400mm Prime or 100-400 IS L

I see they have a 400mm f/5.6L lens for about 1000 bucks...

Do you think the prime is much sharper than the 100-400 IS L?????!!!!

F Stop is around the same, about $400 more expencive buy also has IS and ZOOM! , which i find to be very useful for ME.

Any comments?

Yes, it's a prime, of course it will outdoor a zoom.

However, the compromise in sharpness is that you get better versatility. So if you think you'll only use the 400mm focal length and can zoom with feet, go for the prime.

The 400 f/5.6 is extremely sharp, the 100-400 not so much. (it's not bad, but not prime territory). If I buy a 400mm lens, I'm probably going to pick up the 400 f/5.6. I can't see myself dropping the several thousand dollars to get a 400 f/2.8.

Jman13 wrote:
The 400 f/5.6 is extremely sharp, the 100-400 not so much. (it's not bad, but not prime territory). If I buy a 400mm lens, I'm probably going to pick up the 400 f/5.6. I can't see myself dropping the several thousand dollars to get a 400 f/2.8.

have you actually used the 100-400 to make such a claim?

I think the whole "100-400" is soft started from the luminous landscape comparison between it and the prime.

While its no means soft its not as sharp as a prime, is this really so hard to believe?

No, I haven't. I have, however seen many an image from the 100-400, as well as from the 400 f/5.6. The images from the 400 f/5.6 were clearly superior (from a technical standpoint...compositi​on and skill of course vary with the photographer) to those from the 100-400. I'm not saying that the 100-400L is a bad lens. It's a great lens, and does an excellent job at providing good images througout a good telephoto range. It doesn't match the 400 f/5.6L in terms of sharpness or contrast though, at least from the several examples that I've looked at.

The article referred to above is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com …enses/forgotten​-400.shtml

The comparison there clearly favors the 400 f/5.6...at least on those two copies. Other images I've seen bear this out as well.

The 400 f5.6 is without a doubt alot sharper and it's also much faster focusing, even though both are 5.6 @400mm I think you will find the prime still gets focus lock easier on lower contrasts. That said theres nothing wrong with the 100-400 either, it's more than sharp enough for most peoples tastes (sharpness is a fairly subjective thing IMO) and a zoom is always much handier than a fixed focal length.

In the end it comes down to what your shooting, if your always at the 400 end I say the prime is the way to go. If you want something thats good for a range of shooting well then you know your choice is with the handy zoom. For me I hike alot outdoors for what I shoot so carrying several primes is just too much of a load, so a zoom is the way for my uses. But theres very few (2 or 3 I can think of off top of my head) zooms that will come even close to the sharpness/contrast of a prime.

I would recommend actually trying both before spending out your money and seeing which you like best. For me the versatility of the zoom, the IS and the closer minimum focusing distance made getting the 100-400 over the prime a no-brainer. If you want that extra degree of sharpness and faster focus then go for the prime, however the difference in sharpness is not huge and unless you are into pixel-peeping or poster sized prints you'll probably never notice it in the real world.

LOL.......'ol Michael is also quoted as saying he finally realizes that his 100-400 maybe a soft (mostly miscalibrated) copy. at any rate, he will never go back and update his review by trying another copy or having his equipment adjusted.
he thoroughly loved the 24-70L, but is now quoted as "using the 24-105L is a no-brainer."
funny thing is, everytime Michael R reviews something, his original piece of equipment that he has always used in the past, suddenly shows soft images, or was never that good anyways.

Critics are paid to be are critics and often have to nit-pick a fine product just to keep their "critic" job. I prefer hands on experience and often rent or borrow a lens I am interested in to see for myself. Both peices of glass mentioned are excellent in the hands of a person who can get the best out of them. For me , the 100-400 turned out to be more useful for my purposes.

i have the 400 prime and my friend has the 100/400 zoom if my prime is rated as 10 his is rated at a good 8 , i love mine and he loves his .
Rob.

It is a very long debate. i have never shot either and want to gain as much knowledge of this too. I really agree that it is what you want. I am more than likly going with the 400 f5.6 vs the 100-400. I have the 70-200 and with the 1.4x I will be at 280mm @ 5.6. If I need longer I will have my 400mm. I like the super fast focus of the 400 vs the zoom of the 100-400. i may get the 100-400 down the road though too.

The big question you might ask yourself is whether you're willing to give up a tiny bit of sharpness (that probably can't be seen in anything smaller than the 100% crop on the screen anyway), an awesome built-in hood, and somewhat faster AF for a considerable amount of increased convenience brought from a zoom with IS.

EDIT: I'll add that I have the 300/4L IS and while it is a bit sharper than the 100-400 (when tested under very controlled conditions on a tripod with remote release and mirror lockup), I rarely use it. And that's a shame as it's such a nice lens. But situations make the zoom more useful to me. And in the real world of handheld shooting, even with IS, the differences between images taken with the two lenses are usually related to the user, not the lens.

Your essentially asking the prime vs zoom question. Since you are asking the question, I would recommend the 100-400.

A good understanding of the "prime picture" is required for any prime, and is the reason most photog classes use a prime, so you can 'visualize' the composition. It constrains you to this constant view - which means it's up to you to physically locate yourself to capture the proper view. Being new, this can be very frustrating, and can cause a loss of the "moment".

If you will only use the lens (either 400 P or 100-400) at the max range, you might as well get the 400 and learn the viewable scene.

I only own the 100-400 but i would well expect the 4000 prime to be realy sharp as it has no IS and zoom. The 100-400 is fairly sharp at 400mm if shooting at f8 but it will never match a good prime lens.