100-400L vs 400 f/5.6 ??

Hi all,

I'm sure this has been discussed many, many times, but I've been looking around and can't find a good reply.

My question is, I'm in the market for one of these two lens. Now, I do like the fact that the 100-400 has IS, but I hear its not so sharp at 400mm? Obviously the 400 prime is going to be better at that focal length, but what do you all think? Also, I will be using 1.4x TC and 2x TC's attached with one of these two lens. How drastic is the loss of image quality? I have the 350D currently. Will I lose AF if I attached a TC to them? Or would I just be better off with the 300mm f/4 and 2x TC attached?

I primarily photograph birds, and nature of any sort. I just recently sold me 70-200 f/4 to upgrade to one of these lens. So I'm just trying to get as many opinions as I can before I go out and make the purchase.

Thanks for the replies in advance.

Cheers,

Adrian

the 400 prime will be better, but lacks IS and zoom. so it depends on what is more useful. I wouldn't stack TC's on them, for one, they probably won't AF. you'll be at f/8 min, and the 350d wants atleast 5.6 min ap. the viewfinder will also be extremely dim, so any critical work will become very difficult.

http://luminous-landscape.com …enses/forgotten​-400.shtml
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/400v400.shtml

I just received my 100-400L a few days ago . I think it really depends upon the type of shooting you intend to do and the lens coverage you've already got. Since you sold your 70-200L, the 100-400L seems a natural choice IMO. I chose the 100-400L for its utility - I mainly intend to use it at 400 for birds and wildlife, but want the ability to go shorter withour having to change lenses. What absolutely made up my mind was the closer focus ability of the 100-400L.

Another option is the 300 f4L IS + 1.4X, very usable and also with good close focus but the 400mm prime will have better AF than the 300 with the TC I would think.

BTW what's the max f-stop of the 100-400 at 300mm out of interest?

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2162789
Another option is the 300 f4L IS + 1.4X, very usable and also with good close focus but the 400mm prime will have better AF than the 300 with the TC I would think.

BTW what's the max f-stop of the 100-400 at 300mm out of interest?

At 300 its f/5.6. To the OP: Another point in the 100-400Ls favor is that you don't have anything to cover the focal length from 55mm on. From what I've heard the 300 f/4 is a great lens, but I don't think I'd personally get if I didn't have a shorter tele.

Just my opinion, and worth exactly what you paid for it.

The 100-400L is a great lens. It's sharpness at 400mm I think varies from copy to copy. Mine is fine at 400mm if I stop down to f/7.1 or more. It does not take a Tcon very well though. Even if you trick the camera to autofocus, it is slow in focus, hunts alot and the IQ is greatly reduced.

If you were going to put a Tcon on it all the time, I would go with the prime, you'll still have AF issues.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2162789
Another option is the 300 f4L IS + 1.4X, very usable and also with good close focus but the 400mm prime will have better AF than the 300 with the TC I would think.

BTW what's the max f-stop of the 100-400 at 300mm out of interest?

huh - You know I've been interested in the 100-400 but that 300 prime is a nice option with a TC.....Maybe not as flexable, but it is cheaper, and faster....

SolPics wrote in post #2163129
The 100-400L is a great lens. It's sharpness at 400mm I think varies from copy to copy. Mine is fine at 400mm if I stop down to f/7.1 or more. It does not take a Tcon very well though.

I agree with this. Mine is quite sharp at 400mm. I did put a 2x tc on this weekend and it did have a little image degradation as well as no AF but I got some acceptable MF shots of a beaver (too far away to photo w/o the TC). But the QC really seems to vary on the 100-400L...some really do have soft copies at 400. I've heard that the 400 f/5.6 is one of the best bird lenses to buy, and if that is your primary goal (it's next on my list) I'd recommend that over the 100-400L. If you need it for other uses though, the 1-4 is extremely versatile.

The 400 prime takes a tc very well. I use a Canon 1.4 tc and tape the first three pins to stop the converter reporting back to the camera - this way you can maintain af although it tends to hunt a bit at times. From what I have read the 100-400 is not very good with a tc.

Here's a thread that might tickle your fancy...

http://www.photography​-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=228670

Good luck with the decision...

Thank you all for the replies. I greatly appreciate it.

I'm still having a hard time on deciding which one to get though. I keep going back and forth in my mind. Although I would like the versatility of the 100-400, the 400 prime seems to do well with a 1.4x TC. How would these two do with a 2x TC, just out of curiousity? Will you still have AF at all, or no? I would just like to know that I have the option of using this combination and still have great success.

