Want a 400mm & have 2 options....

LV Moose wrote in post #15385388
I just did a search for threads comparing these two lenses, and came across this one. Good timing.

Already having the 70-200 f/4L, and a 1.4XTC, it seems the 400 prime would make more sense for me (and I really like IS lenses for my unsteady hands). If I didn't have those two things (70-200 and TC), I'd probably opt for the 100-400.

Is this reasonable thinking?

That's basically the thinking I had, only I have the 70-300L instead of the 70-200 f/4L, but the same situation basically. You'd have 2 lightweight lenses with great IQ, that cover a great range. And you can pick up a used 400 in great shape for around $900 easily.

gocolts wrote in post #15385468
That's basically the thinking I had, only I have the 70-300L instead of the 70-200 f/4L, but the same situation basically. You'd have 2 lightweight lenses with great IQ, that cover a great range. And you can pick up a used 400 in great shape for around $900 easily.

The bug for a super telephoto has totally hit me. I also have a 70-200 and a 1.4x TC, so I think I'll be going with the 400 prime. Then all I'll have left to get is a macro lens(Bokina) and a cheap zoom(28-135) for the girlfriend to use.

It's funny how "having all the bases covered" is so important. Macro, ultrawide, standard zoom, wide fast prime, telephoto fast prime, telephoto zoom, super telephoto.

I guess we all just want to have sufficient gear for doing basically whatever we want whenever we want to with photography, huh?

So true and funny that I almost always just use a 50 prime. I am curious to try the 400L prime but the 70-300L is fine for now.

I have both. For sports I use the 100-400 because of the zoom feature. For birds or wild life I grab the 400 prime. It's a tad faster AF ( not by much) and my prime is sharper than the zoom ( again not by a lot)

It all depends on what you plan on using It for.

If I had to pick one, I would probably pick the 400 prime. Just because I have over lenses hat cover the 100-300 range that are faster.

You will be extremely happy with either

Isn't the sigma 120-400 OS fairly comparable for a much lower price? Or is it really much worse?

Vixen89 wrote in post #15385327
I'm waiting on a new 400mm to release, the rumors keep saying 2013!! D:

But if I were to choose now I'd get the 400mm f/5.6L.

nightcat wrote in post #15385434
I am also curious about the new 400mm lenses. One is said to be a 400mm f4 with IS. Thankfully, this will NOT be another DO model, so the IQ should be top of the line. I wonder about pricing. I'm hoping $3000.00 or less. Maybe that's wishful thinking.

The rumors for a new version of the 100-400L have been out there for many, many years. It is probably the longest running rumor ever for a new Canon lens. I would not count on seeing one any time soon. If you want a 100-400L telephoto, just buy the existing one.

As for the 200-400 f/4 L IS, that is a completely different lens and will cost over $10,000 when it is finally available for purchase. It is not a 100-400L replacement.

Actually, you have another option using Canon gear: 300mm f/4L IS + 1.4x TC. This gives you the basic lens plus a quite viable 420mm f/5.6 lens.

There are other options, for better or worse, using Tokina and Sigma zoom lenses.

drzenitram wrote in post #15385737
Isn't the sigma 120-400 OS fairly comparable for a much lower price? Or is it really much worse?

Some people like the Σ 120-400 better than the 100-400L. Here is a very interesting review.

http://darwinwiggett.w​ordpress.com …6-apo-hsm-telephoto-zoom/

I went with the 100-400L for two reasons. It is a tad lighter, and a tad sharper at 400mm. It also seems to focus faster in less than optimal lighting. I believe those who have used both prefer the Sigma's OS system. I can not defend the IS on the 100-400L.

TSchrief wrote in post #15386165
Some people like the Σ 120-400 better than the 100-400L. Here is a very interesting review.

http://darwinwiggett.w​ordpress.com …6-apo-hsm-telephoto-zoom/

I went with the 100-400L for two reasons. It is a tad lighter, and a tad sharper at 400mm. It also seems to focus faster in less than optimal lighting. I believe those who have used both prefer the Sigma's OS system. I can not defend the IS on the 100-400L.

Thanks for that! Looks like I'll be keeping it sigma for around 650 used.

On balance over use and reviews I havnt found the sigmas a patch on the canons,

drzenitram wrote in post #15385737
Isn't the sigma 120-400 OS fairly comparable for a much lower price? Or is it really much worse?

here's a comparison showing the 120-400OS, 100-400IS, 150-500OS, and old 50-500mm
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/article.php?l=en&ar​ticle=50

if you have the light to stop the sigmas down to f8, they can be used well...with the newer cameras, that have higher ISO capabilities it should be easier to pull off than a few years ago...I have the 150-500OS, when i bought it it was only about $100 more than the 120-400OS, so I figured i'd go for the extra reach

I'm surprised at how small the gab between the 100-400L and 150-500OS have gotten price wise...when i bought mine it was sub $900 brand new, and the canon was $1600-$1700 brand new...now the sigma has gone up in price, and the canon has gotten cheaper

Just a suggestion for possible flexibility - how about the 200/2.8 L plus the Kenko 2x PRO converter to get 400/5.6 for $770 + $280 = $1050.

bubbygator wrote in post #15386394
Just a suggestion for possible flexibility - how about the 200/2.8 L plus the Kenko 2x PRO converter to get 400/5.6 for $770 + $280 = $1050.

Yesterday Canon had the 200 2.8L refurbished for $500+. I can't remember the exact price, but it was very low.

I'd never buy a lens for normal use with a teleconvertor. TC's are for occasional use (unless you have a 600 or 800...)

ive got the 400 and i had to do it over again id get the 100-400. the 400 is better for BIF shots but if you have it on and need 100 to 399 your SOL. the only reason i didn't switch it out is i also have the 70-200 4is and a tele that kind of makes up for the 400's lack of versatility.