100-400mm f4.5-5.6L or 400mm 5.6?

I just purchased a 10D with the 50mm f1.8II, and Speedlite 550EX, and a Delkin 1Gb CF card. I have been reading posts on this forum and 3 or 4 others. I enjoy wildlife photography with an emphasis on birds. I am a high school physics instructor and try to do my homework before spending "moonlighting" money on my hobbies.
My next purchase, which I hope will come this fall, will be a telephoto lens. I was originally comfortable with purchasing the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM. There are lots of favorable posts out there. I have looked at many sample photos by many different people. Most of them I'm not impressed with, but there are some which are wonderful. I'm sure most of what I see is due to the person operating the camera. (I know first hand how hard it it to get good photos with a large telephoto.) Then I saw people comparing ithe 100-400mm with the 400mm f5.6L USM. There is no denying the MTF charts available at Canon's website show the 400 prime's superior specs. I have seen photos demonstrating its superiority under controlled conditions like being tripod mounted, mirror locked up, and remote cable release.
I don't usually like to use a tripod, but do own a nice one. My question then, is, in the real world application, which lens should I go with? I am extremely picky about sharpness. I know I would be better off with the f2.8L IS USM, but can't afford one. I know about the 10Ds softness - I will probably end up sharpening many of my photos. (I also know software sharpening doesn't increase resolution.) I own a pair of Nikon 10 x 42 superior E's and a Swarovski 80mm HD spotting scope. I'm not found of chromatic aberration. Will the IS of the 100-400mm make up for its lower resolution capabilities?
I would enjoy seeing more sample photos and more comments from you!

If you're going to be handholding, then you absolutely positively want IS at these focal lengths. But if you're really as picky about sharpness as you say you are, then you're going to want to use a tripod.

I like the 100-400 a lot and think it represents an exceptional value. Don Cohen has a lot of very nice wildlife images on his site made with this lens that might make you think better of it:

http://www.dlcphotogra​phy.com/

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

I have contemplated the 400mm 5.6
I liked it for the price,.. but in the end I did not get it,.. as I knew I would allways covet the other two 400mm L lenses,. with there faster apertures and "IS".

Given that,.. of the two lenses you list,. I would go for the 100-400mm. It will be more flexible as far as what you can use it for,. and it has "IS" with a 5.6 aperture at 400mm.

I own the 100-400mm L IS lense and simply love it. I do a lot of sports action shots and the clarity is superb. I do find that using a mono pod probably helps a lot (especially holding a heavy cameera for over an hour and a half). My vote is fro the 100-400mm. I don't believe you will be dissatisfied at all.

I had a similar decision to make, except it was between the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS L and the 300 f4 IS L. The 400 f5.6 wasn't even a consideration for me because I needed to have IS. I finally ended up getting the 100-400mm even though I knew that 300 prime would give me sharper images at 300mm, especially at wide open aperture. What made me pick the 100-400 was the versatility of being able to use any focal length between 100 to 400 and not being "stuck" at 300 all the time.

I deliberated on this for a couple of months before making my decision and, believe me, it was NOT an easy decision to make. Currently I'm using the 100-400 lens for taking pictures of birds but I'm also going to use it for taking auto/motorcycle racing pictures and air show pictures.

Since my current interest is birds, the 100-400 has become my "everyday" lens and is mounted on my 10D all the time. It makes a perfect companion to my previous "walk-around" lens, the Canon 28-135 IS.

I would differ a bit.

For lens quality-wise. EF400mm f/5.6 L USM is sharper than the zoom counter part, hands down. See this review:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com …enses/forgotten​-400.shtml

Yes, it has no IS, but it is lighter and well, you have to turn off the IS on EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM on tripod anyway.

Also, many photographers like Mr. Michael Reichmann and Mr. Arthur Morris use EF400 f/5.6 L USM.

The only reason I have the EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM this lens is increaible in its flexiblity. You get the easily adjust the zoom to your needs, even it is heavier. Not to mention, it becomes a close-up lens after adding 500D and/or extension tubes.

My 2 cents.


Griffin.

I also have the 100-400mm after making the choice between prime and zoom.
I made the right choice.
I do a a bit of wildlife photography, and some sports (water/motor sports) and this is why I considered a 400 prime - but the lanscape photographer in me shouted 'what about me!'. Good job because the shorter focal lengths are fanastic for isolating parts of a scene that would otherwise be out of reach for me.
I have decided I will get a prime in a year or two, but for wildlife I will be looking at 500mm.
IS is a bit handy too

I had both lenses and after one month with the 100/400 IS I sold the 400 Æ’5.6 as I knew I woiuld never be using it again. Arthur Morris is currently carrying and using the 100/400 instead of the 400 Æ’5.6 so I guess I am in good company.

The 100/400 is quite sharp at 400mm wide open. BTW I leave the IS on when using a tripod and have experienced no problems. I have a few shooting pals who do the same.

Let me put it this way if I could have only one lens it would be the 100/400 IS. It is my most used lens and I don't leave home without it.