The 70-200 I just sold, I used my 1.4x TC with it and I was always at a constant 280mm, so I didn't quite use the zoom much on it. So I'm thinking the prime may be the best choice?

Also, I've been hearing a lot about this push/pull zoom on the 100-400 being quite akward and an annoyance. Is this true?

Again, thanks for all the replies and sorry for all the questions.

Cheers,

Adrian

Here is what you want to know. The 400mm f 5.6 is slightly sharper then the 100-400 and it focuses slightly faster but that is not the whole story. If you are photographing birds in flight it will take a little bit longer to settle the image into the viewfinder with the 400mm f 5.6 negating the faster focusing. Another fact to consider is that your 400mm becomes 640mm on your crop camera requiring a minimum shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second. There are not too many lighting situations that will allow you to do that whereas on the 100-400 you could take the same photo with 1/250 shutter speed. You will lose auto-focus with both of these lenses when using a teleconverter. There is a trick where you tape over two of the contacts to retain auto-focus but it is very slow and tends to hunt. I have used a Canon 1.4 teleconverter on my 100-400 with a good deal of success. It then becomes an 896mm lens on a crop body and it still retains IS. With a 1.4 TC your maximum aperture becomes f8 and that is where you really need IS. Remember, when you reduce your maximum aperture to f8 your viewfinder becomes darker making manual focusing difficult. With a 2XTC the maximum aperture becomes f11 making focusing next to impossible. I have never heard of anyone getting consistantly good photos on either of these lenses with a 2X TC. In conclusion, I would like to say there is a good reason to own both of these lenses but if you only have the money for one I would recommend the 100-400. There are varying degrees of quality on any lens. My 100-400 is razor sharp even at f 5.6 and 400mm. If you order from a reputable company like B&H and you get a soft lens they will gladly let you return it for another. Good luck with whatever one you choose

Larry Weinman wrote in post #2167172
Here is what you want to know. The 400mm f 5.6 is slightly sharper then the 100-400 and it focuses slightly faster but that is not the whole story. If you are photographing birds in flight it will take a little bit longer to settle the image into the viewfinder with the 400mm f 5.6 negating the faster focusing. Another fact to consider is that your 400mm becomes 640mm on your crop camera requiring a minimum shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second. There are not too many lighting situations that will allow you to do that whereas on the 100-400 you could take the same photo with 1/250 shutter speed. You will lose auto-focus with both of these lenses when using a teleconverter. There is a trick where you tape over two of the contacts to retain auto-focus but it is very slow and tends to hunt. I have used a Canon 1.4 teleconverter on my 100-400 with a good deal of success. It then becomes an 896mm lens on a crop body and it still retains IS. With a 1.4 TC your maximum aperture becomes f8 and that is where you really need IS. Remember, when you reduce your maximum aperture to f8 your viewfinder becomes darker making manual focusing difficult. With a 2XTC the maximum aperture becomes f11 making focusing next to impossible. I have never heard of anyone getting consistantly good photos on either of these lenses with a 2X TC. In conclusion, I would like to say there is a good reason to own both of these lenses but if you only have the money for one I would recommend the 100-400. There are varying degrees of quality on any lens. My 100-400 is razor sharp even at f 5.6 and 400mm. If you order from a reputable company like B&H and you get a soft lens they will gladly let you return it for another. Good luck with whatever one you choose

Good post Larry. I agree with most of your comments so I won't repeat them here.

However I must disagree with the bits in bold. I have both lenses and have used both to shoot birds in flight, my keeper ratio has gone through the roof since I got the prime - the fact is that the zoom does struggle with focus on fast moving birds, with the prime it's much easier purely due to the faster AF - it really does make a big difference. The second point I have to question is the handhold shutterspeed - the prime is very easy to handhold as it is so light and well balanced so despite the lack of IS getting sharp shots at 1/200th second is not a problem.

BTW If I could only have one it would have to be the 100-400.

How much did you like your 70-200/4? I'd personally buy a 70-200/2.8 (IS or not, up to you) and some teleconverters. Yes, it will be more expensive, but you'll have a faster shorter zoom in case you need the speed, and still be able to shoot out to 400/5.6 if you need to.

However, for birding...400 probably not even long enough. Look into a Bigma possibly?