Question for 400 5.6L users and wildlife shooting

I am thinking of choosing this lens over the 100-400L for wildlife photography because of the sharpness in the prime. I have read the various threads on the best way to 400 and I think this may work best for me. I can view a 100-400 at local shops but the prime seems more rare (hence this post).

However, I am wondering how well the lens works for handheld stuff (birding)? And, how well does it work with a 1.4 telecon? A loss of a stop I assume and AF on a 10D?

I am thinking of the telecon for my 70-200 F4 and using it as well on the 400 to get a bit more reach.

I would love the Canon 500 but just can't afford that or the other incarnations of the 400 prime.

Thanks in advance.

What kind of wildlife do you try to shoot? For example, African elephants at 50 yards, or hummingbirds at 100 yards?

I have a 100-400L, and my problem is when I get all framed up on some nice deer, and then they walk toward me. If I was stuck with a 400 fixed, they would crowd out of the frame.

Or, if I have them framed up at about 300mm, I might want to pull back to frame them differently with a tree included at 200mm.

I like the flexibility of a zoom.

By the way, my wildlife shots tend to be marmots and pikas. Marmots tend to be about a foot long, and pikas tend to be less than six inches long. Bighorn sheep are bigger, but elusive.

---Bob Gross---

Sorry, you're right "wildlife" is vague. Could be a New Orleans party

The majority of my interest is birds from hummingbirds,chickadee​s,blue jays and ospreys when I can get 'em. Also, turtles and herons.

I also can get some deer at ~75 feet in the backyard.

The 100-400 is still a close second because of the zoom and IS. However, I have a lens going to 200 already and 280 with a telecon. Also, I have read images are "a little less sharp" with the 100-400 (Luminous Landscapes and posts). I would probably end up cropping with the smaller birds so I want all the sharpness I can get pre-processing. I don't mind if deer are not full frame. I have an interesting pic of my reflection in the eye of deer which is pretty cool.

Using the old formula of never shooting slower than 1/focal length, and factoring in the 1.6X crop factor, the slowest 'safe' shutter speed for handheld shots would be 1/640 second. That's pretty hard to do at f/5.6 or slower considering that a lot of wildlife photography is done in less-than-perfect lighting conditions.

I really think that if you expect to be shooting handheld, you're better off with the 100-400L because of the IS. If you like the idea of a prime, there is the 300 f/4L IS.

Before I go out on any major wildlife photography trip, I always like to sharpen up my skills, so I go to a local natural area that is full of rabbits. I will post myself on a high spot with my 100-400 lens and practice by tracking them back and forth across the field. I'll snap a few, but the best shots happen when the animals stop for a second.

Hummingbirds can be very challenging. Two weeks ago I was passing through a wildflower field that must have had 40 hummingbirds working it. They were here and there so fast that I had no time to track, autofocus, and shoot. Instead, I watched long enough to determine which flower stalk they lit on most often, and then I simply framed it, got a manual focus, and then waited for a second until the next one flew into the frame.

---Bob Gross---

I have the 100-400 and the 400 5.6. The 400 5.6 is much better at focusing in low light and on cloudy days with low contrast. Handholding the 400 5.6 is not a problem in good light. I use ISO 200-400 and keep my shutter speed >1/500. I find that the 400 works much better in AI Servo then the 100-400.
http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/31537262.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/31537267.jpg
Regards,
Scott

I had to make the 400mm decision a few months ago. I feel for you. You are spending over a $1000 on a lens so of course you want the sharpest lens possible, right? I almost bought the 400mm f/5.6 over the Canon 100-400. The 400 f/5.6 was in my B and H shopping cart three times. However, I was luckily talked out of that lens by the people on this forum and ended up buying the 100-400. I couldn't be happier. The two pros for buying the 100-400 over the 400 prime are IS and the versitilty of a zoom. Where the 400 prime wins is sharpness. The sharpness issue tortured me. I wanted the sharpest lens. I read the luminous landscape comparison and looked at a ton of sample images. The Prime lens was sharper. But you know what? The 100-400 is also very sharp. the question is; how sharp is sharp enough and which lens is going to get me more useable photos?

I am so glad i got the zoom over the prime! I find with wildlife shots a zoom is very important. You never know how close your going to get to an animal. Also, the zoom makes this lens usefull for all sorts of shots. I've used it to get portraits, take pictures of airplanes, and sports.

When I was in your shoes a few months ago, I hated posts praising the 100-400. I badly wanted to become a prime snob and make all the zoom praisers weep when they saw my ultra sharp bird photos. Somehow, I got over it and went with the zoom. I am very happy with the choice.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention IS. This is my first IS lens. I never want to go back. I use my 100-400 handheld all the time. Who has time to set up a tripod when photographing wildlife? Maybe if I was retired and had time to set up a blind and wait all day for the perfect shot I wouldn't care about IS, but all my animal pics are taken on the fly. Whenever I see an animal, it's an "Oh, grab the camera quick!" moment. IS is so important for that type of photography.

Hope that helps.

Check out this thread: https://photography-on-the.net …ad.php?t=39836&​highlight=

However, note that Scott's forearms are bigger than anybody else's around. I can see how he might find handholding a big lens to be easy. He was probably an Olympic wrestler.

