Anyone gone from 400 5.6 to 100-400?

I am considering trading my favorite prime for the telescoping dongolong that is the 100-400. It has IS and I am getting tired of carrying my tripod everytime I head out.

Is the 100-400 IQ much softer?

Wide open my 4005.6L is sharp as a tack and that is nice to have.

mikeassk wrote in post #8688949
I am considering trading my favorite prime for the telescoping dongolong that is the 100-400. It has IS and I am getting tired of carrying my tripod everytime I head out.

Is the 100-400 IQ much softer?

Wide open my 4005.6L is sharp as a tack and that is nice to have.

Assuming normally functioning copies, and all things being equal, the prime is slightly sharper than the zoom (at 400mm f5.6). The AF speed of the prime is also a little quicker, and it certainly feels much lighter. That said, the zoom is such a versatile lens and as you note the IS is a boon.

I think the bottom line is that if you need the IS, the zoom is a good compromise.

I replaced my 300 F4 with the 100-400...

I have used both, I will not give up my very sharp copy of the 100-400.

Neilyb wrote in post #8690018
I have used both, I will not give up my very sharp copy of the 100-400.

How much tho really?

but seriously, do you believe you have a "sharp copy" because all the elements in this expensive lens seem to be sitting where they are designed to sit or because it seems to work well with your bodies?

I am just a little off target about this whole "sharp copy" (from lens to lens in the same make not different designs) debate.

I know a 300 2.8 is going to be sharper than a 70-300 4-5.6 because it is designed that way.

OK, it works well with my 50D and 5D, works OK with a tC attached and is sharp wide open. It is sharp at 100 and 400mm, and in between. It has IS. It is compact and easy to travel with.

My 70-300 IS is also sharp, just not around the edges and just not long enough.

I know the copies I've used of these two lenses have been terrific. And here is what I found: http://www.pbase.com …s/image/5329734​9/original

Not bad for a zoom against a superb prime.

I believe Bryan over at the Digital Picture has very similar findings, IIRC.

mikeassk wrote in post #8690156
How much tho really?

but seriously, do you believe you have a "sharp copy" because all the elements in this expensive lens seem to be sitting where they are designed to sit or because it seems to work well with your bodies?

I am just a little off target about this whole "sharp copy" (from lens to lens in the same make not different designs) debate.

I know a 300 2.8 is going to be sharper than a 70-300 4-5.6 because it is designed that way.

Are you guys talking about the dust pump? I'm thinking very seriously of getting one.

LightRules wrote in post #8690211
I know the copies I've used of these two lenses have been terrific. And here is what I found: http://www.pbase.com …s/image/5329734​9/original

Not bad for a zoom against a superb prime.

I believe Bryan over at the Digital Picture has very similar findings, IIRC.

Wow, that is convincing!

I switched from the 400/5.6 prime to the 100-400 and have not been sorry for even a minute. It's my belief that the 100-400 is as sharp as my 400 prime was. I shoot it wide open at the full 400mm and am very pleased with the results.

I wanted it primarily for the IS and feel my keeper rate is higher because of it. I have also found that the versatility of the zoom has been a bonus.

Here are some recent samples...

The two Chickadee shots were at 400mm, wide open at 5.6

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

If Canon ever gets smart enough to produce a 400mm 5.6 IS L, I really believe many people would sell their 400mm 5.6 L, 300mm 4.0 L, and their 100-400mm L lenses and buy the 400 5.6 IS. I think many photographers who have the same question as posted here would immediately buy the 400 5.6 if it had IS. I certainly would.

I had both at the same time and ended up keeping the 100-400. There was so little difference in IQ that it was easy to select the zoom.

Here's a shot with just the 100-400.
1/80s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso500

I really want a 100-400. Soooo bad. What do you guys reckon is a good second hand price for this lens?

Used between $1150 & $1350

I'd say not more than $1200. Cos using Bing cashback you'll get a new copy for a little over $1400 or thereabouts.

the last one on the sell forum went for $1175. A good price.