Need a sharp lens around 400mm

Hey schmoelzel, post some 300F4 pictures! Is that the IS model?

Here is a few of mine

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk ….php?n=zoo05032​0lion1.jpg
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk …php?n=zoo050320​rhino1.jpg

and this one with the 1,4x extender

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk …p?n=zoo050306pe​nguin1.jpg

I feel I have to stick up for decent zooms! I'm sure I could find a number of shots taken with a zoom that are at least as good as those kindly shown by Tommy above. The very best images I have seen were taken with a Sigma 300-800mm zoom and not a prime ... and I've looked at a LOT of images from a LOT of zooms and primes.

I don't mind one way or another personally, each to their own preference, and my next long lens will probably be a 500mm prime, but we can lead people astray by such overt statements, influencing them not consider kit that could be otherwise perfect for their needs. So much depends on usage, user, context ... I'd quite like to see shots that can convince me otherwise, but I haven't seen them.

Trust me, the 300-800, although probably very sharp, won't match a 300/2.8 in image quality (but if the person using the 300-800 is a better photog, that is another story).
But really, the difference in image quality isn't the what separates the primes and zooms anymore.
It's the difference in focus speed, and aperture speed.

Now that I CAN readily agree with and the reason why I would seriously consider a prime as my next long one!

I have to agree with what has been said already, primes will be the sharpest and best lens. However, Belmondo posted a test of 4 lens combos to achieve 400mm The results were very interesting.

https://photography-on-the.net …p?t=24218&highl​ight=400mm

Well I'd love to see some really nice prime shots still ... but even saying that I believe Drisley is spot on. nat869 I checked out your site but couldn't tell what had been taken with what lens. Do you, or anyone, have any really nice prime 300mm, 400mm, 500mm shots?

It really feels like one of those throw away statement people make; a bit like 'I only buy Canon!' From a speed POV I really get the prime thing, esp for things like sports, but quality?! I don't see it ... though I am very open to being convinced. I HAVE seen some ULTRA nice dynamic, sharp shots with a real 3D feel to them taken with a Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro, which is why I bought mine, but we're talking long zooms and primes here.

Re the lens test you mentioned: the 100-400 IS is, as far as my research tells me, a bit softer anyway at 400mm and I wouldn't expect ANY lens with an ext. to compete with an equivelent length prime without one! Not sure it's that great a test. Maybe I didn't get the point of it.

Find some of IanD's photos of owls shot with 400 5.6

For example this one

http://www.pbase.com/g​iant001/image/39871349

or this

http://www.pbase.com/g​iant001/image/41299821

or this

http://www.pbase.com/g​iant001/image/39139545

I do not have any way of achieving 400mm myself, I only recently got the 70-200, but 400mm is something I would be interested in, which is why I posted the link to Belmondo's lens tests. Can't wait to see some work from you when you get your setup, whichever it ends up being.

Tommy

Yes, I remember them and liked them at the time. Thanks for the links.

Really nice, but I think what enabled him to get the flight shots was speed of AF and ability to track the birds in flight. No disagreement that a prime will normally do a better job there.

However, in terms of image quality, leaving aside subjective 'drama' and whatnot, they are not as good as these to my eye:

http://www.suesbirdpho​tos.co.uk/LATESTPHOTOS​.htm

Variously taken with Sigma 300-800mm, Sigma 50-500mm Bigma and Sigma 800mm prime and using a range of bodies (don't think she uses Canon!) Dunno if I can tell which are taken with a prime and which with a zoom. I wouldn't expect to tell either.

It's also true that it all depends who's pointing the lens, irrespective of which lens they're pointing.

Hmm, how about these then

http://www.pbase.com/z​eiler/image/40823067
http://www.pbase.com/z​eiler/image/40037440
http://www.pbase.com/z​eiler/image/41045495
http://www.pbase.com/z​eiler/image/40792891
http://www.pbase.com/z​eiler/image/43267396

I was always taught single focal length lenses were sharper than their zoom counterparts. The light is going through less glass.

Again, good shots but I don't see at all that primes are always better quality from any of these examples, in comparison to those via the link I posted taken with zooms. I do see they have advantages in speed and, sometimes, weight. That's why I will buy a long prime in future.

kjonnnn ... I never believe anything I'm taught without thinking it through, as there are exceptions to every rule. Let's pitch a cheap no name 500mm prime V's a Sigma 300-800, or even my 100-300 F4. I'll bet my house the zoom will beat it. The bottom of a milk bottle is made of glass but I'd hate to take pictures with it

Another thing I've learnt is you never convince anyone of anything. So, that's me done on this issue ... if some people still think primes are ALWAYS able to produce better image quality then we can agree to disagree.

I personally think the 400/5.6L are superb!
The ones on suesphotos are pretty darn good too.
Not every prime is better than every zoom. For example, an image from a 24-70L is probably better than from a 28/2.8 or 35/2. But then again, that zoom costs 10x more!
Generally, a prime will give better optics (as is the case of 400/5.6 vs the 100-400), but depending on the user, the difference may not be a big deal. One thing not mentioned is that primes often have less distortion, but again, the difference may not matter to most. My Tokina 17mm lens has much less distortion than the expensive 16-35L or the 17-40L lenses. Before I bought the Tokina, I couldn't care less about distortion. But now that I've been using that lens for many months, I am somewhat turned off by the amount off distortion found at the wide end of the canon wide angle L zooms.
But in summary, primes have their place, and zooms have their place. Neither one is generally better, but each one is better in certain circumstances.
Heck, if somebody made a 70-200 lens with a F2.0 aperture, I would be all over that puppy even if it was a little softer than the 135/2L. However, I have a funny feeling that day may never come.