LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Canon 400mm f/5.6 L versus Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 22 Sep 2004 (Wednesday) 10:11   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
Scottes
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Scottes's Avatar
Joined Nov 2003
12,842 posts
A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

Well I've been playing with the 400mm almost exclusively for 2 weeks, at least 1000 frames, most on the 20D but a few hundred were on the 10D. I figured - prompted by others - to share some thoughts and observations on the comparison of the lenses.

This is not a professional lens test and I have not measurebated either lens. For the most part these are my opinions, pure and simple, just opinions. There are some facts, and I'll try to be clear about them. And this is a comparison between the two lens, not to any others.


"Legal Notices"
This thread will initially praise the good and great points of the 400 Prime, and may initially seem to be putting the 100-400 in a bad light. This is not the case at all. They each have their place IMHO. So I will make 2 statements to start:

If I had only one lens it would be the Canon 100-400mm L.

It will be a very cold day in hell before you will be able to pry the 100-400mm from my hands.


Onward....


Sharpness and Contrast and Stuff

As to sharpness and contrast and chromatic aberration and such image quality stuff... Well, my thoughts are not very conclusive. I can say that I think the Prime is a little crisper and has better contrast. But these are things that really need to be measured properly, or at least compared in a measurbating way. Michael Reichman has done some simple sharpness & contrast testsexternal link between the two. They favor the 400 Prime, and it's quite visible in his tests.

Let's just say for now that I like the Prime a little more, but I've yet to take a shot that really proves it.


Autofocus

The most impressive thing I've found about the 400mm prime is it's AF speed. Compared to the 100-400 it's a rocket. There is no comparison. You aim, you press, it locks on. I have been able to lock onto blue jays so far away that they're almost the size of the sensor square in the viewfinder. Whether low light or poor contrast it's obvious that the 400 Prime AF performs much better than the Zoom.

That paragraph is a little short, and I'm not sure that's it carries the necessary punch. So I'll add more:

The AF on the Prime rocks! It simply blows away the Zoom. The Prime on a 10D blows away the Zoom on a MkII. I'm not kidding. I'll take the Prime for birds in flight any day of the week, no questions asked. It rocks.

That's better.


Manual Focus

I think the Prime feels a *tiny* bit better than the Zoom when manual focusing. But it's certainly faster to focus manually. I'm sure that any prime's internal focusing elements have to move a lot less than a zoom's. Of course it would seem faster, and make for faster AF.

Now this may not be completely fair... With the 10D and Zoom it was pretty darn difficult to manual focus - almost impossible really, for me at least. But with the 20D and the Prime it's not only possible, but in fact it's quite easy! I've gotten some very sharp shots with the 20D + Prime + 1.4 TC, and it was easy to focus. With the 10D + Zoom + 1.4 TC it took a long time to focus on something and I never got a decent shot.

I highly doubt that this is completely due to the 20D.

I definitely feel that the 20D is better than the 10D for manual focus, and I think the Prime is a *lot* better than the Zoom for manual focus. This is one of the reasons why I think the Prime is better for clarity and contrast. Again, I have no proof shots, and I'm also comparing the 10D to the 20D in these statements so it's not really fair. But I truly feel that the clarity, contrast, and manual focus abilities of the Prime are better than the Zoom.


Size & Weight

The 400 Prime is much thinner than the Zoom. It's several inches longer when stowed, but several inches shorter with the Zoom at 400mm and the hoods attached.

The Prime is listed as being 3 ounces lighter than the Zoom, but it feels a bit lighter still. It's very easy to make the Prime a few more ounces lighter since it's extremely easy to remove the tripod ring...


Tripod Ring

To remove the tripod ring from the Zoom you have to remove the lens from the camera, loosen the ring tightening screw, turn the ring until the detents match the lugs, and remove. On the Prime you loosen the tightening screw, then pull the screw out to release the lock. The ring then opens on a hinge and comes off. No need to remove the lens from the camera. I like this little feature a lot - simple, but it quickly & easily reduces weight - especially since I often have a large quick-release plate attached. I can leave the plate on the tripod and just pop the lens on and off.


