100-400mm Or 400mm Prime?

I'm looking to rent a nice Zoom lens for a week or two at Borrowlenses. I cannot decide on which to choose but i am leaning more on the Prime side because i'm a huge sharpness freak. Now i would assume the 100-400mm is more versatile while the 400mm Prime is Sharper. My only concern about the 400mm is it doesn't have IS. Any suggestions? or even a different lens Suggestion.

What are you going to be shooting?

If you are renting, why not swing for the fences and get the 400 f/2.8 IS instead? It is a prime and has IS..

gonzogolf wrote in post #16042797
What are you going to be shooting?

Go for the prime only if it fits the one purpose you need a longer lens for.

If you don't have a single use intended, than you want to get the zoom.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #16042784
Now i would assume the 100-400mm is more versatile while the 400mm Prime is Sharper.

That's basically what it comes down to. I have the 100-400. When I shoot birds, I pretty much lock it on 400mm. But the versatility of the 100-400 has gotten me shots I'd have missed with a 400mm prime. I try to keep my shutter speed pretty high even with the IS so I wouldn't worry about that too much unless you plan on shooting in the evening and/or your camera is lacking in the high ISO department.

you will feel more comfortable with the 400mm f/5.6 on your camera
no heavy weight
its like carrying the lens only because you have a compact body

If you have access to a monopod and you are only shooting at 400 thats one option. If you are hiking and going handheld the 100-400 is a better option with IS.

I vote the 400, depending on your needs. While the 100-400 is more versitle, the prime is sharper AND has better AF. The lack of IS only becomes an issue when you get to really low light, which is why they made your ISO adjustable. Weight certainly sides to the 400.

But again, it depends on what you need it for.

Personally I think both lenses are excellent, but I went with the prime and certainly don't regret it.

Roger Cicala from Lens Rentals recently published test results on the new 200-400mm lens. They compared it to results from other lenses including the 2 being discussed here. The results (which include the 100-400mm 5.6 zoom and the 400mm 5.6 prime) can be seen on this Fred Miranda thread (on the first post).

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …eyword=200-400mm#11603432

DJHaze596 wrote in post #16042784
I'm looking to rent a nice Zoom lens for a week or two at Borrowlenses. I cannot decide on which to choose but i am leaning more on the Prime side because i'm a huge sharpness freak. Now i would assume the 100-400mm is more versatile while the 400mm Prime is Sharper. My only concern about the 400mm is it doesn't have IS. Any suggestions? or even a different lens Suggestion.

I had the 400mm 5.6 prime but found the 100-400 more versatile so I kept that

If you are using the lens exclusively for birding, the 400mm prime would be a good choice. If you plan on shooting a variety of wildlife or outdoor sports/activities, the versatility of the 100-400L would probably be a better choice.

I bought the 100-400L due to its versatility. I use the lens for all kinds of wildlife, from small birds and rodents to large elk and bison. Plus, it is a great zoo lens.

Last year, like many, I went through the same dilemma: 1. Get the 100-400L for versatility and IS or 2. get the 400mm f/5.6L for sharpness. I went with the 100-400L.

Now, a year later, I still can't decide if I made the right choice. Although I have indeed enjoyed the versatility of the zoom having used the lens in the 100-300mm range, for the most part I just want the reach; I want 400mm.

Scott M makes a great point: the 100-400L is as good as it gets as a zoo lens.

I wish I could give you a definitive recommendation, but I can't even give that to myself! If I were trying to answer that today my answer might be neither. I'm really impressed with what I've been seeing from the Sigma 120-300mm lens.

The Sigma 120-300mm enjoys some key advantages over either 100-400L and 400 f/5.6L: 1. Four-stops IS, 2. constant aperture of f/2.8 throughout the zoom range, 3. The newest edition can make use of a USB dock that allows the user to microadjust the lens, install firmware updates, customize IS and zoom limits. The constant f/2.8 aperture really pays off when using extenders. Add a Sigma 2x extender and you've got a surprisingly sharp 600mm f/5.6 lens. Check out the lens thread for some very impressive 600mm examples: https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=93459​2&page=246

There are a couple of negatives about the Sigma 120-300 to note though (as compared to the 400 and 100-400: 1. quite a bit more expensive, 2. The constant f/2.8 aperture makes the lens a lot heavier.

Thanks for the feedback, i'm going to be shooting a lot of Wildlife. Judging from the comments, looks like the 400mm is the better choice.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #16046447
Thanks for the feedback, i'm going to be shooting a lot of Wildlife. Judging from the comments, looks like the 400mm is the better choice.

If you are shooting wildlife (not just birds), you may want to flexibility of a zoom. For birds, I agree that a prime may be a good choice since you are going to be pegged at 400mm pretty much all the time.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #16046575
If you are shooting wildlife (not just birds), you may want to flexibility of a zoom. For birds, I agree that a prime may be a good choice since you are going to be pegged at 400mm pretty much all the time.

I'm going to adventure out to a few parks but im mainly going to be in my area which i know very well. there's plenty of space for me to sit back with the prime and get some nice shots.