EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS vs EF 400 f/5.6L

Hello everybody

I know that many variants of this topic has been covered in as many threads (I’ve spent some time reading several of them the last days… despite my boss wishes ) and I sincerely apologise if I repeat

The fact is that I’ve put together the money to spent it in glasses.

I’m still a beginner and I do birding and nature with a lot of walking, and for that I have a 350D with a Sigma 170-500 with contradictory feelings... I love the reach, but hate the weight and the difficulty to handheld it. The AF is also rather slow and noisy.

I’m thinking to move to a 100-400L or 400L F/5.6 (budget restricts to this pair) and my guts feeling is that the prime is my lense, based on:

1) Glass quality. The following reviews puts me in this direction
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/forgotten-400.shtml
http://www.photozone.d​e/8Reviews/lenses/cano​n_100400_4556_is/index​.htm
tho this might have been a bad copy
http://www.photozone.d​e/8Reviews/lenses/cano​n_400_56/index.htm

2) As I don’t want to loose the reach I would most probably try it with a 1.4X and think that a prime will react better to it.
3) Weight and size (looks fantastic)

But the zoom is still in my mind basically for
1) IS (Obviously)
2) Flexibility. Even if I take almost all my pictures at 500 now, I use 170 a lot to find the subject

My questions are:
- Should I change the Sigma at all?
- Is my logic correct according your experience? Can you add or rebate some points? Or add weight to some of them? (IS????)
- The prime is 20-30% cheaper... where is the catch?

Sorry again for the long post and repeated subject. I would really appreciate any guidance from experienced guys. Comments, critics or additions are most welcommed

Thanks, Alejandro

I struggled with the exact same questions when considering the purchase of either the 100-400 or 400. Although my conclusion was that 400 might have a slight edge in IQ over the zoom, I knew that I couldn't live without the flexibility. So the decision was strictly based on my personal likes and dislikes to my shooting style, and I assume your's would be, too.

I was thinking about selling my 1-4 but now I'm pretty good with it. This weekend I'll know for sure. I had to send mine back to Canon though right after I bought it so it's been calibrated and the difference is amazing. I would reckon that if they're both good copies, the 1-4 might win out due to versatility, but the 400 5.6 might have the edge IQ wise.

Thanks for the input SYS and Mr Clean

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2720288
I had to send mine back to Canon though right after I bought it so it's been calibrated and the difference is amazing

That worries me a little also... I've heard a lot about "bad copies" and being a beginner I wonder if I would be able to tell the difference before it's too late .

I would go for the 100-400 for the zoom versatility. And, if by chance you do get a bum copy you have a year to get it back to Canon for calibration.

Trust me, if it's bad you'll know in the first day.
Canon took good care of me though! About 13 days from shipping it to them and getting it back.

Which problems did you have? Sharpness or back/fore focus? or something different?

just real soft... Not front of back focus, just out of focus period.

Has anybody tried the 1.4 converter in the 100-400 or 400 f5.6
with a 350D?
with a 400D?

I went through a similar quandary, in september last year. I was fortunate to have a dealer with several copies of the Sigma 50-500, 170-500, the Tokina 200-500, and the Canon 100-400, with a 2 week exchange policy. The 100-400 was actually outside of my budget.

The 50-500 I didn't like very much. I don't trust 10X zooms, and I didn't think it felt all that great. Next I tried the 170-500, not too bad, but I didn't like the free fall movement of the front part of the lens, though, when held pointing a little downward.

I tried several copies, and chose the best one of the lot, based on low contrast pictures I took, comparing them on my laptop. In bright light most lenses can take good pictures, hence the low contrast images.

Next was the Tokina. Clearly better construction than the Sigma. It still showed zoom creep, but much less so than the Sigma. It also has a very clever construction for use of filters with the lens hood on. I really liked that. And the bag it came in, well, that was very good too, better than the Sigma.

I compared several of these against each other and the Sigma, and it was clear that the micro-contrast was subtly better than the Sigma. I also found it more hand-holdable, better balanced, well, IMO.

Knowing myself, I didn't try the 100-400 Canon . So I took the best of the 200-500's home.

Next I found, it was virtually impossible to handhold, which was and is the preferred way for me to use it. I couldn't get sharp images at any shutterspeeds of 1/800s or slower, and with the weather over here, that is often hard to achieve. AF-speed, although reasonable, wasn't too fast either, not for the subjects I tried to catch, anyway.

