Lens ?help decideing ??400 5.6 or 100-400 IS used

With my low budget,,i am going to buy used,,and hope fully find a good copy,,both about $800..
Will be used on Canon 40D & 50D,,for birding & wildlife..on and off tripod...also maybe on wifes Canon SL1 at times.
What would be best & why yes i know the 400 5.6 does not have IS but higher shutter speed should take care of shake ??
Please give me some feed back to consider my purchase. Thanks Ron

Ronnie H wrote in post #17471833
With my low budget,,i am going to buy used,,and hope fully find a good copy,,both about $800..
Will be used on Canon 40D & 50D,,for birding & wildlife..on and off tripod...also maybe on wifes Canon SL1 at times.
What would be best & why yes i know the 400 5.6 does not have IS but higher shutter speed should take care of shake ??
Please give me some feed back to consider my purchase. Thanks Ron

Heya,

You either want the sharpest, fastest longest glass for action. 400 F5.6L.
Or you want the most versatile piece of glass for "everything." 100-400L.

So it comes down to what you need. If you're always spending most of your time at 400mm and you want the sharpest, fastest to focus, best performance wide open, the prime is the way to go, you won't need IS, because you're getting this for action so your shutter speed will be fast to stop motion which takes care of shake too. Or, maybe you are shooting stationary subjects more, or in low light more often, and you're closer or need the flexibility of a zoom so that you can go 100 to 400mm, and need IS for low light or stationary or often handheld use. In that case, the zoom makes a lot of sense.

Very best,

liked the shots from your link and blind,,but now you got me thinking maybe i would like the Tamron 150-600 VC better,,its a bit more than my budget??i have the tamron 70-300 VC now amd really like it,,maybe i can find a good used one in budget range??
-------------
Ron

Ronnie H wrote in post #17471911
liked the shots from your link and blind,,but now you got me thinking maybe i would like the Tamron 150-600 VC better,,its a bit more than my budget??i have the tamron 70-300 VC now amd really like it,,maybe i can find a good used one in budget range??
-------------
Ron

Heya,

The 150-600 is $1k basically, new. But getting one takes time as the stock is always limited. They didn't seem to push a lot of them out. That said, saw one go for $875 used (near new) here on this forum last week. Not common, but it went that day of course. I bought mine new from B&H. I have zero regrets, and definitely appreciate 600mm way more than 400mm on any size sensor. It makes a big difference. It's not the fastest glass. The 400 F5.6 will focus faster. The Tamron is pretty sharp at F7.1 and F8 is very sharp for me at 600mm (you can see in my flickr or in my other links). Fast enough to focus on BIF for me with my 1D2 commanding it, as long as I'm in decent light to keep my shutter speed up. Not what I would call a low light lens by any means, it requires serious ISO or just good light to keep fast shutter speed. Very effective VC, I can get very low hand held shutter speeds (as low as 1/40s and 1/60s hand held on live subjects that are not making large movements).

Here's an example of the same subject, same frame up, at a very large distance for a very large subject (note: at 150mm on an APS-C sensor, look how far away that bird really still is, it takes a ton to fill the frame, 600mm wasn't even enough, I would have needed a solid 1000mm to really fill that frame, on APS-C even), at different focal lengths to give you an idea:

150mm:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUm6​KN

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/obQT​Sk

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUng​Za

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUm5​9S

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUm4​Rh

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/obLz​x9

Thanks Mel,, thats the best compairion shots i have seen,,,
Sending you a PM
---------------
Ron

A buddy of mine just upgraded to the 100-400 II. He had both the 100-400 (original) and the 400 f/5.6L. He only used the f/5.6L for BIF. For everything else, the lack of IS kept him on a tripod with this lens. At 400mm (on apsc) with no IS, your VF is really shaky. He was generally happy with the IQ of the 100-400 (original).

His comments on the 100-400 II: Focuses faster than the 400 f/5.6. Sharper across the frame than the 400 f/5.6. Better IS than the original 100-400. I am happy with my original 100-400. Primarily because it is very good, and secondarily because I can't afford the II.

