Side by side 100-400 vs 400?

Anyone have side by side photo comparisons?

http://www.pbase.com …e/image/8641663​0/original

liquidstone wrote in post #11061511
http://www.pbase.com …e/image/8641663​0/original

Well, this one will start a battle for sure! I've always had the general belief that primes are sharper than zooms, and there is a lot of data and tests confirming this situation. However, I've compared my 100-400 (set at 300mm for the test) with my 300 2.8. I'm finding the same result in that sharpness is nearly equal.

Anyone wanting to comment on the review that was posted? I'd like to see the opinions! Shooting charts is one thing, but field performance is what really matters!

The 100-400 is a complex zoom with heaps of elements. You'll probably find that all the primes are equally fantastic, and the zooms vary from stupidly sharp to somewhat disappointing. If I'd had the option of buying locally and testing prior to purchase I probably would've considered the zoom, but I had to buy online (due to my location).

richardfox wrote in post #11061897
Shooting charts is one thing, but field performance is what really matters!

Some samples from the field from my 100-400 IS:

http://birdphotoph.pro​boards.com …action=display&​thread=352

And a comparison to my 500 f4 IS:

http://birdphotoph.pro​boards.com …action=display&​thread=353

here's one comparison

http://www.luminous-landscape.com …enses/forgotten​-400.shtml

richardfox wrote in post #11061897
Well, this one will start a battle for sure! I've always had the general belief that primes are sharper than zooms, and there is a lot of data and tests confirming this situation. However, I've compared my 100-400 (set at 300mm for the test) with my 300 2.8. I'm finding the same result in that sharpness is nearly equal.

Anyone wanting to comment on the review that was posted? I'd like to see the opinions! Shooting charts is one thing, but field performance is what really matters!

Well that's a slight shocker... still, I'd rather have f/2.8 vs f/6.3 at that range Stopping down on the 300 2.8, you should easily blow away the 100-400 at the same aperture?

Here is another comparison link, http://www.naturescape​s.net …iewtopic.php?f=​1&t=127089

Owned three 100-400s and none compared to my 3 x 400mm's ... others may find different results. My opinion is the zoom has variable quality across copies while the prime is consistent. This has been debated many times and really the only way to satisfy yourself is buy both and return the one you don't like. You can only count on the lens you have on your own camera.

adam8080 wrote in post #11061507
Do a search

Maybe he has?? never hurts to ask sometimes you might find what your asking for

Go to a camera shop and do your own side by side comparison.
This way you won't be misled by someone posting up two pics that may or may not have been post processed.
I shot them both side by side on two different cameras.
A friend of mine had the 50D and 400mm prime.
I have the 7D and 100-400.
We both took turns swapping out the lenses and bodies, during a day of shooting wildlife.

Today I have the 7D and 100-400mm IS L.
My friend?
He still has his 50D and a brand new 100-400 IS L.

adam8080 wrote in post #11061507
Do a search

And if he does a search, and finds a 6 year old thread on the topic?
Say he posts a comment, and revives the thread, then what?
Someone will come along and say ..... " wow, way to dig up the dead thread "
SEARCH <-- you get bitched at if you don't and bitched at if you do.

Telling someone to do a search, helps nobody.

A few years ago I decided to buy the 400L even thou I already had the 100-400 as I kept reading people saying over and over the prime was much better. But in the end I returned the prime as it didn't really give me anything better than I was already getting with the zoom.

If I really pixel peeped I would give the edge to the prime on a couple of shots but on most I couldn't really see much if any difference. Certainly not enough to give up the versatility of the zoom and IS.

If Canon ever gets around to updating the 400 5.6 and adds IS I would be eager to try it again. Still not sure if I would give up my 100-400.

Focus speed and bokeh are the most noticeable differences. Fast focus on a prime as there are less elements. And for the samples, bokeh is better on the prime as well...BUT having the flexibility of a zoom is a huge befit....

Thanks for the links and support! Does anyone have any pictures of the two of together them for a size comparison?

I have had and used both.
Sold the prime 400 though.
still with the 100-400 here.
you have to have owned both to really know and judge for yourself