Pod mounting though you can get some good handheld shots. Same applies with any larger zoom without IS/OS.

pcasciola

22nd of May 2005 (Sun), 08:14

What's your budget?

The 100-400L is a great lens, but a little on the slow side at f/5.6 from around 200-400mm, the range you will be using. This will be fine in most cases, but early morning, late afternoon and overcast days it could be a problem, not just with shutter speeds but AF too. I see plenty of great bird and aircraft shots with it (not to mention auto racing shots), so it's definitely no slouch in that department, but like most long zooms above 200mm it's a little on the slow side, which is why many people turn to long primes.

If I were to get a long zoom, it would be the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. With a 1.4x extender it's a 170-420mm f/4, which is sill double the speed of the 100-400L. No IS, but I'd rather have the true stop or two of speed anyway for stop action.

Given unlimited money I'd go with a 400/2.8L or 600/4L, but as I can't afford either of these right now, I have a Sigma 500/4.5 instead, which I think is a great bargain for a long, fast prime.

Then there's of course the 400/5.6L and 300/4L IS and the discontinued 300/4L non-IS. If you don't want IS, you can find the 300/4L used for around $700. I went for the 300/4L IS because I really wanted IS, and with the 1.4x extender it's a 420/5.6 with IS, but probably not as sharp with the extender as the 400/5.6L.

Enough choices? :D

Persian-Rice

22nd of May 2005 (Sun), 08:26

I like the primes when it comes to tele lenses, not only because of perfect image quality but they focus very very fast. The 300 F/4L IS is probably the highest on my WTB list, but you might find it a touch short, I don't know. The 400 f/5.6 is also a good choice. Then there is the 100-400. Not particularly as good when it comes to focusing as the the primes, but it's up there nevertheless. Image quality is very very good, but you will probably get more sharpness out of the prime, but not much more either. However due tot he fact that its a zoom the 100-400 is a little more expensive.

I have personally gone to Canon only lenses from now on, so I have no input on 3rd party stuff, but I know Sigma makes an awesome 120-300 which I like better then the 100-400, but it is also rather expensive.

Simon Spiers

22nd of May 2005 (Sun), 12:20

Looks like the Canon zoom is the one to go for.
Thank you all for your sugestions ,I did mull over the EF 400 mm f/5.6 L ,but no IS at this length is a minus in my opinion.

Cadwell

22nd of May 2005 (Sun), 12:30

If I were to get a long zoom, it would be the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. With a 1.4x extender it's a 170-420mm f/4, which is sill double the speed of the 100-400L. No IS, but I'd rather have the true stop or two of speed anyway for stop action.

Whilst I dearly love my Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX and I've said many times that the only way I'm gonna part from it is if you prise it out of my cold, dead fingers... it's not the right lens for Simon.

It's a big, heavy lens that you do not want to hand hold... not really the thing for waving about at airshows (one of Simon's applications). The 100-400L at half the weight of the Sigma is a much better option for that... in fact that' was one of the reasons I bought my one.

pcasciola

22nd of May 2005 (Sun), 15:53

It's a big, heavy lens that you do not want to hand hold...Good point. I always forget how heavy that Sigma is. But I still think it's the only long zoom that can compete with the big primes at wide apertures. The 100-400L is an excellent all around lens, but he did ask which lenses are sharper at 400mm, and there definitely are a few.

cc10d

22nd of May 2005 (Sun), 16:23

You will love the Canon 100-400L IS, You can really hand hold it at 400 and get good shots. I love that about this lens. It is also much more versitile in that it is a zoom. Not all wildlife will set around waiting for you to set up the tripod, locate the critter in the lens, etc. Including birds. They often move and then maybe too close for 400 !! Often they just leave though. I use a 300 f2.8 with telecons when I have the oportunity to set up and take lots of time for the wildlife to come by. But as I am out walking, driving, I find I get more shots in with the zoom and IS. Great little lens. In opinion. Competes well and superior to many, set the ISO up and go get em!

mdr

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 05:48

What about the just released Tamron 200-500mm lens. It got a great review with very good marks for optical quality in a UK magazines recently.

