Canon EF 100-400mm IS or EF 400mm f5.6L

[markgriff]

Canon EF 100-400mm L Image Stab. or Canon EF 400mm f5.6 LUSM lens?

I am looking to purchase a long lens for use with a Canon 20D for photographing birds.

The top end lenses (you know, the ones that require you to part ex your motor vehicle) are a bit out of my price range, so I was considering one of the above lenses as a possibility.

Does anyone have any experience of having used both of these and any subsequent comments as to which is the better of the two?

Also, are they both compatible with the 1.4 extender and if so, do they retain the auto-focus facility when the extender is attached?

Thanks,

[tommo]

I have both these lenses and can honestly say they are both good but for various reasons. There is no BEST as they are used for different purposes.The prime is obviously slightly sharper than the zoom at 400.The zoom is slightly trickier to get used to but I tend to use the zoom more often . I believe neither will autofocus on a 20d with a converter though.(from memory the 20d only autofocuses on total aperture of 5.6 ) whereas a 1 series will autofocus to f8. I use the canon 1.4 converter on both lenses with good(!?) results on a 1d2

[IanF]

I was in the exact same quandary a couple of weeks ago - the 100-400mm or the 400mm f5,6.

To be honest I much prefer the results from the 400mm f5,6 as they are tack sharp however I bought the 100-400mm instead. I went for the zoom as it has the IS and I mainly want to use the camera/lens hand held whilst out walking long distances - it nicely fits my camera bag!

Both lenses can be used with the converters but realistically not with autofocus. Canon say both the 1.4x and 2x can be used but for manual focus only on the 20D. The IS still works with converter added on the 100-400mm. From the research I did some independent 1.4x converters (Kenco non-pro) retain autofocus but it is very very slow.

If you're carrying a tripod or are likely to have some other means of support when taking photos (hide/convenient tree to lean on?) then from what I've seen the 400mm f5,6 is the sharper lens. If you want versatility, easier carriage and IS then the 100-400mm is still a very good lens - just not quite as sharp as the prime.

[markgriff]

Yes I think its going to be a difficult decision as to which one to go for. I have seen a lot of positive comments written on the forum about the 100-400mm IS but I've not found any comments or reviews about the 400mm 5.6 to use as a comparison.

Both would give a maximum apeture of 5.6 at 400mm, so apart from the Image Stab. facility, am I right in thinking that for results, there is little difference between the two, apart from the prime being as mentioned slightly sharper?

I notice that the Image Stab. is slightly more expensive, I assume that this extra cost is soley for this function and not for any other gains over the 400mm 5.6?

If this is the case, I think my decision may soley come down to the fact of whether I want to pay that bit extra for the Image Stab. lens. I haven't used a lens with this function before, so can you realistically shoot hand held at the top end of the zoom and still achieve sharp results or would you still need some kind of support with it?

Thanks,

[IanF]

To compare the two, a Gallery search for each lens prety quickly establishes the prime is by far the sharpest.

I've only had my 100-400mm a week and few chances to use it. The Mute Swan was takien the day I got the lens without reading up on settings. The Red Kite photos were taken on my second outing with it simply panning hand held, likewise the Kestrel.

Both lenses are high quality but the 400mm is without doubt the sharpest by a good distance and probably manageable hand held by some, but not me. The zoom is very good itself but just not quite so good.

Two quotes I came across whilst researching lenses were - 'Go Canon go prime' and 'You'd have to prise the Canon 100-400mm IS from my cold dead fingers'.

One suggestion was to buy both - which I may do one day - once my wallet has recovered ;)

I did come across a review of the two lenses posted elsewhere on here. I think it was a Bob Atkins review but of course I can't find it now???

[Roy C]

There are a lot of reviews on the 400 5.6 on the Fred Miranda site.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=42&sort=7&cat=2&page=2

[ed78user]

Hello

I don't have both - only the 500 f5.6

I have just tried it with my Kenko pro300 1.4 telecon (with the taped contact trick - image attached) and it autofocused plenty fast.

It help 100% that it was sunny though.

Can't wait for the fog to clear to test it some more.

Regards

[jiminlondon99]

I opted for the prime 400 as it felt to me, more balanced and comfortable, for a more scientific review you may find the link below useful;

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_400_56/index.htm

I should point out the comment in the review that "Overall the MTF values are marginally better than the classic EF 300mm f/4 USM L with 1.4x II but quite a bit better than both the EF 300mm f/4 USM L IS with 1.4x II and the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS (@ 400mm)." will I am sure be stongly refuted by those who favour the alteratives? My favourite qoute from a 400 zoom user makes reference to "when you can prise it from my cold dead fingers", thats wht I call user satisfaction!

As for me my first choice was the 500 f4..........and then I woke up...........