---Bob Gross---

I went through the same issue as well, and I opted for the 400 f/5.6L over the 100-400. I will say that I am still extremely happy with my choice - it was the right choice for me. The zoom is certainly more versatile, and if that is an issue, you should definitely get the zoom. However, since I have the 700-200 f/2.8L IS and the 1.4 TC, I didn't need that versatility for my wildlife photography.

As I see it, here are the advantages to each:

100-400:
Zoom (of course)
IS is great, but not a panacea.
It will focus much closer than the 400 f/5.6L

400:
Sharpness, especially wide open
Better contrast, but only by a slight bit
Much faster focusing, especially in lower light
A bit lighter and easier to handle, though again, not by much.

Unlike RbnDave, I don't believe that I can make this decision for you. You have to weigh the facts yourself - everyone's needs and priorities are different. I will say this about zooms, however. While they can be a godsend, they can also make you lazy. The situation of the elk walking closer once you have the image framed can be viewed as a problem, or it can be viewed as an opportunity. Now you can get a portrait of the elk. With the zoom, you'd probably never try something "different".

I personally find that with my 70-200, I'll often zoom to frame an image a particlular way and not think a lot about it. I am also less prone to move around to get a better angle, either for the sun or the subject, as it is so easy to just zoom. I personally feel that while my photographs taken with the 400 might be a bit more effort, they tend to be better techincally and rarely any worse compositionally - often they are much better.

This of course, is all IMHO. I'm not saying it's right for you. YMMV.

Some 400mm f/5.6L images:
(BTW, the hummingbirds were taken using natural light)

http://www.edrotberg.o​rg …Killdeer%20guar​ds%202.jpg
http://www.edrotberg.o​rg/images/Flying%20Pel​ican.jpg
http://www.edrotberg.o​rg …/Spotted%20Towh​ee%201.jpg
http://www.edrotberg.o​rg/images/Annas%204_5-15.jpg
http://www.edrotberg.o​rg/images/Annas%207_5-15.jpg

**EDIT BY MODERATOR**
Fantasitc shots! But please.. in discussion threads post only links to images. I waited about 4 minutes for this page to open over a very fast connection

Thanks
CDS
***************

= Ed =

Judging from Ed's shots I'm going to throw out my 100-400 and get the prime.


Seriously, I've been fighting with the thought of getting the 400 prime for weeks now. I have the 100-400, and I do love it. But the faster AF should make a difference on birds in flight - I rarely have keepers when winging a fly-by from some bird. And there are time that the sharpness of the 100-400 bothers me. That requires some testing though.

I couldn't part with the 100-400 - the IS is superb since I do a good amount of low-light, and I use it for psuedo-macro so the close-focus is huge. The 400 prime has it's benefts, but are they enough of an addition? I think not, but one never knows.

So far now I'll stick with the 100-400 IS, occasionally think about the 400 prime, dream about the 500 prime, and wish for a 400 f/4.


And I don't wish this dilemna on anyone. It's a tough decision.

Just let me know when you throw out your lens, so I can catch it. That way I don't have to go through the dillema when I buy my next long lens. I'll already have your 100-400, so I can buy the prime too, and live happily ever after :P

Ed ... awesome
This is my next major lens decision and you've got me leaning toward the prime with both your argument and your examples.

HJMinard wrote:
Ed ... awesome
This is my next major lens decision and you've got me leaning toward the prime with both your argument and your examples.

Thanks Jay. I wasn't really trying to convince anyone that the 400 was the better choice over the zoom. That zoom is one of Canon's best. Rather I was more defending it a bit against the posters who seem to feel that choosing the zoom is a no-brainer. I guess that would presume that I had no brains, and while I might not have many, I sorta have to stick up for what I do have.

Let me state this again: It's a very personal choice and NOT an easy decision. If I could justify it I'd own both myself. But I do a lot of bird photography and as one poster pointed out, the lighting quick focus of the 400 makes it a superb "bird in flight" lens. I personally think that its faster focusing is primarily due to the fact that it doesn't focus as close as the 100-400. I guess it's all a bunch of tradeoffs .

= Ed =

I was just look at a couple posts I made in share... In the morning I got a heron in the mist, then in the afternoon some birds (some in flight), then closeups of dragonflies, then a duck in the setting sun.

All handheld, all with the 100-400 L IS.

IS helped in the low light, the close-focus allowed me the dragonflies.

I'm beginning to think that if I had only 1 lens, then it would be the 100-400 L IS. The versatility is amazing, really.

Thanks so much for all your replies. This seems to be one of the more talked about lens decisions out there.

I'd like to say that you have helped me make a decision but not really. However, it is good to see people talking about the good points of each. I was pretty sold on the 400 prime but now you have me thinking the zoom. I also have an interest in motorsports and the 70-200 has been pretty good. The 2.8 IS would have been better but way heavier and an extra almost $2000 CDN for the upgrade.

I know motorsports is the land of 100-400. Especially, when I don't have the track access. Maybe that is my decision. Then, I can start collecting all my clams for the 500 prime. The 2 lenses are $2000 CDN each so not an easy decision to make. I called a local camera shop and they were totally useless (as per typical). The stench of arrogance is strong in them there shops!

The comment about the sharpness is true. How sharp is sharp and when printed, is it super critical that it can't be dealt with by PS? Also, I am thinking the IS may save a few shots for me.

BTW, if you have more pics of either the 400 5.6 or 100-400. Post them or a link. I have been browsing the Pbase Camera search just to see what people are doing with each.

D