Need a sharp lens around 400mm

Hi everyone i am looking for a good lens around 400mm for taking pictures of birds and also for use at airshows etc. I have my eyes on the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM which seems to be my favourite at the moment.
Are there any lens ,prime or zoom that are sharper at 400mm than this one? I need to keep the money side of things under some control as well. Would i be better off geting a faster 300mm and put a 1.4 multiplyer on it?
Thanks

EF 400 mm f/5.6 L

Well, if you could afford this that'd be cool because it has the fastest AF in the world, and would go great with a 1.4 t-con since it has a f/2.8 apeture. Never owned it, used it, or seen it so I'm not sure about how great it really is, or image degredation with the t-con, but it sure does look nice!
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ails&Q=&sku=183​202&is=USA

Four thousand dollars is probably a lil much though huh? Tommy made a good suggestion. The 400mm f/5.6L. It's about 300 dollars cheaper than the 100-400L. That's the most affordable one. The other 400mm primes are 5,000 on up.

I'm not an expert on this, never used any of these lenses, but honestly I think primes 400mm and less are a complete waste of money. The ability to quickly zoom and frame your subject is very valuable in many situations. Especially when it's people your shooting. Facial expressions and movements change in a split second and you don't want to miss it because you couldn't zoom your prime. Also, people always say primes are sharper than zooms. From what I've read, they are, but not by that much..... and with a prime you'll most likely be cropping a lot of images to make up for the lack of zoom and that'll degrade the image far worse than a zoom.

I would only recommend primes for over 400mm. Like the 500mm and 600mm primes. Since there really aren't any good zooms that go that high. But anyway that's just my opinion and hopefully someone who has owned some of these lenses will post and give you some better information.

I've seen great bird and aviation shots taken with the 100-400L though. So, my vote is for 100-400L.

Have a look at some shots taken with the Sigma 50-500mm Bigma, the Sigma 100-300mm F4 (with and without the Sigma 1.4x TCon), the Sigma 80-400mm OS, and the Canon 100-400 IS. Primes I don't know as I have not used one for 3 years, when I had a 400mm Sigma. I found it restrictive on its own, but I would buy a 500mm F4 to suppliment what I had lower in the range zoom wise if I had the cash.

The latter two have Image/Optical stabilization. The Bigma is good at the 400mm range and has an extra 100mm to go ... but I never tested direct against the Canon. The 100-300mm F4 is VERY well regarded and seen some great shots taken with it. Range is great, at least for me and my future direction upgrade wise. Mine is due on Tuesday.

The 80-400 OS seems a tiny bit softer than the Bigma from shots I saw but you have OS with it and the soften may be user rather than lens. Bigma likes tripod/monopod/Pod mounting though you can get some good handheld shots. Same applies with any larger zoom without IS/OS.

What's your budget?

The 100-400L is a great lens, but a little on the slow side at f/5.6 from around 200-400mm, the range you will be using. This will be fine in most cases, but early morning, late afternoon and overcast days it could be a problem, not just with shutter speeds but AF too. I see plenty of great bird and aircraft shots with it (not to mention auto racing shots), so it's definitely no slouch in that department, but like most long zooms above 200mm it's a little on the slow side, which is why many people turn to long primes.

If I were to get a long zoom, it would be the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. With a 1.4x extender it's a 170-420mm f/4, which is sill double the speed of the 100-400L. No IS, but I'd rather have the true stop or two of speed anyway for stop action.

Given unlimited money I'd go with a 400/2.8L or 600/4L, but as I can't afford either of these right now, I have a Sigma 500/4.5 instead, which I think is a great bargain for a long, fast prime.

Then there's of course the 400/5.6L and 300/4L IS and the discontinued 300/4L non-IS. If you don't want IS, you can find the 300/4L used for around $700. I went for the 300/4L IS because I really wanted IS, and with the 1.4x extender it's a 420/5.6 with IS, but probably not as sharp with the extender as the 400/5.6L.

Enough choices?

I like the primes when it comes to tele lenses, not only because of perfect image quality but they focus very very fast. The 300 F/4L IS is probably the highest on my WTB list, but you might find it a touch short, I don't know. The 400 f/5.6 is also a good choice. Then there is the 100-400. Not particularly as good when it comes to focusing as the the primes, but it's up there nevertheless. Image quality is very very good, but you will probably get more sharpness out of the prime, but not much more either. However due tot he fact that its a zoom the 100-400 is a little more expensive.