Jim

[mjmw]

Hi Mark, I guess it depends on what you want to do...as mentioned, the 100-400 is probably the better general purpose 'walkabout' for handheld use. I personally went for the prime version because I am not steady handed and knew I would use a tripod most of the time. I also did not personally get on with the push-pull in a short try of the 100-400, but I am sure I could have overcome it!
BTW, if Canon did an IS version of the 400 f5.6 lens, I would have bought that.

I am very pleased with the results from my 400 and have zero regrets...but now saving for phase 2, a 500mm :D You can never have enough reach...

Cheers Mark.

[Carl Baggott]

Hi Mark,

I recently purchased a Canon 20D with the prime 400mm F5.6 canon lense. My main reason for opting for the prime version was time after time I read how sharp it is, and I also had concerns about the lense hood. However, I would like to have the closer focusing ability of the zoom.

Previously I was digiscoping with a Leica APO Telivid and Nikon Coolpix 4500 combination. I was able to collect some reasonable images with these, but none of them could be described as being really sharp. I have been very impressed by the detail and sharpness of the results from my new Canon set up. Apart from one session with a tripod, I have taken all of my photographs hand held and rarely do I notice camera shake. It is worth mentioning that rather than a need to zoom out you will almost always crave for higher magnification. I would be interested to hear from anyone who does use the prime 400mm F5.6 with a Canon 1.4 convertor, as it seems that there are very few comments on the results achieved using the camera manually with the convertor - lots saying it won't auto focus, but can it produce acceptable results manually?

[markgriff]

It is worth mentioning that rather than a need to zoom out you will almost always crave for higher magnification.

Carl,

I couldn't agree more. I presently have the Sigma 100-300mm f4 lens, which I use with the Sigma 1.4 convertor. This retains it's autofocus capability and gives me a 420mm f5.6 lens. I've been very pleased with this set up but with bird photography, as you said, you're always craving for a bit more reach!

A prime 500mm is out of my price range so in order to get that extra magnification, I'd need to look at a 400mm with a 1.4 convertor attached. I'd also be interested to know how the results compare when restricted to manual focus. I would imagine it would be trial and error for those flight shots!

[Boy George]

I was in the exact same quandary a couple of weeks ago - the 100-400mm or the 400mm f5,6.

To be honest I much prefer the results from the 400mm f5,6 as they are tack sharp however I bought the 100-400mm instead. I went for the zoom as it has the IS and I mainly want to use the camera/lens hand held whilst out walking long distances - it nicely fits my camera bag!
Hi Ian,

Wjilst reading this thread I noticed your comment about the bag. I too have the Canon 100-400mm IS Zoom which I use on an EOS 20D - all newly acquired. I have been researching a suitable carrying case and am interested in a Lowepro Topload Zoom AW(All Weather) or 75 AW but am not sure if they will take my 17-85mm IS Zoom as well since I would want to take that along with me as weel.. Do you think your bag would and if so, what is it and is it waterproof?

Regards

Adrian

[IanF]

Hi Adrian,

I'm using a padded Tenba shoulder bag that I picked up from a local camera shop for a fiver several years ago. I didn't realise at the time just what a bargain it was. The material is waterproof and it's well padded.

Tenba are still on the go but looking at their web site the Tenba Traveler 554 (http://www.tenba.com/camera/traveler.htm) looks to be the flashy update from my back. The main compartment is the same size and nicely takes the 20D+100-400mm. There would be no room for an additional lens. Mine only has the front pocket though with loops to dangle a tripod along the bottom. I suspect the 354 Pro maybe more suitable for you though.

I like the Lowepro bags myself and the Rezo 190 AW looks to be the nearest in appearance, but slightly shorter.

[John151]

I have the 100/400 IS and I dont have the prime 400mm so I am not in a position to say which is the sharpest based on experience but I have little doubt that it will be the prime lens. I am really responding to point out three main advantages of the zoom lens which len me to choose it.

1. The IS facility means I can shoot hand held at 1/320 s so I dont need to carry a tripod, not on birding trips anyway.

2. When shooting birds in flight I can find them more easily at 100mm and then quickly zoom to 400mm.

3. Some times, but not that often the bird is too close for 400 mm and you don't have to miss the shot through changing lenses.

Best wishes,
John

[cuoglio]

Hi,
sorry if I seem to be intrused in the talk...and sorry for my english....what about 300 IS f4 + 1.4X, i heard it is sharper than 100-400mm, isnt'it?
daniele

[Ragna]

Mark. Arthur Morris an American photographer who runs bird photography classes(www.birdsasart.com) did a comparison between the Canon 400 5.6 and the 100-400 zoom (i think it was called the forgotten 400).In a nutshell he rated the 400 5.6 superior to the zoom. iam sure someone on this site will be able to find a link to this article.If you are going to keeo the Sigma 100-300 there is no point in buying the zoom.

