Worth upgrading this to a prime lens?

[Alpieagle]

Dear members,

I do own a 100-400L as main telephoto lens for quite a long time and until now, I was very happy with it. Never felt the need for another, better quality ( and more expensive :rolleyes: ) lens... until 2 weeks ago.

Stopped down to around f.8 the 100-400 is wonderful, but as I do quite a lot of airshow photography and had another shoot 2 weeks ago at a local show, I somehow wasn't happy with the results anymore.

Lots of them were quite a lot soft at the 400mm end which made me quite unhappy with it. Here are 2 example photos, on the ground the lenst shoots well ( photo 1 ), but in the air during fast moving objects it often turns out soft ( photo 2 )...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/875816/L/

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=496920

I an now considering either a

C 300mm f4L + 1,4 conv.

or a

C 400mm f5.6L

Would you recommend it? The lens prices aren't really high anymore, but would the quality be noticeably better than the 100-400?

Thanks a lot!

[tommykjensen]

I can definately recommend the 300 f/4 IS + 1,4 conv. I have that myself.

I had to make this choice earlier this year, I will find the thread and post the link. Hang on....

[tommykjensen]

Link:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56149

[Icecamp]

The 100-400 is a very good lens, maybe a little soft, but it more than makes up for it in versatility. If you go with either prime, it will be sharper, but certainly less versatile. I have the 300 f/4, and if a picture is soft, it's because I screwed up, not the lens. I haven't tried it with a TC yet, but I will soon, I just purchased a Kenko 1.4x. I purchased the Kenko over the Canon mainly because of price, and the Kenko was more contrasty. The canon was definitely sharper across the whole frame, but the Kenko was better in contrast and sharpness in the center of the frame, and with that length, that's where my subject will be.
Weird too, I am thinking of trading the whole Shebang for a 100-400.... maybe we can work a deal :D.

[GyRob]

I have the 300f4isL AND 1.4 CON, and i love fast jets this conbo is good but the converter slows the focus down and that means missed shots, im going for the 400mm f5.6 L after reading up about it this is the best way to go imho .
Rob

[tommykjensen]

I have the 300f4isL AND 1.4 CON, and i love fast jets this conbo is good but the converter slows the focus down and that means missed shots, im going for the 400mm f5.6 L after reading up about it this is the best way to go imho .
Rob

I will probably also add the 400 f/5.6 L some day, but I have another lens on my wish list I want first.

[condyk]

Johndm, who visits here now and again but doesn't post much, uses the 100-400mm IS L for just the shots you're talking about and has achieved some quite wonderful results. This makes me wonder if the lens is the main issue, or maybe you are now using it in a slightly different way to what you have done previously and so need to relearn the lens when taking these kinds of shots. Just a thought. Might be worth popping over to:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/

and asking for views. You're probably a member already :)

I am pretty sure the 100-400mm IS L is one of the most popular lenses for these kinds of shots. Of course, I am pretty sure too that a 300mm or 400mm prime will take better shots ultimately and be faster across the board, but be a shame to lose the flexibility and all round greatness of what you already have.

[xuxu1]

The 100-400 is a very good lens, ..........................., ...... it more than makes up for it in versatility. If you go with either prime, it will be sharper, but certainly less versatile. ..............., and if a picture is soft, it's because I screwed up, not the lens.

I second that.

ED

[Alpieagle]

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/

and asking for views. You're probably a member already :)

Thanks, yes I am a member already.


Icecamp:

Thanks for your views. As said, I mainly got the 100-400L because its flexibility in terms of zoom range, but then again, quality still remains more important.

I'll reconsider the whole options.
Thanks a lot!

[rssfhs]

Go for the 400 f/5.6 L! Its sharpness and fast focusing are legendary! Here is a shot I took with mine: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=16668

[Keiffer]

IS this really soft or a color cast? And couldn't you easily have fixed it in PS? The second one just look like not enough light. Dear members,

I do own a 100-400L as main telephoto lens for quite a long time and until now, I was very happy with it. Never felt the need for another, better quality ( and more expensive :rolleyes: ) lens... until 2 weeks ago.

Stopped down to around f.8 the 100-400 is wonderful, but as I do quite a lot of airshow photography and had another shoot 2 weeks ago at a local show, I somehow wasn't happy with the results anymore.

Lots of them were quite a lot soft at the 400mm end which made me quite unhappy with it. Here are 2 example photos, on the ground the lenst shoots well ( photo 1 ), but in the air during fast moving objects it often turns out soft ( photo 2 )...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/875816/L/

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=496920

I an now considering either a

C 300mm f4L + 1,4 conv.

or a

C 400mm f5.6L

Would you recommend it? The lens prices aren't really high anymore, but would the quality be noticeably better than the 100-400?

Thanks a lot!

[xuxu1]

OK... well a prime lens (with TC) might be fine under some conditions, but i still would keep the 100-400L. You´ll need it over and over again. Just imagine taking a pic from a triple 7 and just a minute later there will be a A380 (coming soon) on approach. What are you going to do? Run back a few yards to get the plane in frame? No.. i bet you would wish you could have the versatility of a zoom lens like the 100-400L.

BTW... unsharpness is very often user error.

ED