Years ago I made the choice of 400 5.6 over 100-400.
I was happy with that choice but there were many times the IS of the 100-400 would have got me the shot I could not get due to no IS.
Probably not as obvious was the shots I did get due to the incredible AF performance of the prime.

Regarding shutter speed (hand held) with the 400 5.6, it's not as simple as using 1/1000 and being safe.
I had a lot of practice with it and while I was able to get good shots at less than 1/focal length rule I also failed at 1/1000th sec (or faster)
With a 50mm lens I expect 1 of 3 shots to be acceptably sharp at 1/15th sec.
With 400mm lens I can't even guess at success rate at 1/400 sec, my performance varies so much.

Upside of the 400 5.6 is I could detect no improvement stopping down to F8. Even with 1.4 II TC I'd still use it wide open.

On a low budget I would buy whichever lens you can buy at the best price with ability to test the lens before handing over cash (or having confidence in seller)

How much time will you spend at 400mm? The 400 is nice and sharp while the 100-400 push pull can be quite soft beyond 300mm.

Thanks for all your feed back ??they would be on 400mm most of the time??or 600mm,,,but $$ is a big problem as i have a small budget,,,it may come down to a coin flip decision,,and the best deal i can find??
If Tamron came out with a rebate on the new Tammy-zoka it would be in 1st place but i would buy that one NEW,,,,but at just over $1,000 its abit high for my budget??
Ron

ChunkyDA wrote in post #17472631
How much time will you spend at 400mm? The 400 is nice and sharp while the 100-400 push pull can be quite soft beyond 300mm.

I am guessing from this statement that you've never shot a 100-400L, at any focal length. The stated claim is pure, unadulterated bull-puckey.

ChunkyDA wrote in post #17472631
How much time will you spend at 400mm? The 400 is nice and sharp while the 100-400 push pull can be quite soft beyond 300mm.

LOL !

I've owned both the 400mm 5.6 prime and the 100-400 V1

(I kept the 100-400 !)

60D
100-400 (original)
400mm (cropped)

Well it might B Bull Pucky,,but i have seen some pretty nice pics taken with the 100-400 IS canon.. now my choice is down to 2 Canon 100-400 is ver.1 or maybe a new rebate on the tammy

ChunkyDA R -U trying confuse me It didn,t work

Watt100 pics like your squirrel is why the 100-400 L maybe my choice Thanks 4 shareing

Thanks for all the replys so far, any more advice,,??
-------------
Ron

ChunkyDA wrote in post #17472631
How much time will you spend at 400mm? The 400 is nice and sharp while the 100-400 push pull can be quite soft beyond 300mm.

This one bugs me so much that I have to reply again. Long lens comparisons follow.

The ''soft beyond 300mm" EF 100-400 compares favorably to:

Using my own experience, with lenses I own: the 100-400L is good as the 70-200 f/4 IS at 200mm. That is impressive.

Comparing charts from PZ.de and Canon, the 100-400L is better at 300mm than: 70-300 non-L, 70-300L, 70-300 DO, any 3rd party 70-300.

The 100-400L does have its issues. The IS is old-school, good for 1.5 to 2 stops at 400mm. The IS also slows down focus acquisition, especially at 400mm. Shut it off if you can get to 1/800 (1/1000 on apsc). It does not play well with ANY filters. Don't even try. Lots of folks complain about the 'trombone' zoom. I get it. I happen to prefer it, and think it is faster and more intuitive than rotating-barrel zoom. I have used a mixture of Tamron, Sigma, Tokina and Canon zooms. I frequently turn a barrel zoom the wrong way. I have never mis-zoomed the 100-400L.

The Canon 100-400L is the least expensive, and optically best choice, in its range. I think I'd trade the trombone for a 100-400L II, if I had the money, though.

It's funny, I bought my 100-400 when I got my 40d, and didn't use it much. Tried it later on 7d and never really got on with it. Fast forward a couple of years, and it's permanently fixed to a 5d3 for Motorsport - I love that combo