drisley

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 08:56

I'm not an expert on this, never used any of these lenses, but honestly I think primes 400mm and less are a complete waste of money.
I couldn't disagree more!
While, say the 100-400L is very good optically, the 400/5.6L is THAT much better. If in doubt, look at these side by side comparisons (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml).
However, image quality not the biggest advantage that makes primes, even under 400mm, valuable.
Primes often are MUCH faster focusing (as in the above lenses), and offer faster apertures. The 70-200/4L paled in comparison to my 135/2L and 85/1.8 primes when it came to focus speed (and that is one of the fastest focusing zooms available, much faster than the 100-400L).
I went to some university bball and vball championships this winter and I was getting 1/400s shutter speeds with my 135/2L shot at F2.0, ISO3200. If I had been using the fastest zoom available (70-200/2.8 , I would only have been getting 1/200s shutter speeds and everything would have been a blurry mess. With some of the amateur hockey I was shooting, I would only have been able to manage shutter speeds of about 1/200s and that is no way fast enough for that sport.
You make a good point about convenience of zooms. But to say primes are a "complete waste of money"?!! I don't think so!

condyk

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 09:29

What about the just released Tamron 200-500mm lens. It got a great review with very good marks for optical quality in a UK magazines recently.

That's interesting ... diverting this thread slightly for a minute ... I was doing some top shelf scanning in my local newsagent (not that top shelf ... they keep the camera mags on the top shelf too!!!) and there was a cheapy zoom test, with the usual suspects. I'm pretty sure the winner overall was a new Tamron 18-200mm model. Maybe they're spending all the cash they're making on the 28-75 on some decent product development. Images I saw after a quick web search seemed nice for the money. Be interested to hear more as that's a nice walk around range.

schmoelzel

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 10:04

If you are looking for critical tack sharp shots, nothing beats a prime (of any focal length). If you are downsizing for prints on the web or newspaper, the zooms are a better bet because of the convenience factor. I am a self-admitted sharpness addict.....I love really sharp photos. Just my personal preference; I really like prime lenses for that factor alone. But I also have a couple of zooms that I really enjoy using because of the immediate change in focal length that I can achieve almost instantaneously. This past friday I received my latest lens addition the 300F4 and with the 1.4X extender it is effectively a 420F5.6. I took some shots and it is SHARP!! Not sure if it would be so good for airshow stuff since the AF is slower with the extender........

ed2day

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 11:15

Even though I own the 100-400L, I think the 400 5.6 is a better choice for your requirements. Birds are tough, and I think if you polled the comitted bird photographers that would be their vote. But you probably need a tripod/gimbal mount. If you are a casual birder and willing to give up a little sharpness on the little critters at 400mm in return for a more useful general purpose lens get the 100-400L by all means. Check out this link:
http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html

drisley

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 11:55

Hey schmoelzel, post some 300F4 pictures! Is that the IS model?

tommykjensen

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 12:11

Hey schmoelzel, post some 300F4 pictures! Is that the IS model?

Here is a few of mine

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photohtml.php?n=zoo050320lion1.jpg
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photohtml.php?n=zoo050320rhino1.jpg

and this one with the 1,4x extender

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photohtml.php?n=zoo050306penguin1.jpg

condyk

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 12:50

If you are looking for critical tack sharp shots, nothing beats a prime (of any focal length).

I feel I have to stick up for decent zooms! I'm sure I could find a number of shots taken with a zoom that are at least as good as those kindly shown by Tommy above. The very best images I have seen were taken with a Sigma 300-800mm zoom and not a prime ... and I've looked at a LOT of images from a LOT of zooms and primes.

I don't mind one way or another personally, each to their own preference, and my next long lens will probably be a 500mm prime, but we can lead people astray by such overt statements, influencing them not consider kit that could be otherwise perfect for their needs. So much depends on usage, user, context ... I'd quite like to see shots that can convince me otherwise, but I haven't seen them.

drisley

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 13:19

Trust me, the 300-800, although probably very sharp, won't match a 300/2.8 in image quality (but if the person using the 300-800 is a better photog, that is another story).
But really, the difference in image quality isn't the what separates the primes and zooms anymore.
It's the difference in focus speed, and aperture speed.

condyk

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 13:24

But really, the difference in image quality isn't the what separates the primes and zooms anymore. It's the difference in focus speed, and aperture speed.