So, after a lot of soul searching, I went back, another 120 mile drive, and tried out the 100-400 after all.

Well, the result is in my sig .

It was WOW all around. The micro-contrast was a fair amount better than the Sigma or the Tamron, it is about 1/3 of a stop faster, AF is fast and silent, and the IS, well... I can shoot handheld at 400 mm at 1/45s!! At least 50% of my images is sharp at that shutterspeed, provided of course the objects/subjects don't move too quickly .

So, I ended up spending 50% more than planned, but I think it was worth it. I am very happy with this lens.

Yes, it has a pull-push zoom, but that makes it perfect for its intended use, IMO. I completely unlock the friction ring, and support the lens by the focus ring for both zooming and focusing, the latter only if the need arises. Works like a charm, because there is no need to move your hand from one place to another on the lens.

And IS, well, once you have used IS, you don't want to be without it anymore. You want all your lenses with IS, if at all possible. So be forewarned, it is addictive.

Would you miss the slightly longer range you may ask? I don't. I use the 1.4X extender with it, and tape the 3 pins, so it will still AF, until the light gets too dim, of course. And IQ is, IMO, still a little better than either the Sigma or the Tamron.

I did consider the 400 F/5.6 as well for a while, as well as the 300 F/4 IS, but since the 70-200 with 1.4X wasn't enough reach, and I wanted flexibility, as I use my lenses for all kinds of photography, these two didn't make it to my short list. That was before setting the budget, BTW, because both of these lenses are more expensive than the Sigma and the Tamron.

Anyway, rambled enough. I just hope this is of any help .

Kind regards, Wim

I had the same questions when I was looking for longer glass. Another forum member (nitsch) posted a review and comparison of both the 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400 since he owns both. It was good reading because he favored the 400 for AF speed and sharpness, but chose the 100-400 as the lens he wouldn't want to part with due to the utility of the zoom.

After trying the bigma, sigma 80-400 OS, and the 100-400L, it was no contest. The 100-400 is clearly easier to hold, faster to focus, and lighter than either of those alternatives. Its also more expensive, but once you take the initial hit buying it, you forget about the extra $ down the road. And mine is outstanding. Not one regret!

Thanks a lot people! Although I thought my decision was more in favor of the prime, I must say that there were a few arguments that made me change it... I'LL GO FOR THE ZOOM (thanks to point me to some threads and discussion I didn't read)

Basically:
- IS apparently MAKES a difference
- Min. focus distance... 3 m is rather too much
- Flexibility ... Right, a zoom when you don't have that many lenses is a better shot than a prime
- My fears of a bad copy are more into perspective
- When the time comes and my technique is good enough to see the difference, I might switch to the prime

Thanks again!

Have a read of Liquidstone's tests:
http://www.pbase.com/l​iquidstone/100_400is

mandozilla wrote in post #2720840
Has anybody tried the 1.4 converter in the 100-400 or 400 f5.6
with a 350D?
with a 400D?

I've used the 100-400L & 1.4x on my 20D and my 1DmkIIn and it performs pretty well. You lose auto focus on the 20d (as well as the 350D and 400D). It's an admirable performer for airshow and the like.

The 2x doesn't work well at all and is best left in the bag with this lens.

JBillings wrote in post #2725511
I've used the 100-400L & 1.4x on my 20D and my 1DmkIIn and it performs pretty well. You lose auto focus on the 20d (as well as the 350D and 400D). It's an admirable performer for airshow and the like.

The 2x doesn't work well at all and is best left in the bag with this lens.

I would agree with this.

BTW, I just acquired a 1.4X Soligor DG Pro converter, of which I taped the 3 pins. The 100-400 does AF with it, but it requires enough light and a subject with enough contrast.

Other than that, because it is one hand zooming and focusing if you hold it the way it was intended, MF isn't a big problem anyway, partly due to the small DoF of this lens.

It just requires some practice to get a feel for it.

BTW, the Soligor is not a bad converter at all, I'm quite pleasantly surprised. 5 elements, 4 groups; I'll do some more tests with it; have to decide before Wednesday whether I'll keep it or not .

HTH, kind regards, Wim.