Any regret? 400 f/5.6

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.

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.

CHUCK A wrote in post #15430603
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.

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

CHUCK A wrote in post #15430603
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!

I need IS plain and simple

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

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

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.

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.

CHUCK A wrote in post #15430603
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.

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
Mike K
http://www.fototime.co​m/D5EC6BC5F0DBADF/medi​um800.jpg

watt100 wrote in post #15430828
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.

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.

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.