100-400L vs 400 f/5.6 ??

JNunn wrote in post #2162801
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.

I do this frequently, and find that the image quality is really very good. The problem though, is that the AF slows way down with a TC in place. If you are using this with sports, it probably would be too slow for things like soccer. If you can prefocus, then it is fine (sports with courses).

The 300 f/4 L IS is a great lens.

J.

In response to the post by nitsch. I was referring to the general rule of thumb regarding focal length and shutter speed that being " the shutter speed should be at least equal to the focal length. I know some people who can hand hold a 400mm at 1/60 of a second with pretty consistant results. I am not one of those people. As I tried to point out in my letter, they are both terriffic lenses. I own the 100-400 but I will be adding the 400 5.6 in the future. I still think though that if a person has only one that the 100-400 would be the better choice. Peace.

Larry Weinman wrote in post #2167172
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

Very good point. I've had both lenses in the past and sold both. I'm now back to using the 100-400, the first time I was checking some shots taken at 400mm wide open I had to double check the exif info as I thought the image was just too sharp to have been taken with the 100-400, I thought I might have been looking at shots taken with my 300 f/2.8! So yes some copies might be a tad soft at 400 but definately not all! Having owned and used both if I had the choice of only one (and I did a month or so a go ) I'd get the 100-400.

Larry Weinman wrote in post #2168799
In response to the post by nitsch. I was referring to the general rule of thumb regarding focal length and shutter speed that being " the shutter speed should be at least equal to the focal length. I know some people who can hand hold a 400mm at 1/60 of a second with pretty consistant results. I am not one of those people. As I tried to point out in my letter, they are both terriffic lenses. I own the 100-400 but I will be adding the 400 5.6 in the future. I still think though that if a person has only one that the 100-400 would be the better choice. Peace.

Hi Larry, sorry if my post came across badly, I didn't mean it to! Like I said I thought yours was a good post and was pretty much exactly what I would have written, it's just my experience of the benefits of the prime for birds differed to yours and I wanted to add some thoughts from my perspective to the thread.

I agree with you entirely on the rule of thumb regarding shutterspeed , I am rubbish at handholding at low shutterspeeds (thats why I love IS!!!) but there is something about the prime that allows it to be handheld very easily at speeds which defy this rule!

You are right that the 100-400 is the best choice if someone can only have one of these lenses, the zoom is just so much more versatile than the prime. As I've said in previous threads, I like the 400 but I LOVE the 100-400.

Cheers,

Nick

I've got both right now. Soft is a relative thing. The 400 prime is sharper wide open, but even one tic down at 6.3 the advantage largely disappears. Of course 5.6 is where I generally shoot. The 100-400 is usually plenty sharp enough for me, but if you start cropping photos the difference in sharpness becomes significant. If I had to pick one it would be the 100-400, but if birds are really a priority I might lean more to the prime.

Birding, I would go with the 400 5.6.
I'm not saying the 100-400 is bad, but I rented both, and the 400 is a bit faster when it comes to AF. Important if you want to track moving birds.
If birding wasn't near the top, 100-400 for versatility and IS.

I am a wild life shooter and I totally agree with Foghorn. AF is much faster for tracking. Love my 400. I also have a pretty steady hand, so hand holding isn't a big deal for me. you can view my shots on website.

Click On!!

Nick,
Wouldn't birds in flight be the same as airplanes in flight and sport subjects in action? Brittany has excellent shots of static wildlife and your shots of birds makes me think I could take advantage of the edge that the 400 prime seems to have with it's sharpness over the 100-400 as long as I am willing to use a support pod and shoot from 30 feet or more from the subject. Is my logic off?

Papaw wrote in post #2169733
Nick,
Wouldn't birds in flight be the same as airplanes in flight and sport subjects in action? Brittany has excellent shots of static wildlife and your shots of birds makes me think I could take advantage of the edge that the 400 prime seems to have with it's sharpness over the 100-400 as long as I am willing to use a support pod and shoot from 30 feet or more from the subject. Is my logic off?

I can't say I've ever shot at an airshow but I'm guessing that I would choose the 100-400 if I did. I would think that speed of AF would be less of an issue because of the relatively large distance between yourself and the plane plus planes follow a slightly more predictable flight path than some birds. I would have thought that the ability to change focal length would be useful too. Perhaps one of the guys who shoot airshows will chime in with some real world experience.

Regards using a monopod/tripod I prefer to shoot birds handheld as I find it less restrictive. HTH!

nitsch wrote in post #2167257
BTW If I could only have one it would have to be the 100-400.

I think it was your post awhile back that convinced me the 100-400 was the one to get. I couldn't be happier with my choice! I just want to thank you for the excellent comparisons and insights that made a hard decision quite a bit easier.

Thanks,

John

You've got nothing beyond the 18-55 of the kit. There's going to be a veritable abyss in your picture-taking capabilities if you only have a 400 to add to that. Get the 100-400. Neither of them will do all that well for your camera with a 1.4x TC, and taping pins isn't exactly a safe ploy - it's been known to burn out lens motors. If you still had your 70-200 you'd have more options, but you don't.

I use the 100-400 heavily at air shows and for birds. Mine's fine.

JNunn wrote in post #2172047
I think it was your post awhile back that convinced me the 100-400 was the one to get. I couldn't be happier with my choice! I just want to thank you for the excellent comparisons and insights that made a hard decision quite a bit easier.

Thanks,

John

Fantastic! I'm so glad you are pleased with your lens and if any info I gave out was of use then that's really nice to hear. Thanks!

Thanks for all the help everyone.

As much as I would love the 400mm f/5.6 prime, I think I will go with the 100-400. It would be more logical, being that I don't have anything to cover 55mm and on. If worse comes to worse, I can always sell/trade and get the 400 prime.

Just out of curiosity, how does the Bigma 50-500mm compare to the 100-400?
I would imagine that the IS makes it much easier to handhold while shooting with the 100-400, but how does the Bigma compare? I absolutey try avoid using a tripod/monopod at all cost, but will use it when it comes neccessary.

I just want to look at as many options as I can before I make the purchase. But from all the great reviews I've read about the 100-400, I think its a sure winner.

Cheers,

Adrian

I reckon that any failure to get decent flight shots from the 100-400mm is more down to the user, really.

The following is a picture of a (ruddy) turnstone - an 8 inch long bird that flies along in a blur of wings at about 30 mph and far more with a stiff tailwind, as this one had.

It's a fairly pap picture, I admit - the light wasn't great - but it's sharp enough and in focus, I'd say?

400mm, handheld, IS setting 1, focus limiter set to 6.5m.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Just did a few tests - sharp, prime like copies of the 100-400 IS exist but are rare and tough to find. The 100-400 IS I tested (my friend's) is as sharp as or sharper than my and my friend's 400 5.6L at 400 mm wide open and noticeably better than my 100-400.

Here's a sample taken with that sterling 100-400 - 350D, 400 mm, 24 mm ET, f/5.6, 1/640 sec, hand held. The fly is about 10 mm long and distance was about 5 feet.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

100 % crop

AdrianVall wrote in post #2162594
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