400 f/5.6 vs 100-400L mk II

TRIED TO DELETE THIS POST

didn't think before posting, used different cameras.


I just picked up a 400 f/5.6 for the first time, used from KEH. In my first couple days of using it I think it is either that same as my 100-400Lii for sharpness or maybe slightly better, at least to my eyes. It is lighter and at the pond I am mostly using 400mm anyway or my RF600

The thing I need to get used to is the focus ring changing focus as I am holding the lens either before a shot or after, the zoom has the focus further back.

one place the 100-400Lii is better is in AF, slightly faster, and better to lock on.

Here are two shots shooting across my pond the fallen tree is about 275 yards away. I didn't do one with the R7 and 100-400 will do more tests with same camera

both Craws were pulled into LR and run through AI Denoise (Low Light) with same settings.

first one is the 100-400Lii with the 90D 32.5mp sensor Craw

second is the R7 with the 400 f/5.6 32.5 mp sensor Craw

I mean; the 400 5.6 was sort of the top dog, affordable prime for wildlife/BIF until the 100-400 MkII hit the market. Super IQ, small, light, relatively affordable. My question is, why 2 different bodies when comparing the lens; that adds several variables to the equation that may muddy your evaluation. Particularly the frequent need to MFA lenses to on the dSLRs to get the most out of them and the lack of any applicable IS to the prime.

You'll hardly go wrong, per se; just curious about the comparison choice. Just convenience at the time?

Snydremark wrote in post #19404082
I mean; the 400 5.6 was sort of the top dog, affordable prime for wildlife/BIF until the 100-400 MkII hit the market. Super IQ, small, light, relatively affordable. My question is, why 2 different bodies when comparing the lens; that adds several variables to the equation that may muddy your evaluation. Particularly the frequent need to MFA lenses to on the dSLRs to get the most out of them and the lack of any applicable IS to the prime.

You'll hardly go wrong, per se; just curious about the comparison choice. Just convenience at the time?

I had taken a pic with the R7 and 100-400 but couldn't find it on my PC that is the main thing. I will be taking some comparison shots at some point.

Also they are virtually the same sensor...

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19404150
I had taken a pic with the R7 and 100-400 but couldn't find it on my PC that is the main thing. I will be taking some comparison shots at some point.

Also they are virtually the same sensor...

LOL; I know that feeling

Just checking. The different AF systems can give you some variance in your results (front/back focus, AF detection/lock, etc) if not done with the same camera. If you're looking to pair the two up, I'd suggest making sure to "tune" your 90D to the 400 and then do your comparison sets both ways. Also, keep in mind the MFD on the prime is *much* longer than the zoom (mkII), so be sure to factor that in to your consideration of which body you want to pair that lens with.

I have used both lens. The 100-400 is more versatile but the 400 Prime is a better choice for me. 95% of my wildlife work is 400mm and up. The drawback in no IS on the 400 . When the light is low, you need to be above 1/500 to get results...that can be a problem......But I totally love that 400 prime..great glass

umphotography wrote in post #19404402
I have used both lens. The 100-400 is more versatile but the 400 Prime is a better choice for me. 95% of my wildlife work is 400mm and up. The drawback in no IS on the 400 . When the light is low, you need to be above 1/500 to get results...that can be a problem......But I totally love that 400 prime..great glass

With the R7 which will be my main camera the no IS is not an issue really. I have 3 ponds that I go to that I almost never shoot less than 400mm. In my side yard and another pond I use the zoom.

I have really impressed with the 400 f/5.6 and how it is easier to hold in shooting position for a long time. Especially for bursts on the R7

I will take both the my main pond in the next few days with the R7 and shoot a house on the far side and a deadfall about 75 yards away

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19404424
With the R7 which will be my main camera the no IS is not an issue really. I have 3 ponds that I go to that I almost never shoot less than 400mm. In my side yard and another pond I use the zoom.

I have really impressed with the 400 f/5.6 and how it is easier to hold in shooting position for a long time. Especially for bursts on the R7

I will take both the my main pond in the next few days with the R7 and shoot a house on the far side and a deadfall about 75 yards away

To be honest. Im thinking of getting another one myself. 400 D0's are about $4500 for used ones

I have a sneaking suspicion that the newer R bodies are going to breathe some new life into this particular lens for a number of folks in the wildlife community; just for the reasons you mention above. I will be shocked if we get through the next 18mo without some word on an RF version, tbh.

The 400 5.6, IMO, has become legendary over its later years. But for me the 100-400 II IS and MFD and the versatility of having a zoom was the reason I went with it instead.

Snydremark wrote in post #19404483
I have a sneaking suspicion that the newer R bodies are going to breathe some new life into this particular lens for a number of folks in the wildlife community; just for the reasons you mention above. I will be shocked if we get through the next 18mo without some word on an RF version, tbh.

I will be interested in trying an RF version!

gossamer88 wrote in post #19404485
The 400 5.6, IMO, has become legendary over its later years. But for me the 100-400 II IS and MFD and the versatility of having a zoom was the reason I went with it instead.

I have both, just picked up the 400 5.6 used this week. When I am sitting on the side of the ponds I work I am usually at least 100 yards from the birds.

gossamer88 wrote in post #19404485
The 400 5.6, IMO, has become legendary over its later years. But for me the 100-400 II IS and MFD and the versatility of having a zoom was the reason I went with it instead.

What he said! I started with the prime, went with the version II zoom and haven't looked back.

Naturalist wrote in post #19404579
What he said! I started with the prime, went with the version II zoom and haven't looked back.

Which is why most folks upgraded; but, where weight/size are a factor and MFD is not, this thing's still a major contender.

My experience was the same as many others. The 100-400 II image quality matched the prime (hard to pick either as better) and matched the prime's AF.
The zoom was better in the edges, but you won't be seeing the edges with an R7.
Prime was sold soon after.

I've never regretted selling the 400 5.6, but do miss the EF 300 f4 L IS. Pretty well equal IQ as 400 prime, AF not quite as good, plenty fast but not as dependable.
It was better than the 100-400 II at high magnification and the IS, despite being from the stone age, did help.

I have to do further testing. Went out with my R7 and the 100-400Lii and 400 5.6 and RF600.

the 400 5.6 seems soft, while the other two are good this was shot at 250 yards across my pond.

first images are full size then cropped. The cropped images were run through AI Denoise AUTO while the 400 5.6 crop was also run through AI Sharpen
I have gotten good results from the 5.6 so not sure why this one is not good, they were all taken within 5 minutes and with me sitting down at 1/1600
wonder if it could be the lack of IS in the lens

100-400Lii