Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 01 Jan 2013 (Tuesday) 09:18
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Any regret? 400 f/5.6

 
CHUCK ­ A
Senior Member
358 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 39
Joined Jun 2011
Location: New Jersey USA
     
Jan 01, 2013 09:18 |  #1

Any regrets buying the 400 over the 100-400? Trying to decide between the two. I will use it for shooting birds and other wildlife.


Canon 5D3, 60D, 70-200 L f4 IS, 17-40L,16-35f4, 24-105L,100 f2.8, 85 f/1.8, 55-250 IS, 400 f/5.6, Ziess 21 2.8, canon 1.4, 430EX www.flickr.com/photos/​maggiesguy (external link), http://charles-aitken.artistwebsites.​com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,354 posts
Likes: 1420
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jan 01, 2013 09:19 |  #2

wish it had IS even if it costed $2k. other than that perfect lens. had both of them for a while before upgrading to the bigger 500mm f4 is.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Jan 01, 2013 10:29 |  #3

CHUCK A wrote in post #15430603 (external link)
Any regrets buying the 400 over the 100-400? Trying to decide between the two. I will use it for shooting birds and other wildlife.

I had the 400 f5.6 for a while but got the 100-400 and found it more versatile and better suited for my needs which also included sports and events.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike-P
Member
Avatar
157 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Likes: 239
Joined Oct 2009
Location: New Milton Hampshire UK
     
Jan 01, 2013 10:59 |  #4

I have both ... truth be told I never use the prime, the 100-400mm is more than good enough for my use. :rolleyes:


Canon 7D, Canon M5, Pentax K-1, Pentax K-3II, Panasonic LX5.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pepe ­ Guitarra
Senior Member
Avatar
800 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Southern California
     
Jan 01, 2013 11:00 |  #5

CHUCK A wrote in post #15430603 (external link)
Any regrets buying the 400 over the 100-400? Trying to decide between the two. I will use it for shooting birds and other wildlife.

Only one: I did not get it earlier!


It's not a photo until you print it! :cool:
Click here (external link), this is myflickr (external link) gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tanglefoot47
Goldmember
Avatar
2,413 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Tulalip WA about 40 miles north of Seattle
     
Jan 01, 2013 11:10 |  #6

I need IS plain and simple




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Refill
Member
Avatar
177 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Euro
     
Jan 01, 2013 14:28 |  #7

Only one regret: I find it not as good-looking as the other L teles. And that regret only lasted some days!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moltengold
Goldmember
4,296 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jul 2011
     
Jan 01, 2013 14:36 |  #8

its a sharp lens and great for birds
but you will need more light for the f 5.6 and a fast shatter speed
i sold it and i bought the 300L f/4 IS
i can shoot the moon at night handheld even with the 1.4 extender


| Canon EOS | and some canon lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bob_r
Goldmember
2,426 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 595
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Cordova, TN
     
Jan 01, 2013 14:59 |  #9

Like some of the others that responded, I had both and kept the 100-400. The 100-400 is more versatile than the 400 and even though the IS is an older version, it has allowed me to get handheld shots with a shutter speed below 1/100s. I didn't find enough difference in IQ between them to even consider it a factor in my choice.


Canon 7D, 5D, 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135L, 200L, 10-22, 17-55, 70-300, 100-400L, 500D, 580EX(2).
Sigma 150 macro, 1.4X, 2X, Quantaray 2X, Kenko closeup tubes, Yongnuo YN685(3), Yongnuo YN-622C-TX. Lots of studio stuff.
** Image Editing OK **

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikeassk
Goldmember
Avatar
2,329 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2006
Location: San Diego/ San Fran/ Berkeley
     
Jan 01, 2013 15:15 |  #10

I enjoy the weight of the prime and the benefits for my type of shooting... Its sharper faster and lighter.

I also use 70-200 extensively which covers my need for versatility.

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8360/8335262746_c34f6df7d5_b.jpg

Stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Billginthekeys
Billy the kid
Avatar
7,359 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Islamorada, FL
     
Jan 01, 2013 15:23 |  #11

CHUCK A wrote in post #15430603 (external link)
Any regrets buying the 400 over the 100-400? Trying to decide between the two. I will use it for shooting birds and other wildlife.

Have had mine for 6 and a half years, no regrets at all, I would sell everything else in my bag before that lens.

I have used three different copies of the 100-400 and while it does a nice job, for birds and especially birds in flight, there is no lens at any price that is sharper wide open, faster focusing, or easier to handle for the task than the 400 5.6 prime.

That said I will fully admit the lack of IS, long minimum focus distance, and f5.6 make it a very specialized lens. The 100-400 would be more versatile. Then again I also own a 70-300L and 500L, so I am kind of a telephoto addict, and don't really care about an all in one solution. You already have the 70-200 F4 IS for your other telephoto needs.


Mr. the Kid.
Go Canes!
My Gallery (external link)My Gear
what the L. just go for it.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike ­ K
Goldmember
Avatar
1,637 posts
Joined Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco area
     
Jan 01, 2013 15:44 |  #12

No, I have had the 400/5.6 for many years and it has served me well for general landscape use. If you search in this forum and others comparing the 100-400 zoom to the 400 prime you will find a strong trend that the 400 prime almost always is a hair sharper and with stronger contrast. There are many, many threads on this topic which are several years old. Also the 100-400 zoom is more like 380mm at the longest position, a small but noticeable reduction in telephoto reach. On the plus side to the zoom, it has IS, but its an early version of IS. It takes several seconds to get going but works OK. Since I am a tripod shooter I don't miss this feature much. The zoom obviously has a big advantage of compositional flexibility for wildlife, sports, etc. Again I use it mainly for landscapes, YMMV.
And older comparison, but still valid
http://luminous-landscape.com …enses/forgotten​-400.shtml (external link)
Mike K
http://www.fototime.co​m/D5EC6BC5F0DBADF/medi​um800.jpg (external link)


Canon 6D, 1DmkII, IR modified 5DII with lots of Canon L, TSE and Zeiss ZE lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
Goldmember
2,327 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Jan 01, 2013 16:35 |  #13

watt100 wrote in post #15430828 (external link)
I had the 400 f5.6 for a while but got the 100-400 and found it more versatile and better suited for my needs which also included sports and events.

+1

I wanted the 100-400 but found the 400L for less. Then I got a good deal on a new 100-400 so I made the swap. The zoom and IS are a greater benefit for me than the sharpness of the 400 prime.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
N.V.M.
Goldmember
Avatar
2,470 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 6535
Joined Sep 2010
Location: North Vancouver,Canada
     
Jan 01, 2013 16:44 as a reply to  @ n1as's post |  #14

just sold my 400mm prime, after a year and a half of birding and wildlife(same as the OP wants).

RARELY needed less than 400mm. in fact, usually not enough.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Jan 01, 2013 16:49 |  #15

I think it needs IS as well... Great lens though.

I prefer the 300 f/4L IS with a 1.4x over the 400 by itself.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,730 views & 4 likes for this thread
Any regret? 400 f/5.6
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is JohnBonney
1069 guests, 344 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.