Ready for a prime

Janika wrote in post #7103438
Thanks Alan, I might have to start using a mono pod, even with the iS sometimes helps and easier to carry around than a tripod. Many birders go thru dense bush n mud.

so you want a lightweight lens. you swap the 100-400L which weighs 3 lbs for the 400 f5.6 which weighs 2.8 lbs.

you lose IS, .2 lbs and you gain a monopod.

i dunno man unless you are expecting much better IQ -- which you won't get -- this sounds like pretzel logic to me .

the 300L is lighter and is easier to handhold but you are giving up a critical 100mm of reach for nominal weight loss and at 400mm (with TC) you sacrifice IQ over the zoom.

ed rader

The difference in weight is only about 4 oz---130g

Thanks for the input, I will consider every aspect. Weight is just one thing, I mostly want the IQ and sharper images, Maybe my 100-400 is just not sharp enough.

I'm having a very hard time understanding all the love for the 400/5.6. The 100-400 is called a light sucker and it is just as fast at that focal length as the 400. The 100-400 also has IS and the 400/5.6 doesn't as has been pointed out earlier in the thread. The 400 limits you to a single focal length and the 100-400 doesn't.

Can someone explain this to me? I realize there are some compromises in a zoom, but I get fantastic image quality from my 100-400. Surely, the differences will be minimal in prints, if in fact they are noticeable at all.

I borrowed a 100-400 for an afternoon. For one thing, and I know this is not a big deal, but I did not like the push/pull zoom. I already have a 70-200, so the 100-400 would have duplicated part of that range, so I decided that for $300 less, I would buy the 400 prime, get slightly better sharpness, and since I was planning on using it for sports where 400 was going to be minimum anyway, it seemed the logical choice.

You are right that the 100-400 can produce some stunning images: I have seen some from it that make me just go, "wow". I even got a few the afternoon I used it that I liked a LOT.

regards, george w

Pros of the prime:
a) Prime is cheaper
b) Faster, more accurate AF - I tried both before buying, I wasn't too worried about sharpness but the prime's AF smoked the zoom's, and the zoom is pretty fast already.
c) Less copy variation - some 100-400 copies seem great, but others seem soft at 400mm. The 400 prime is sharp from corner to corner, it's really quite impressive.

Pros of the zoom:
- It zooms
- IS (though not great IS, more suitable for monopod anyway)
- Smaller, easier to fit in the bag

I have both...

I have both and it is not overkill. I got a special buy on both the 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L lenses, used, at just about the same price that I would have paid for a new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens which I was seriously considering. The two things which I disliked about the 100-400mm zoom is the push-pull action and the fact that it uses a separate lens hood. Both the 300mm and 400mm primes have built-in retracting lens hoods. In fact, I will often carry the 300mm f/4L IS lens on a separate body in a holster case. Being able to retract and extend the hood facilitates the easy carry of this lens.

The 400mm f/5.6L is a super birding lens but. I really have problems hand holding it. Since I have several 1.6x bodies; I will shoot with one lens (quite often the 400mm f/5.6L) on a tripod and either the 300mm f/4L IS or my 70-200mm f/4L IS to be used hand held when I need a wider view. The 400mm f/5.6L is super sharp even wide open.

I will occasionally use the 300mm f/4L with the 1.4x TC and, although the focus is not quite as fast as the lens without the TC, it is still a viable option. An advantage of the 300mm f/4L IS lens (in addition to the IS of course) is that it focuses a lot closer than the 400mm. It is also almost a stop faster than the 100-400L zoom when the zoom is at 300mm.

The 400mm focuses down to only 11.5 feet providing a 1:8.3 image ratio. The 300mm focuses down to 4.9 feet and gives a 1:4.2 image ratio. Add in a 1.4x TC (which doesn't change the minimum focus) and your image ratio is even larger, probably about 1:2.5 (I am guestimating that ratio). I will very ocasionally put a closeup lens in front of that combination and have a 420mm that provides a pretty darn large image ratio (I have never measured the image ratio with this setup so I cannot specifically state what that ratio is). I did some nice work with Monarch Butterflies using the 300mm with 1.4x TC (no closeup lens) in a butterfly preserve. I know that I could not have gotten the images with my 400mm and don't think I could have with the 70-200mm and 1.4x TC.

There is one situation when the 100-400mm zoom would really shine - traveling by air. I took my 70-200mm f/4L IS and my 300mm f/4L IS lenses and 1.4x TC with me on a trip to Alaska this last summer. I could have gotten away carrying the 100-400mm zoom as my only telephoto which would have been lighter in weight for my carry-on luggage.