Canon 100-400mm vs fix Canon 400mm f/5.6 (for birding)?

cc10d wrote in post #17353445
the Canon 100-400 mkII changes all these comments, if it is available, it would be the best. Lacking that availability I would agree with the others, 400 for birds and high speed action 100-400 for general use. I have the 100-400 and have used it for years as my walk about wildlife lens with adequate results.

I even don't have enough money to buy a new Canon 100-400mm MkI

cicopo wrote in post #17354859
Well I've never owned the prime but these are from a test of the long lenses I had several years ago. (I'm not including the samples from the Sigma 50-500 I also tested)

100-400 @ 400 f5.6

And the center area at 100%

The same from the 300 f4 L IS @ f4.0

at 100%

And from the Sigma 80-400 OS wide open at 400 mm (f5.6)

And the 100% crop

The Canon's seem sharp enough for me but the Sigma didn't & was sold.

Hmmm don't see any ' money in flight shots'

cicopo wrote in post #17354859
Well I've never owned the prime but these are from a test of the long lenses I had several years ago. (I'm not including the samples from the Sigma 50-500 I also tested)

Thanks for sharing your tests.

I never used the 100-400 (neither version), but it seems to deliver acceptable performance on a 1D2 (I am assuming, based on your previous post). The v1 may struggle on higher density sensors though, as I guess Canon is releasing the v2 lens especially because of future 40+ MP sensors.

The problem with zooms is due to the optical scheme complexity. Lots of elements means more copy variation issues, and higher probability of decentering in case the lens hits something.

This is why I always go for primes, especially for birding. And usually with teleconverters

I use the 100-400 along with a 28-300 L IS (which took over for the 35-350 L) to shoot radio control flying events. The current bodies used are a 1Ds2 / 28-300 combo & the 1D4 with the 100-400. When an event such as a helicopter event stays relatively close to the flight line I'll often put the 28-300 L IS on the 1D4 & just shoot 1 body. Although I can't specifically think of some samples from the 100-400 doing these events wide open I'm pretty sure I have some & they are sharp. I will try to find a few to share & believe me the BIF's I shoot can be VERY fast. Here's one from this summer that's wide open thanks to a very dull day.

Specs are 1D4, 100-400 L IS @ 260 mm, ISO 800, f5.6, 1/500 and it's at full speed in competent hands. Estimated speed roughly 100 MPH.

I had to search through a lot of photos to find one shot at 400 mm & wide open because the majority of my 400 mm shots are against the sky. This photo was shot from far enough away on a dull day so the camera set the lens for wide open. I'm including the full frame so you know that the plane is not very close to me & I've cropped an area as close to 1200 pixels wide as I can so that it will be seen here as a 100% crop. 1D4 & 100-400 @ 400, ISO 400, f5.6, 1/500

I sold the 100-400 several weeks a go and just got the 400 f5.6 today. Colour and sharpness are better. AF is faster. However I never use them on the same body: I use 456 with 7DII and 100-400 with 550D. However this lens does not have IS and MFD is too long.

It depends on what you shoot. For me I realize that I use the 100-400 at 400mm 95% of the time (mostly for birding) and I always want more. So the 456 is enough for me.

For birding I think you will use fast shutter so IS isn't important. However it helps stabilize the frame when you focusing.

For birding, I have never said "man I wish my 400 5.6 was shorter" I own both, My dad uses the 100-400 and I use the prime. for birding, I will take the prime every single time. Faster AF, sharper, better contrast. Its a beast and I love it.

the dust pump is no slouch though. Its flexible and still pretty great. I had the sigma 150-500 before and hated it. Canons super telephotos come with a price, but I think its worth it. For anything other than birding and wild life, I like the 100-400 more. Specially for sports.

Lichter21c wrote in post #17361338
For birding, I have never said "man I wish my 400 5.6 was shorter" I own both, My dad uses the 100-400 and I use the prime. for birding, I will take the prime every single time. Faster AF, sharper, better contrast. Its a beast and I love it.

the dust pump is no slouch though. Its flexible and still pretty great. I had the sigma 150-500 before and hated it. Canons super telephotos come with a price, but I think its worth it. For anything other than birding and wild life, I like the 100-400 more. Specially for sports.

I also use the 100-400 more for sports than birds


60D
Canon 100-400
(classic)

No experience with the 456, but this was taken with 7D 100-400 MkII

Truck3lt wrote in post #17363883
No experience with the 456, but this was taken with 7D 100-400 MkII

Wow, wide open at f5.6? How close were you approximately?

about 15' I'd say. He's a injured eagle that's in a cage at Reelfoot lake TN

I have both. For birding? I use the prime. its faster focusing, lighter, and sharper wide open.

my dad uses the 100-400, its great for sports, and other wild life. The 100-400 is sharp and useful. but if you are going birds, the prime is your answer.

EDIT: I have no experience with the 100-400 MK II. I would assume it is equal or better IQ than the prime. but also has a hefty price tag.

Lichter21c wrote in post #17373355
I have both. For birding? I use the prime. its faster focusing, lighter, and sharper wide open.

my dad uses the 100-400, its great for sports, and other wild life. The 100-400 is sharp and useful. but if you are going birds, the prime is your answer.

EDIT: I have no experience with the 100-400 MK II. I would assume it is equal or better IQ than the prime. but also has a hefty price tag.

I have both the 400 5.6 and the 100-400ii. I don't believe the prime will be better at *capturing* BIF's. The 100-400ii's IQ is better than the 400's, and the AF is also better. (I tested that ASAP on arrival of the zoom).

RE: the weight difference, not a problem for me, yet. YMMV.

Everything I am seeing about the Mk II is stunning. From my stand point, for the money I am going to buy an ancient 400 2.8 for just a few hundreds more than the Mk II