Now that I CAN readily agree with :lol: and the reason why I would seriously consider a prime as my next long one!

nat869

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 13:27

I have to agree with what has been said already, primes will be the sharpest and best lens. However, Belmondo posted a test of 4 lens combos to achieve 400mm The results were very interesting.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24218&highlight=400mm

condyk

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 13:45

Well I'd love to see some really nice prime shots still ... but even saying that I believe Drisley is spot on. nat869 I checked out your site but couldn't tell what had been taken with what lens. Do you, or anyone, have any really nice prime 300mm, 400mm, 500mm shots?

It really feels like one of those throw away statement people make; a bit like 'I only buy Canon!' From a speed POV I really get the prime thing, esp for things like sports, but quality?! I don't see it ... though I am very open to being convinced. I HAVE seen some ULTRA nice dynamic, sharp shots with a real 3D feel to them taken with a Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro, which is why I bought mine, but we're talking long zooms and primes here.

Re the lens test you mentioned: the 100-400 IS is, as far as my research tells me, a bit softer anyway at 400mm and I wouldn't expect ANY lens with an ext. to compete with an equivelent length prime without one! Not sure it's that great a test. Maybe I didn't get the point of it.

tommykjensen

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 13:48

tommykjensen

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 13:57

Find some of IanD's photos of owls shot with 400 5.6

For example this one

http://www.pbase.com/giant001/image/39871349

or this

http://www.pbase.com/giant001/image/41299821

or this

http://www.pbase.com/giant001/image/39139545

nat869

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 14:01

condyk

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 14:07

Tommy

Yes, I remember them and liked them at the time. Thanks for the links. :)

Really nice, but I think what enabled him to get the flight shots was speed of AF and ability to track the birds in flight. No disagreement that a prime will normally do a better job there.

However, in terms of image quality, leaving aside subjective 'drama' and whatnot, they are not as good as these to my eye:

http://www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk/LATESTPHOTOS.htm

Variously taken with Sigma 300-800mm, Sigma 50-500mm Bigma and Sigma 800mm prime and using a range of bodies (don't think she uses Canon!) Dunno if I can tell which are taken with a prime and which with a zoom. I wouldn't expect to tell either.

It's also true that it all depends who's pointing the lens, irrespective of which lens they're pointing.

tommykjensen

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 14:23

Hmm, how about these then

http://www.pbase.com/zeiler/image/40823067
http://www.pbase.com/zeiler/image/40037440
http://www.pbase.com/zeiler/image/41045495
http://www.pbase.com/zeiler/image/40792891
http://www.pbase.com/zeiler/image/43267396

kjonnnn

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 14:36

I was always taught single focal length lenses were sharper than their zoom counterparts. The light is going through less glass.

condyk

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 14:40

:lol: Again, good shots but I don't see at all that primes are always better quality from any of these examples, in comparison to those via the link I posted taken with zooms. I do see they have advantages in speed and, sometimes, weight. That's why I will buy a long prime in future.

kjonnnn ... I never believe anything I'm taught without thinking it through, as there are exceptions to every rule. Let's pitch a cheap no name 500mm prime V's a Sigma 300-800, or even my 100-300 F4. I'll bet my house the zoom will beat it. The bottom of a milk bottle is made of glass but I'd hate to take pictures with it :lol:

Another thing I've learnt is you never convince anyone of anything. So, that's me done on this issue ... if some people still think primes are ALWAYS able to produce better image quality then we can agree to disagree.