Hood

The hood on the Zoom is a big plastic affair that attaches rather clumsily in my opinion. I have never liked this hood - it's difficult to get on since it's easy to tilt the hood and then it doesn't screw in right. It's mildly easier to get off. I just don't like this hood. Though, admittedly, it's not *that* bad, and it does it's job. I just don't like it.

The hood on the Prime is always attached and is metal. A turn releases it from it's friction hold and then you extend it. If you wish - and I recommend it - you can then turn it a couple times to screw it in and lock it. I like this hood a lot better. One thing that I *really* like is that I can now mount a polarizer on the zoom, since I can easily pop the hood down and turn the polarizer to the desired position. Even without this I like the Prime's hood a lot more.


Macro and Close-Up Shooting

Minimum focus distance on the Prime is 11.5 feet - almost twice that of the Zoom's 5.9 feet. For small bird shooters (like me) and butterfly/dragonfly shooters (like me) this is simply a huge difference. When I tried the Prime on a bird on SuperFeeder the Prime could not focus on the bird (even with the switch set correctly - before anyone asks. LOL!). I went back and got my 12mm tube. Still no go, and I had to use the 20mm tube. This causes some pretty dramatic light loss (1/2 stop I'm guessing) on a lens that is already f/5.6.

This has a huge impact on my macro shooting. I like to use tubes rather than close-up lenses like the 500D. The 500D confines you to a pretty small zone, between 18-22" or working distance, so you're also constricted to a limited magnification range. Tubes allow you much more leeway in distance and thus magnification. Also remember the fact that the Zoom has the inherent ability to adjust magnification with either tubes or close-up lenses.

Checking the specifications I found that the Zoom has a Magnification of 1:5 while the Prime gets 1:8.3. I'm going to assume that this is due to the close-focusing abilities of the Zoom. Magnification should be equal with both lenses at 400mm and shooting from the same distance. But the Zoom's close-focusing benefits means that you can get closer thus get greater magnification without tubes, or with less tubes at the same distance. This means less light loss, so higher shutter speeds or more DoF.

There is no comparison on close-up or macro shooting - the Zoom kicks the daylights out of the Prime. If you have *any* desire to do such shooting then the Zoom is your lens. Period.


IS - Image Stabilization

The Zoom has IS, the Prime does not. Man what a huge difference this makes! I know that people love their IS, and rightly so, but when you compare two 400mm lenses with and with out IS it's extremely apparent. You 100-400 owners - go out and spend a day with IS off. You'll really respect it.

So for low-light situations or shaky people, the Zoom wins again, hands down. The Zoom with IS gets you a LOT of pictures that the Prime would miss.

However, IS doesn't fix everything. Even though you can shoot at 1/160 at 400mm, it doesn't means you should. Just about every bird on the planet moves faster than 1/160 even when they're sitting still. Yeah, that sounds strange, but I've got lots of "almost" shots where the bird is in the process of opening it's beak, or even blinking. Big birds are generally fine as long as you grab a standard posing shot. Small birds are a different story. Larger animals or just generally slow ones are fine.

I'm not knocking IS here - I love it, and I want it on every lens. But just realize that it doesn't fix everything.


Build Quality

They're both L. They look it and feel it. They're quite comparable.

Except for the hood.


"Feel"

So how do these lenses handle, how do they work in real-life situations, what's my feeling on using the two... Tough question. I find that the Prime feels much lighter than the Zoom. With the tripod ring removed it's probably 6 or 7 ounces lighter than the Zoom. That's a lot, really.

The skinnier Prime feels funny to hold because I'm so used to the fat Zoom. But I'll get used to it I guess. Though something in between might be perfect. I'd say that I think I prefer the fatter Zoom because it's a bit easier to hold steady. For me at least.

The longer Prime can be tougher to lug around. The Zoom's push-pull feature means that it can get shorter quicker, and this can be nice in the field, depending on the type of terrain. One *could* compact the hood of the Prime, but then you'd want to put the lens cap on, and then you might lose a shot.


In Summary:

Each of these lenses has their place. Each has benefits, and each has some weak points. I own both lenses and will continue to own both lenses. I go out in the very early morning with the Zoom and switch to the Prime when the light comes out. I'm ready to switch at any time.

I like them both. A lot.


Which one should you buy?

