Prime / 100-400 Sharpness ??

I also have a bunch of very nice shots with the zoom but I also have a bunch that I think could be better, just not sure how to make it happen without going to a super duper prime.

Diver-Down wrote in post #7852306
Yes I noticed that too, and the first shot is the 400 prime. The crops are identical at 903 X 722 and I am 99% sure that the tripod didn't move between shots.

I believe camera body needs to be in same spot maybe tripod feet threw it off or the mm on the prime is technically more.

morehtml wrote in post #7852328
I believe camera body needs to be in same spot maybe tripod feet threw it off or the mm on the prime is technically more.

I just checked and the camera body sits about 1 1/2" closer with the 100-400 mounted so I'm going with a few more mm on the prime, or a few less on the zoom

I just took a shot you can compare to your camera using my 50D and 400mm. I put a $20 bill 161 inches from camera and used flash becasue its dark here. "Standard" style in camera jpg straight out of camera.

http://www.allensvisio​ns.com/pics/IMG_1415.J​PG

morehtml that is one crisp bill!

I suspect the vast majority of those who've owned and used both would say the 400mm is clearly better on every category apart from ability to zoom. I've owned two 100-400mm's and three 400mm's and it's not exactly light and day but pretty close to that. You only have to look at most samples. The 400mm's are mainly excellent, the 100-400mm's are far more inconsistent. Even so, individual experience will vary - if you have an excellent copy of the 100-400mm IS, sharp wide open at 400mm, then probably better to stick with it. BIF are also very difficult to capture well and there are plenty of 100-400mm owners who have the technique nailed and get good results. All things being equal I still think the 400mm gives a AF advantage.

EDIT: there's a very good thread offering BIF techniques here: click

Good luck!

morehtml wrote in post #7852511
I just took a shot you can compare to your camera using my 50D and 400mm. I put a $20 bill 161 inches from camera and used flash becasue its dark here. "Standard" style in camera jpg straight out of camera.

http://www.allensvisio​ns.com/pics/IMG_1415.J​PG

I just measured where I was shooting and my shot was about twice as far (27 feet or 324 inches) looks very sharp but probably not good for me to compare to.

Thanks for all the input guys & gals!!

Design wrote in post #7852062
I have also been going round and round with the same dilemma. I have been considering buying the 300mm F2.8 or the F4, but some have given me the advice to stay with the 100-400. It sure is nice to have the versatility of the zoom. If the tracking and sharpness is that much better I will switch. These were all taken with the 100-400. Do we just have a great copy?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

AdamJL wrote in post #5948424
F/A-18 Super Hornet

^ You should see the full size version of that shot. Ridiculously sharp.

Sharp, thy name is 300 f/2.8

condyk wrote in post #7854109
EDIT: there's a very good thread offering BIF techniques here: click

Good luck!

Whats the "category" and "thread title" I can't seem to find it there, or maybe I have to be logged in ?

I'm a prime lens guy and believe that the primes outperform zooms. That said, in the last few months, I've seen some incredible photos on this website... birds, nature, etc. I make a point of asking what lens was used (if its not posted). A surprising # of these shots ended up being taken with the 100-400mm. I still love primes the best, but that 100-400mm is one great lens!

Diver-Down wrote in post #7857711
Whats the "category" and "thread title" I can't seem to find it there, or maybe I have to be logged in ?

Yeah, I just checked and seems you have to be a member to see the full forum. Sorry about that. Anyway, would be useful to join just to read that thread if you're struggling with BIF. I don't remember such a useful thread here but there may be one - try a search if you haven't done so already.

Main Category > Lens Lust

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

I have had 2 100-400's and were both very sharp, not used a 400f5.6 but my 100-400 was plenty sharp enough for birds in flight.

Here's some from my 400mm f/5.6L

These boats were going 125-150 MPH. The great AF on my 400mm f/5.6 had no trouble folowing them, But, why not? If a lens' auto-focus can follow birds in flight, why not hydroplanes on the water?

This was from the San Diego Mission Bay, Thunderboat Hydroplane Races. And boy! Did these boats thunder!

http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …984_tAZrN#23616​8016_6WvFm

I have both the 100-400 and the 400. I find the AF on the 400 prime to be a lot faster than the zoom. The 400 is also a little tougher than the zoom. My 100-400 needs to be sent to Canon for calibration. It's taken a few too many knocks on safari and focus is a little inconsistent now.

Still, I wouldn't kick either lens out of bed for eating crackers and getting crumbs in the sheets