100-400 L IS ver 1 or 400 F5.6 Canons

How am i going to decide this lens choice ??i have tried both and like both ,but can only afford one ??use on 50D and SL1 at times..Birding and wildlife in good light?? Its about come down to a flip of a coin ??
Can you give me some thoughts ??
Thanks Ron

Ronnie H wrote in post #17972983
How am i going to decide this lens choice ??i have tried both and like both ,but can only afford one ??use on 50D and SL1 at times..Birding and wildlife in good light?? Its about come down to a flip of a coin ??
Can you give me some thoughts ??
Thanks Ron

Well, the zoom zooms, whereas the prime doesn't.

Is the weight difference significant for you? The 400mm F5.6L is so light it’s almost a walk-around lens.

For birding I suspect you will tend to park the zoom at the 400mm end of the range almost exclusively.

Not sure how the minimum focus distance compares, or how important IS is for you?

Cheers

Dennis

Weight is NOT real important,,and i like "IS" but i think at times its over rated ?? so there again its a toss up ??
Ron

I bought the 400 F5.6, my wife bought the 100-400 L IS ver 1, we both used them on a 60D. The prime was consistently sharper, and lack of IS was not a factor as you will go for a faster Shutter Speed for anything which has the potential to move.

My wife sold her zoom, and bought the version 2 which is an excellent lens but expensive.

I complement my 400 with the 70-200 F4 L non-IS which is a bargain at the price.

I would go with the 400 F5.6.

Peter

Ronnie H wrote in post #17972983
How am i going to decide this lens choice ??i have tried both and like both ,but can only afford one ??use on 50D and SL1 at times..Birding and wildlife in good light?? Its about come down to a flip of a coin ??
Can you give me some thoughts ??
Thanks Ron

Hey Ron,

I'd have to lean towards the zoom based on what I know of what you do. The only benefit to the 400 F5.6 prime would be an edge in focus speed and sharpness wide open. But the flexibility of having 100mm to 399mm at the same aperture, with stabilization, since you almost always handhold, just makes a lot more sense for what you actually do.

Very best,

Thanks Marty ! i knew you would chime in,,I am just trying to see what my best choices might be ??

Ron

MalVeauX wrote in post #17973102
Hey Ron,

I'd have to lean towards the zoom based on what I know of what you do. The only benefit to the 400 F5.6 prime would be an edge in focus speed and sharpness wide open. But the flexibility of having 100mm to 399mm at the same aperture, with stabilization, since you almost always handhold, just makes a lot more sense for what you actually do.

Very best,

Being another shooter that does birds/wildlife entirely handheld, I would second this. The prime would be a great option if 90+% of your shooting is in flight; but otherwise, the zoom and IS make it a LOT easier get shots of things sitting in trees/brush, on the water, etc. Primarily, it's nice to be able to drop below 1/500 (which you'll normally want to be at/above for IF) and still get solid shots. It's also nice to be able to zoom back out when you, invariably, get a cooperative subject that comes inside the framing at 400.

Ronnie H wrote in post #17972983
How am i going to decide this lens choice ??i have tried both and like both ,but can only afford one ??use on 50D and SL1 at times..Birding and wildlife in good light?? Its about come down to a flip of a coin ??
Can you give me some thoughts ??
Thanks Ron

It is a very tough call.

The Zoom allows near instantaneous framing adjustment with it's one of a kind push pull zoom. It has IS, albeit old 1st gen IS.
The zoom has much closer MFD focus, so you can get better magnification without having to use tubes.

The Prime has superior image quality, and faster auto focus. It is lighter and easier to carry and point.

If you can get the MkII Zoom, you get all of the above combined, with better IS, faster AF, and at least as good IQ as the prime. You give up only the Primes lower weight, and the Gen 1 zoom's amazing fast zooming.


I had both. If I could only have one, it would have to be the zoom. It's just too flexible.

Thanks every one for your response ! well i did the coin flip and the zoom won ?Canon 100-400L ver 1,,i would LOVE the ver 2 but my wallet is tooo skinny for that ??So now a hunt goes on to find a good deal and a nice lens,,
Ron

I went around and around with this. I think you made the right decision looking for a zoom for birding and wildlife.
While it is true you will most often be out at 400 wishing for more, every now and again you will get lucky and have the opportunity to get a nice close shot and that is the day you'll be kicking yourself for not having the flexibility over a prime.

To up date this thread,,i found a good buy on a 400 5.6 L and am going to give it a spin for abit ! i will give a review after i have used it awhile ??
Ron

Enjoy, it's a superb lens!

There's a lot to love about the 400mm f5.6L - the IQ, the weight (or lack of it), the built-in lens-hood.

It does one thing super-well and that is super-telephoto.

Obviously the zoom gives you a wider range of framing options, and on those rare occasions when a critter pops up right at your feet you will be inside the mfd and can get the shot. The prime can't do that as the mfd is nearly 3m.

I upgraded to the 100-400mm MkII and whilst this is a totally brilliant lens it's a much heavier beast and I almost miss the slimline form and 'grab-ability' of the 400mm f5.6L.

I had the 100-400 ver I, sold it to get money for the 100-400 MkII.
Unfortunately I couldn't earn enough money for the 100-400 II (bought a 7D II before that), end up with purchasing a new 400mm f5.6 L.

I see that I don't need to upgrade anymore!

From the reviews, the prime has similar IQ to the new zoom. And I have a 55-250mm as a back up when MFD becomes important.

Beware of the MFD of the prime!