Well, I'd say that it depends on you. If you do close-up or low-light photography then I think that the Zoom is the definite answer. If you like versatility then I think that the Zoom is the answer. If all you want is normal (not close-up) shots in bright light, then the Prime will do for you but you'll be missing some benefits of the zoom. If you never do low-light and you want birds in flight or fast AF or demand sharper shots then the Prime wins hands down.


The Final Word

If I had only one lens, it would be the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS.

But I like the Prime, too.

I'm pretty sure that's it. Then again I'm writing this between tests at work so it's not like I have undivided attention. Please let me know - and I'm sure you will - if I forgot anything or if anything was unclear.

Post #1, Sep 22, 2004 10:11:16


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Infoexternal link
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
drisley
"What a Tool I am"
drisley's Avatar
Joined Nov 2002
8,751 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Thankyou very much for that review Scottes.
I've been contemplating gettting either the 100-400mm zoom or the 400mm prime, and I think the prime may be the way to go for me.
One question... do you think at 400mm that an aperture of f5.6 is enough to blur the background sufficiently to isolate a subject, such as a person that fills the frame from head to toe?

Post #2, Sep 22, 2004 10:37:13


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=680947

LOG IN TO REPLY
PacAce
Cream of the Crop
PacAce's Avatar
Joined Feb 2003
26,804 posts
ABE, PA USA
[MORE/SHARE]

Scott,

Very good and informative stuff you have here. I'm sure a lot of members will find your post very useful. Thanks.

:)

Post #3, Sep 22, 2004 10:42:59


...Leo

LOG IN TO REPLY
CoolToolGuy
Boosting Ruler Sales
CoolToolGuy's Avatar
Joined Aug 2003
4,175 posts
Maryland, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

Scottes - thanks for that. So many reviews are just about the numbers (and they are important), but usability is just as important. Knowing that type of info ahead of time can certainly help you choose the lens that is best for you.

Now I'm more of a race car kinda guy than a bird shooter, but I got a lot out of what you said.

Have Fun,

Post #4, Sep 22, 2004 10:50:10


Rick

My Gear list

LOG IN TO REPLY
scottbergerphoto
Cream of the Crop
scottbergerphoto's Avatar
Joined Jun 2003
5,430 posts
Brooklyn, NY, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

Nice detailed review. You are correct in that they are both great lenses when used within their limitations. The 100-400 is great until the light drops or the sky turns grey and you lose contrast. Then unless the subject takes up at least 1/3 of the viewfinder it just hunts. The 400 locks focus much faster and in situations that the 100-400 needs manual focus.
The 400 is also easily hand held without any need for IS.
Scott

Post #5, Sep 22, 2004 10:50:40


One World, One Voice Against Terror,
Best Regards,
Scott
ScottBergerPhotography

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Scottes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Scottes's Avatar
Joined Nov 2003
12,842 posts
A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

drisley wrote:
do you think at 400mm that an aperture of f5.6 is enough to blur the background sufficiently to isolate a subject, such as a person that fills the frame from head to toe?

Without doing the math I'd say that in your example they'd better have their hands at their side to fit in the DoF. Well, maybe not that bad...

Take a look here.

In the 3rd picture, the heron full body, you've got about a 6' height or so. You can see the DoF.

scottbergerphoto wrote:
The 400 is also easily hand held without any need for IS.

Definitely a good point, but only if you're getting sufficient shutter speeds IMHO. So far for me, 1/500 is nice if the subject isn't moving, 1/1000 is very nice for flying geese or (full-sized) planes in the distance, and 1/2000 is drop-dead gorgeous for anything at almost any speed. These half-frame gulls at 1/3200 are fairly stunning, IMHO - but then again they're my shots. :)

The Prime is light and thus very maneuverable and easy to use for long periods. I could shoot birds in flight all day, as long as I had the light.

Post #6, Sep 22, 2004 11:17:47


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Infoexternal link
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

LOG IN TO REPLY
cmM
Goldmember
cmM's Avatar
Joined Apr 2004
5,705 posts
Chicago / San Francisco
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

Scottes, thank you very much. My confused mind is now clear.... I need both :) But the zoom comes first !

That's an awesome review/comparisson.