This taken with 1.4TC at 400mm:

http://www.fiber-net.com/pub/shcc/owlpa​ir.jpg

This taken at 265mm:

http://homepage.mac.co​m/meckstein/post/tri2.​jpg

At 400mm, the fixed lens will outperform the zoom noticeably, if you are one of those people who looks at very large prints with a loupe.

That said, it seems to me that you have to decide if you will shoot a lot at 400mm. If the 100-400 will be racked out all the time, then you have your answer.

Thus, I'm not sure you can compare these lenses. The 300mm lens, for example, will make the same images as a 400, though you'll have to enlarge and crop, but the 400 will not make the same images as the 300. Thus, the 400 won't make very many images that are possible with the 100-400.

The lens that can make the image is always better than the lens that can't, no matter what their relative sharpness.

There is another question to consider. If you use a shorter fixed lens (like the 300) and then enlarge and crop it to the same frame as a 400, the resulting image will not be as good as you'd get with the 100-400 at 400, even though the 300 is sharper than the zoom at 300. If the zoom lens means that you will always frame precisely so that you don't have to crop off pixels on all sides, then your image will be better overall, though you might have a few images that might have been slightly better with the fixed lens.

Lanscape pros like Reichmann can afford to carry several fixed lenses, and choose the correct lens for each image. That's what I have for my medium-format stuff--a 120, 180, 300, and 500, plus high-quality 2x converter giving me 120, 180, 240, 300, 360, 500, 600, and 1000 if I bring a sufficient number of laborers. But for wildlife and other moving subjects, a person with a zoom will get the image while I'll be changing lenses.

And you know that sharpness is more a state of mind than lens resolution numbers. If you put the subject together properly and focus on the right thing, the sharpness will be there even if the lens isn't the sharpest available. I have seen many wildlife images that were not what I, as a former large-format photographer, would call really sharp. But they looked sharp.

In summary, getting the image is more important than that last bit of lens resolution. Precise framing is more important than that last bit of lens resolution. Good compositions and focusing on the right thing is more important than that last bit of lens resolution.

Rick "who notices that in every case even Reichmann says that lens X, the faults of which he is about to reveal, has produced excellent fine-art images for him in the past" Denney

Strange. Sometimes, the lens studders when I turn the IS on., well that could be balancing problem. Anyway, it is not the latest IS model like one on EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM, which I am told it turns IS automatically off when it detects it is on tripod.

Yep same here, in the meantime, EF100-400mm L IS USM is the only lens I use on birds.


Griffin.

I have occasionally had the 100-400 go into its IS feedback loop on a tripod. There's no mistaking when it happens -- it vibrates noticeably. Then you turn off the IS.

Most of the time when I'm using it on a tripod though, I'm doing so in a more dynamic mode using the Wimberley Sidekick, aiming and shooting actively as opposed to trying to achieve perfect stillness and using remote release, mirror lockup, etc. For the former sort of use the IS is still very desirable.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

This has turned into one of the more informative threads I can remember reading

If there was a review section on this forum,. we could cut and paste this thread as one of the most in depth reviews of the 100-400mm IS on the internet!

Always when I look at threads like this I still have that niggling doubt as the wether I purchased the right lens.
Rick, what you said about getting the right shot makes perfect sense - and has finally convinced me that the 100-400 is the without any doubt right lens for me

I think that one must be very specific in realizing their application in this case. The main thing I find enticing about the 100-400L (which by the way I do own currently) is that it not only allows for a significantly flexible use as far as focal range on a jaunt, but also allows for handholding without the need for either a mono or tripod. It WILL render very sharp images even wide open (assuming you have a decent copy of course). The 400mm 5.6L strengths are indeed when one is on a mono or tripod and with decent light. If one was a "birder" I would suspect that the prime may well be a better choice. Most birders DO use mono and tripods a LOT and therefore it's not as uncommon as one might think. For my personal use I've found the zoom to be an ideal answer to when I need that extra focal length but am unsure as to just how much of it I'll need. In build and performance the 100-400L certainly deserves it's L stature AFAIAC. The prices of both lenses are extrememly fair to be sure. How can you really lose either way.

Wow, thanks for all the great responses! You've convinced me to buy the 100-400mm L. I had already ssen some very nice photos taken with this lens; you showed me some more. I agree that the prime lens is sharper, but the 100-400mm is more versatile and the IS will allow more situations to get a photo - especially without a tripod.
I am a birder, but I will probably continue to carry my Swarovski with a tripod and my binoculars. My tripod is a Bogen/Manfrotto. I will get a quick release plate for the lens. I will be able to set the lens on it when necessary.
I did get a response on another forum that stated that the quality of the 100-400mm does vary - some were very good and some were not so good. He suggeted I purchase the lens from a source which will be willing to do exchanges. Do any of you have any comment on this? I purchased my current equipment from B & H. I plan to buy the lense from there as well. I haven't discussed this with them yet, but hope an exchange will be possible if necessary.