Canon 100-400L or 400L prime

Trying to decide between the Canon 10-400L and the Canon 400L prime. Anyone out there have both or have used both? Already have the Canon 70-300IS so the lens would be for extra reach to capture raptors, lighthouses, etc. I see from samples that the prime is much sharper in most cases which is no surprise, of course. The zooms versatility plus IS is nice but probably not worth to loss of IQ. Why is deciding on each and every lens so damn hard!!

I have the 100-400,and of course like it very much,but considering what you already have,I would say the 400 prime would be the better choice,or perhaps even consider the 300IS with a 1.4X. All things to consider.

There are MANY threads regarding this on this forum and people will probably hang you for posting this lol

I am leaning towards the 400mm prime but as time goes by i am thinking i want the 300mm f4 IS with 1.4TC.

I have ruled out 100-400 because of maybe the slight IQ loss and regardless of what has been said there has been dust issues

mmmmmmmm.....400 prime me thinks for you.

Best regards

Ian

I have the 100-400 and I find it very useful for zooming in just about any situation. Especially for sporting events- I find that 400 is just too much in some situations. You have versatility with this lens. I can shoot good landscapes at the 100 MM end of this lens. The quality is the same for the 100-400 and the 400 prime. Popular photography magazine states that primes and zooms are equal in quality nowadays. Years ago- the primes had the upperhand as far as quality.

This is one of those frequently asked questions. Perhaps only the 24-105 vs 24-70 or which version of the 70-200 is asked more. The thing is though, that each person's usage is slightly different, so that an answer for one may not be the answer for all.

That said, there's a versatility with the 100-400 that can't be duplicated with the 300+tc or 400 prime choice. You might check out forum user "lightrules" on pbase to see his tests. I'm pretty sure he shows this test. The 100-400 may duplicate some of your 70-300 focal range, but you could also sell that.

The 400 prime is often said to be the 'bird in flight' lens due to a slightly quicker af. As far as IQ loss or dust, I'm not sure either is true. I'm on my second copy of this wonderful lens and couldn't recommend it highly enough.

Either of the other two solutions, 300+tc or 400 prime, will offer the same aperture at the 400 length as the 100-400. The 300 retains IS and the ability to be a 300. But I think more than one user will tell you that the IQ is less than the zoom. Of course, if you're concern for IQ is because you routinely produce poster-sized prints or you want to see sharpness at 200% on your monitor, you may not be happy with any of your choices here.

100-400 zoom, IS, and terrific IQ and fast AF - what more can you ask for?

Yea I debated the same thing and finally ended up with the 100-400L due to the versatility of the zoom. Now that I have it I cant imagine being stuck at 400mm permanently... For the way I shoot and what I shoot I need more than just one fixed focal length. Plus, IS at 400mm is NEEDED!

I would get the prime if you have other lenses that cover the lower end of the focal length. I have 70-200. I wanted a bird lens. No, I didn't once consider the 100-400 because I didn't want to replace my 70-200. Second, prime is often better in IQ, as they say. The choice was narrowed to 300L or 400L. I don't exactly live in an area with a lot of wild life to shoot. Maybe your common song birds and once a while I would see a hawk in flight. I got the 300L for bike racing during Spring. Macro shots. Added an extender for some bird photography. If I am lucky, I might be able to shoot some close up bird shot with just the 300L alone. I need the IS since I would be using a monopod for support.

blackzzz wrote in post #4997602
Trying to decide between the Canon 10-400L and the Canon 400L prime. Anyone out there have both or have used both? Already have the Canon 70-300IS so the lens would be for extra reach to capture raptors, lighthouses, etc. I see from samples that the prime is much sharper in most cases which is no surprise, of course. The zooms versatility plus IS is nice but probably not worth to loss of IQ. Why is deciding on each and every lens so damn hard!!

I went thought the same decision process a few months ago. I had the 70-300IS and was actually quite happy with the IQ but the reach is just not what I was looking for. I needed more. I looked at both the 100-400 and the 400 as options and choose the 100-400 for it's versatility and the IS.
I am not as impressed with the 100-400 as I was when I got to borrow a copy to try it out before I bought it. The 100-400 and the 70-300 are so close in IQ that for me it's hard to tell the difference. But mainly, whenever I'm using the lens, I am always at 400mm anyway so the zoom is almost never used. Secondly, the IS in the 100-400 at 400 helps, but not as much as IS on the 70-300. And lastly, this lens needs a lot of light to ge a decent image especially at 400mm. Maybe my zoo trip in the spring will change my mind, but I sort of wish I had chosen the 400 instead.

You can't go wrong with either one. The main difference is the 100-400 versatility. Unless you plan to shoot 100% at 400mm then I would go for the 400f/5.6.. Also from what I seen. The lost of IQ is not that MUCH. Both need a LOTS of light.

silvex wrote in post #4998256
... The lost of IQ is not that MUCH. Both need a LOTS of light.

Yea, the 400 f/2.8 IS would be the ideal lens, but there is no way I can justify dumping that much $$$ into glass.

TooManyShots wrote in post #4998032
I would get the prime if you have other lenses that cover the lower end of the focal length. I have 70-200. I wanted a bird lens. No, I didn't once consider the 100-400 because I didn't want to replace my 70-200. Second, prime is often better in IQ, as they say. The choice was narrowed to 300L or 400L. I don't exactly live in an area with a lot of wild life to shoot. Maybe your common song birds and once a while I would see a hawk in flight. I got the 300L for bike racing during Spring. Macro shots. Added an extender for some bird photography. If I am lucky, I might be able to shoot some close up bird shot with just the 300L alone. I need the IS since I would be using a monopod for support.

i don't see how the attributes of another lens will affect the lens on your camera.

you mean in some situations you'll just keep switching back and forth between lenses?

that's gets old quickly.

ed rader

What Ed said.

The idea that owning a lens which already covers some of the 100-400mm's range is a good reason not to buy the zoom is (no offence, TooManyShots) insane.

The 100-400mm is a superlative birding lens, not least because of the zoom: I've literally lost count of the number of bird shots I only got because I could zoom - and birds often don't stick around long enough for a lens change.

In IQ/sharpness terms there's no downside to the 100-400mm, and dust is simply not an issue for me, even though I shoot a lot on windy beaches with very fine sand and coal dust to deal with.

Are these not sharp enough? (All handheld, the first at 160mm, thanks to the ability to zoom):

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

I've used the 100-400 and could not stand the push-pull workings. Based on that I knew when I went long, I would not look at that lens. I instead went with the 400 prime and I love it.

S.C.

Whoa..those are the sharpest 100-400 samples I have ever seen.

gjl711 wrote in post #4998202
I am not as impressed with the 100-400 as I was when I got to borrow a copy to try it out before I bought it. The 100-400 and the 70-300 are so close in IQ that for me it's hard to tell the difference.

That's why I got the 300 prime instead. Now that was an upgrade in IQ from the 70-300IS