Post #7, Sep 22, 2004 11:27:23




LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
Joined Apr 2003
40,710 posts
Providence RI
[MORE/SHARE]

Awesome review.. (added link to REVEIW sticky)

A lot of time and thought went into this comparison. Well done. :)

Post #8, Sep 22, 2004 11:37:21


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
My POTN Share Threads
Jake Hegnauer Photographyexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
stuartf287
Senior Member
Joined May 2003
143 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

I already have a Bigma zoom (50-500), but wanted something equivalent with IS. Rather than go for the 100-400, I opted for a lightly used 300mm F4L IS and a new 1.4 Canon TC II. I haven't used this lens much yet, but I am still looking for opportunities. Can anyone compare this combination (300mm F4L plus 1.4 converter gives 420mm F5.6 with IS) to the 400mm F/5.6L or to the 100-400F/4.5-5.6L? Flexibility clearly falls somewhere in between the two, but what about sharpness, contrast, color, etc.?

Post #9, Dec 16, 2004 17:57:22 as a reply to CyberDyneSystems's post 2 months earlier.




LOG IN TO REPLY
scottbergerphoto
Cream of the Crop
scottbergerphoto's Avatar
Joined Jun 2003
5,430 posts
Brooklyn, NY, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

I bought the 300 F4 IS L to use with the 1.4X. I wasn't happy with the contrast and sharpness. I returned it and bought the 400 f/5.6. It is sharp and focuses very fast. Now if I can only get it back from Canon. It had some crud on the interior surface of the front lens element.
Scott

Post #10, Dec 16, 2004 20:17:25 as a reply to stuartf287's post 2 hours earlier.


One World, One Voice Against Terror,
Best Regards,
Scott
ScottBergerPhotography

LOG IN TO REPLY
karusel
Goldmember
karusel's Avatar
Joined Nov 2003
1,452 posts
Location: Location:
[MORE/SHARE]

The 100-400L is definetely not sharp enough at f/5.6... I'll sell mine just because of that and most probably buy the 70-200 2.8 IS.

Post #11, Dec 17, 2004 13:05:54 as a reply to scottbergerphoto's post 16 hours earlier.


5D and holy trinity of primes. Now the 90mm TS-E TS-E fly bit me. I hate these forums.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
vjack
Goldmember
vjack's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
1,602 posts
Mississippi, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

Very informative review and sure to be a popular one on the forum for a long time. Thanks for posting it.

Post #12, Jul 28, 2005 14:58:53 as a reply to karusel's post 7 months earlier.



Canon 20D
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
L IS
Canon Speedlite 430EX
Manfrotto 3021BPRO; Kirk BH-1 ballhead
Canon Pixma 4200
< see my galleryexternal link >

LOG IN TO REPLY
RikWriter
Goldmember
RikWriter's Avatar
Joined May 2004
3,545 posts
Lakeland, FL
[MORE/SHARE]

See the results from my initial experience with the 400mm L here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=87584

Post #13, Jul 28, 2005 15:10:44


My gear: 7D, 70D, Tamron 28-75 f2.8, Canon 100-400L IS, 500mm f4L IS, 1.4X II TC.
My pics:
www.pbase.com/rikwrite​r

LOG IN TO REPLY
Poggi
Senior Member
Poggi's Avatar
Joined Sep 2005
423 posts
Quincy, Mass
[MORE/SHARE]

Scottes,
Your comparison has helped me make up my mind! It will be the 100-400L. Thanks. Maybe I'll run into you at Plum Island some day!

Post #14, Sep 28, 2005 19:42:20


Poggi
"I believe in equality for everyone except reporters and photographers!" ... Ghandi

LOG IN TO REPLY
phili1
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2003
891 posts
Paramus N.J.
[MORE/SHARE]

Scottie just a great review, well done

Post #15, Sep 28, 2005 20:58:10


MKII N-Canon 20D - Tamron 90MM F2.8 Macro -
Tamron 17-35 F 2.8-4 - Canon 70-200 F4 L
Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6 IS L - Kenko Pro 300 Ext 2 X - 420 EX

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
83,966 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 400mm f/5.6 L versus Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00093 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
1013 guests, 811 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Demax

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.