drisley

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 14:41

I personally think the 400/5.6L are superb!:shock:
The ones on suesphotos are pretty darn good too.
Not every prime is better than every zoom. For example, an image from a 24-70L is probably better than from a 28/2.8 or 35/2. But then again, that zoom costs 10x more!
Generally, a prime will give better optics (as is the case of 400/5.6 vs the 100-400), but depending on the user, the difference may not be a big deal. One thing not mentioned is that primes often have less distortion, but again, the difference may not matter to most. My Tokina 17mm lens has much less distortion than the expensive 16-35L or the 17-40L lenses. Before I bought the Tokina, I couldn't care less about distortion. But now that I've been using that lens for many months, I am somewhat turned off by the amount off distortion found at the wide end of the canon wide angle L zooms.
But in summary, primes have their place, and zooms have their place. Neither one is generally better, but each one is better in certain circumstances.
Heck, if somebody made a 70-200 lens with a F2.0 aperture, I would be all over that puppy even if it was a little softer than the 135/2L. However, I have a funny feeling that day may never come.

lomond

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 14:55

I agree with schmoelzel.
I have the 100-400L and it's a very versatile lens.
However for birds and airshows you normally need reach.
Therefore if you have the light the 400 5.6 prime would be ideal.
I chose the 300f4 IS because the light tends to be a bit dull on this side of the Atlantic.
I added a 1.4 TC, giving me 420 f5.6 and I think the image is sharper than the 100-400 at 400.

The IS is a great bonus.
In fact it has made the difference between getting a shot and getting a nice Gaussian Blurr effect.

Simon Spiers

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 15:34

Oh .....I don't know:rolleyes:
The Prime 400mm seems so so sharp and is lighter and cheaper than the zoom.
BUT the zoom had IS and more use in other situations???
Oh I think the zoom will still be the best bet for me.
But...............

lomond

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 15:43

Yes, the zoom is more versatile, however you said it was for birds and airshows. You will be at the 400 end of the zoom all the time.
I'll make a bet if you buy the zoom you will, at a later date, buy the 300 or 400 prime.
£5.................or is it $5...:)

ed2day

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 18:37

Simon,
If it's any help to you, I was in the same boat as you a few months ago. I bought the 100-400L thinking I may very well end up with the 400L 5.6. I was leaning towards the prime, but got such a good deal on the zoom I decided to try it first. I quickly fell in love with the 100-400 and haven't given the prime a second thought. However, you stressed birds and for small birds I just haven't seen the sharpness as consistently with the zoom as with the prime. That's not to say I haven't seen some impressively sharp bird photos with the zoom, just not as consistently--maybe it takes a little PS sharpening. For larger wildlife I think the zoom is fine.

Redbird_xo

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 19:46

Heck, if somebody made a 70-200 lens with a F2.0 aperture

You might need to borrow Six Million Dollar Man's arm to hold the monster. But wait, didn't he have a normal left arm. Darn! ;)

drisley

23rd of May 2005 (Mon), 21:55

You might need to borrow Six Million Dollar Man's arm to hold the monster. But wait, didn't he have a normal left arm. Darn! ;)
No doubt. :lol:

foxbat

24th of May 2005 (Tue), 04:58

Not seen any really impressive Canon prime photographs? Spend a few dollars on "Art of Bird Photography" by Arthur Morris and then tell me you're not considering mortgaging your left kidney to get a 600mm f/4.

Simon Spiers

24th of May 2005 (Tue), 12:55

Thank you all for this very informative insight .
I will keep you informed.

Grainy

24th of May 2005 (Tue), 17:05

I love this. It could go on for days.

kjonnnn

26th of May 2005 (Thu), 12:19

condyk

I was speaking more along the lines of comparable quality lens, not good glass vs crap glass.
A zoom has more mechanics and glass between your film/sensor and the objects so therefore there maybe "some" degradation.

lordjim

26th of May 2005 (Thu), 12:29

You should try to rent both a 100-400 and a 400 prime and see which one you prefer. The advantage of the the 100-400 is the IS.

I also read that both the new Tamron 200-500 and the Sigma 50-500 were sharper than the 100-400 at 400mm but they do not have IS. The 100-400 has the advantage of a zoom for easy framing and IS. A good deal to me. Hope this helps.