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

I went from a Sigma 50-500 to a Canon 400 5.6 to a 100-400...and now I have the 400 prime again. The prime is a sharper, faster-focussing lens on which it's possible to use a 1.4 TC without losing unacceptable amounts of IQ. The 100-400 is a good, versatile lens, but for pure IQ, the 400 is just better.

:Bump

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?

Yes I have. with the 350D.

It is difficult to manually focus, because the viewfinder is not as bright as you really need, but you can get the job done. Bright light obviously helps, but still it is tricky to get the focus perfect.

It is essential that you have decent support for the camera though. Decent support! No flimsy tripods here!

If you are doing birding, the chances are that your shots will be at 400mm most of the time. If you need fast and accurate focus, the 400 5.6 is your solution, especially with the 400D AF system. With the 350D AF, things happen at a slower pace!

PrOxY wrote in post #2752530
Hi,

I just ordered the Canon EF 24-105 IS, and am desperately trying to decide between the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.

Can those of you who have the 100-400 IS tell me if you really can hand hold it for a quick wildlife shot? I do allot of long trail jog/runs, and on occasion, I might spot an animal and have to be quick with the shot before they spook. I only mention this because Im sure a lot of you guys who regularly shoot birds and such are probably very patient and set out hiking to get those shots, where In my application its the reverse.

Which is the better lens for my application?

Many thanks!

You are not seriously considering jogging with the 100-400L are you? It is a seriously clumsy piece of glass to have stung around you! I have both the lenses (70-200 w/o IS, though) and would say that the 70-200 has much better image quality, though.

As far as taking a quick shot of an animal, heck yes, the IS is brilliant and you can handhold down to about 1/60 sec, but remeber that you will be very shaky after a run and your pulse will not help you get a crisp shot at all!

If image quality is your primary concern, the 400 f 5.6L is by far the better choice.

I would choose a 100-400L for its incredible versatility

I mean if your doing birding in the wild your gonna be at 400mm most of the time anyway. You might as well save a bucket load of money, have a faster lens, sharper lens and a lighter one (it is lighter isnt it?).

Matatazela wrote in post #2752608
You are not seriously considering jogging with the 100-400L are you? It is a seriously clumsy piece of glass to have stung around you! I have both the lenses (70-200 w/o IS, though) and would say that the 70-200 has much better image quality, though.

As far as taking a quick shot of an animal, heck yes, the IS is brilliant and you can handhold down to about 1/60 sec, but remeber that you will be very shaky after a run and your pulse will not help you get a crisp shot at all!

The answer is yes and no......I trail run with a large Camelback on my back and my 3 dogs. If I see something interesting (or usually my dogs give an alert to say a deer or coyote) I unsling the Camelback and pull out my 350D. I was worried that the 70-200 would not have enough reach & a prime has no versatility (for my purpose).

I ended up ordering the 24-105L (I only have a 10-22 & 8mm) & the 100-400L, so I think they compliment each other well. We shall see...........

There is a great side by side review in the "reviews" section in the EF LEns FAQ stickied at the top of the page.

I'll let you self starters find it on your own with two clicks..

....... but for those that can't spare the two clicks,. here's the link.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=43436

F.Y.I. those that looked it up on there own will have seen many many more wonderful things that the lazy one will miss