I have personally gone to Canon only lenses from now on, so I have no input on 3rd party stuff, but I know Sigma makes an awesome 120-300 which I like better then the 100-400, but it is also rather expensive.

Looks like the Canon zoom is the one to go for.
Thank you all for your sugestions ,I did mull over the EF 400 mm f/5.6 L ,but no IS at this length is a minus in my opinion.

Whilst I dearly love my Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX and I've said many times that the only way I'm gonna part from it is if you prise it out of my cold, dead fingers... it's not the right lens for Simon.

It's a big, heavy lens that you do not want to hand hold... not really the thing for waving about at airshows (one of Simon's applications). The 100-400L at half the weight of the Sigma is a much better option for that... in fact that' was one of the reasons I bought my one.

Good point. I always forget how heavy that Sigma is. But I still think it's the only long zoom that can compete with the big primes at wide apertures. The 100-400L is an excellent all around lens, but he did ask which lenses are sharper at 400mm, and there definitely are a few.

You will love the Canon 100-400L IS, You can really hand hold it at 400 and get good shots. I love that about this lens. It is also much more versitile in that it is a zoom. Not all wildlife will set around waiting for you to set up the tripod, locate the critter in the lens, etc. Including birds. They often move and then maybe too close for 400 !! Often they just leave though. I use a 300 f2.8 with telecons when I have the oportunity to set up and take lots of time for the wildlife to come by. But as I am out walking, driving, I find I get more shots in with the zoom and IS. Great little lens. In opinion. Competes well and superior to many, set the ISO up and go get em!

What about the just released Tamron 200-500mm lens. It got a great review with very good marks for optical quality in a UK magazines recently.

I couldn't disagree more!
While, say the 100-400L is very good optically, the 400/5.6L is THAT much better. If in doubt, look at these side by side comparisons.
However, image quality not the biggest advantage that makes primes, even under 400mm, valuable.
Primes often are MUCH faster focusing (as in the above lenses), and offer faster apertures. The 70-200/4L paled in comparison to my 135/2L and 85/1.8 primes when it came to focus speed (and that is one of the fastest focusing zooms available, much faster than the 100-400L).
I went to some university bball and vball championships this winter and I was getting 1/400s shutter speeds with my 135/2L shot at F2.0, ISO3200. If I had been using the fastest zoom available (70-200/2.8 , I would only have been getting 1/200s shutter speeds and everything would have been a blurry mess. With some of the amateur hockey I was shooting, I would only have been able to manage shutter speeds of about 1/200s and that is no way fast enough for that sport.
You make a good point about convenience of zooms. But to say primes are a "complete waste of money"?!! I don't think so!

That's interesting ... diverting this thread slightly for a minute ... I was doing some top shelf scanning in my local newsagent (not that top shelf ... they keep the camera mags on the top shelf too!!!) and there was a cheapy zoom test, with the usual suspects. I'm pretty sure the winner overall was a new Tamron 18-200mm model. Maybe they're spending all the cash they're making on the 28-75 on some decent product development. Images I saw after a quick web search seemed nice for the money. Be interested to hear more as that's a nice walk around range.

If you are looking for critical tack sharp shots, nothing beats a prime (of any focal length). If you are downsizing for prints on the web or newspaper, the zooms are a better bet because of the convenience factor. I am a self-admitted sharpness addict.....I love really sharp photos. Just my personal preference; I really like prime lenses for that factor alone. But I also have a couple of zooms that I really enjoy using because of the immediate change in focal length that I can achieve almost instantaneously. This past friday I received my latest lens addition the 300F4 and with the 1.4X extender it is effectively a 420F5.6. I took some shots and it is SHARP!! Not sure if it would be so good for airshow stuff since the AF is slower with the extender........

Even though I own the 100-400L, I think the 400 5.6 is a better choice for your requirements. Birds are tough, and I think if you polled the comitted bird photographers that would be their vote. But you probably need a tripod/gimbal mount. If you are a casual birder and willing to give up a little sharpness on the little critters at 400mm in return for a more useful general purpose lens get the 100-400L by all means. Check out this link:
http://www.birdsasart.​com/faq_4f56or3is.html