100-400 with IS or 400 5.6 without IS??

Ze.Dong wrote in post #13913471
I will wait for the rumored 100-400 IS II

This was an old rumour when I bought my 100-400; in 2006. I'm glad I decided not to wait.

blakeG! wrote in post #13911188
I'm having a very tough time deciding between these two. They are the only 400mm within my price range. The things that im most concerned with are the 100-400's "push/pull" system. I have heard that it can suck in dust to your sensor? Has anyone had a problem with this? Also, how is the sharpness on either end? Lastly, My concern with the 400 5.6 is the lack of IS. How has this lens played out for you without having IS? So with that being said, which would you choose and why?

I tried the 400mm 5.6 for a while but eventually went with the 100-400 zoom, I've only had it a week but the zoom is easier to track BIF's and will be more versatile with sports and other things and I actually prefer the push/pull. The IS on the zoom helps but so far most of my shots have been in good light with high shutter speeds.
For me the 100 - 400 is sharp at 400mm at "wide open" apertures

XSi (450D)
100- 400
f5.6
400mm
(Cropped)

blakeG! wrote in post #13911188
I'm having a very tough time deciding between these two. They are the only 400mm within my price range. The things that im most concerned with are the 100-400's "push/pull" system. I have heard that it can suck in dust to your sensor? Has anyone had a problem with this? Also, how is the sharpness on either end? Lastly, My concern with the 400 5.6 is the lack of IS. How has this lens played out for you without having IS? So with that being said, which would you choose and why?

These two are very different each has a vast audience of supporters. My suggestion is to rent each for a week and give them both a workout. I think that will be the best way for you to decide which one will suit your needs and style.

hollis_f wrote in post #13913410
The zoom is a lot sharper at 100mm !

Come on hollis ... its better from 100mm ~ 399mm ...

irispatch wrote in post #13913741
These two are very different each has a vast audience of supporters. My suggestion is to rent each for a week and give them both a workout. I think that will be the best way for you to decide which one will suit your needs and style.

As long as rental is an option where you are, this is frequently the best advice that can be given in a situation like this.

Thank you for the advise everyone. Greatly appreciated. I am now leaning more towards the zoom since it will probably be more suited for what I shoot. I'm going to see if a local place has them for rent just to get a feel. Thanks everyone again!

I have both but I prefer the 400 prime because it's faster and sharper.

50D - 400mm F/5.6 100ISO, F/5.6, 1/640

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

blakeG! wrote in post #13915773
Thank you for the advise everyone. Greatly appreciated. I am now leaning more towards the zoom since it will probably be more suited for what I shoot. I'm going to see if a local place has them for rent just to get a feel. Thanks everyone again!

yes, check it out. the 100- 400 zoom is pretty sharp at 400mm
(and 100 - 399)

XSi (450D)
100 - 400
1/250
310mm
(cropped)

Well, since we're posting examples...


Sigma 150-500mm OS...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/4050102​629/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/6508515​975/

katodog wrote in post #13916879
Well, since we're posting examples...


Sigma 150-500mm OS...

nice eagle shots with the Sigma 150 -500 !
but if they were taken with the 100-400 they would be
so much sharper .....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

watt100 wrote in post #13917016
nice eagle shots with the Sigma 150 -500 !
but if they were taken with the 100-400 they would be
so much sharper .....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

No they wouldn't, because the second one was shot at 500mm, and the 100-400mm couldn't hit 500mm if you paid twice the price. And the first shot...was with the 28-300mm IS L, which proves nothing towards which lens is better. Quite frankly, and you can take this to the bank, in the final shot you wouldn't know if it came from a Coke bottle or a 500mm f/4 prime, and that's the bottom line no matter how you stack it.


Showing shots with lenses means nothing, it's all a matter of opinion, and it's all personal preference. Just like showing crops, I don't print 100% center crops, and I don't know of anybody who pays for 100% center crops.

And static lab tests, with fancy charts and whatnot, won't prove diddly when you're out in the field shooting. It takes more than a lens to make a good wildlife and bird photo, it takes a little bit of skill.

The best advice to give the OP is this: Try out the lenses you want to try, see which one you like the best and which one performs the best for you. Otherwise you're just listening to the opinions of people who aren't you..

watt100 wrote in post #13917016
nice eagle shots with the Sigma 150 -500 !
but if they were taken with the 100-400 they would be
so much sharper .....
...

This is the same statement I hear about the 400 prime a lot, compared to the 100-400...and I have to ask, so what?! If you're getting that sort of result out of your lenses, why does it matter if another lens might be sharper?

katodog wrote in post #13917093
No they wouldn't, because the second one was shot at 500mm, and the 100-400mm couldn't hit 500mm if you paid twice the price. And the first shot...was with the 28-300mm IS L, which proves nothing towards which lens is better. Quite frankly, and you can take this to the bank, in the final shot you wouldn't know if it came from a Coke bottle or a 500mm f/4 prime, and that's the bottom line no matter how you stack it.

Showing shots with lenses means nothing, it's all a matter of opinion, and it's all personal preference. Just like showing crops, I don't print 100% center crops, and I don't know of anybody who pays for 100% center crops.

And static lab tests, with fancy charts and whatnot, won't prove diddly when you're out in the field shooting. It takes more than a lens to make a good wildlife and bird photo, it takes a little bit of skill..

right ........... opinions and fancy tests

then you find on the internets people with both and all lens and test them and "interpolate" to 500mm and (unfortunately) it still doesn't look so sharp for the Sigmas
e.g.
http://www.michaelfurt​man.com/sigma150_500.h​tm

katodog- Nice bald eagle shot. I was rarely able to get BIF shots that sharp with my Sigma 150-500, although I can with my 400/5.6. This is a great shot, I'd be happy to get it with any lens.

watt100 wrote in post #13917016
nice eagle shots with the Sigma 150 -500 !
but if they were taken with the 100-400 they would be
so much sharper .....

Not really. The 100-400 isn't some standard in sharpness. Not even close. My 70-300 IS non-L was sharper.