[Art Thorn]

I have owned the 100-400 zoom, and sold it, and now own a 300f2.8 and the 70-200is and 1.4II and 2II extenders. After much experimentation I find that I absolutely have to have the lenses on a tripod to get anything close to maximum resolution. With a good tripod and head, and high ISO, the results from the 300 are absolutely stunning. Without a tripod, even with IS and high ISO, any results are OK, but they are not appreciably different from one another. What I am saying is that camera shake is a bigger factor in resolution than any change in lenses ( and before you say it, I used to shoot rifles in competition, so do know how to hold a camera steady).

[John151]

I have owned the 100-400 zoom, and sold it, and now own a 300f2.8 and the 70-200is and 1.4II and 2II extenders. After much experimentation I find that I absolutely have to have the lenses on a tripod to get anything close to maximum resolution. With a good tripod and head, and high ISO, the results from the 300 are absolutely stunning. Without a tripod, even with IS and high ISO, any results are OK, but they are not appreciably different from one another. What I am saying is that camera shake is a bigger factor in resolution than any change in lenses ( and before you say it, I used to shoot rifles in competition, so do know how to hold a camera steady).

Hello Art Thorn.
I am sure that you are absolutely right about the tripod but, when stalking birds, it is better to have results that are OK rather than have an aboslutely stunning picture of a twig which has nothing on it but leaves. My point is, when stalking, a tripod is a hinderance and the slight delay it causes as well as the sight of it can often cause you to miss the shot. Incidently, before I got the IS lens I used a tripod and initially the results were not all that sharp. Then I read an article on long exposure techniques and what a difference after that! To read the article(s) just type 'long lens technique' in Google.

Kind regards,
John

[Art Thorn]

You are right, of course, John. I have changed my technique because I love those high res images*, but I'm sure I lose out on many shots that I could have had. The point I was really trying to make was that all of these comparisons about lens resolution aren't worth worrying about unless one eliminates the problem of camera shake. After I wrote that bit I went back and reviewed a number of my raw files, pictures taken with the 300, the 300x2 and the 300x1.4. That not only reassured me that I was right, but took away some of my own reservations about shooting with the 300 and 2xII. My favourite, crisp shot in the group was one I took with that combination. What may be more important than worrying about lens resolution (when talking about lenses that are all decent) are autofocus speed and accuracy and metering versatility (spot metering, for instance). And those things relate to the camera body as much as the lens.

Hello Art Thorn.
I am sure that you are absolutely right about the tripod but, when stalking birds, it is better to have results that are OK rather than have an aboslutely stunning picture of a twig which has nothing on it but leaves. My point is, when stalking, a tripod is a hinderance and the slight delay it causes as well as the sight of it can often cause you to miss the shot. Incidently, before I got the IS lens I used a tripod and initially the results were not all that sharp. Then I read an article on long exposure techniques and what a difference after that! To read the article(s) just type 'long lens technique' in Google.

Kind regards,
John

[Robert Davis]

Hi y'all. I have a 100-400 zoom IS lens. I find it very useful for bird photography, particularly when stalking a bird.. There is no question that it is almost impossible to use a tripod or even a monopod under such circumstances. What I do recommend is what few people do: that is, use a very high ISO upto 1600. This, in combination with Image Stabolization will facilitate sharp well exposed photographs. The new Canon 5D has very little Noise. Otherwise I recommend using Noiseware software
Bob Davis
You are right, of course, John. I have changed my technique because I love those high res images*, but I'm sure I lose out on many shots that I could have had. The point I was really trying to make was that all of these comparisons about lens resolution aren't worth worrying about unless one eliminates the problem of camera shake. After I wrote that bit I went back and reviewed a number of my raw files, pictures taken with the 300, the 300x2 and the 300x1.4. That not only reassured me that I was right, but took away some of my own reservations about shooting with the 300 and 2xII. My favourite, crisp shot in the group was one I took with that combination. What may be more important than worrying about lens resolution (when talking about lenses that are all decent) are autofocus speed and accuracy and metering versatility (spot metering, for instance). And those things relate to the camera body as much as the lens.

[Romy Ocon]

Hi Mark,

I have both the 400 5.6L and 100-400 L IS, and each one has specific strengths relative to the other.

The 400 5.6L is sharper wide open, can take a 1.4x tc better (AF and IQ is still decent with a Tamron 1.4x on the 20D/350D/300D), has faster AF speed (due to the shorter AF throw), lighter and cheaper. It's an excellent lens for fliers and long shots.

The 100-400 L IS has framing flexibility, decent wide open and approaches the sharpness of the prime at f/8, nearer MFD, plus it has IS. The zoom excels in low light hand helds, larger/closer birds and is very versatile.

Both lenses are capable of producing excellent results, and whichever tool you choose depends upon your application.

For me, I use the prime 99% of the time (the zoom is relegated to backup duty) because most of our birds are smallish and shy, and we always have plenty of light in our islands.

Regards,

Romy

[formula4speed]

I've never used the Zoom but the 400 5.6L practically lives on my 1D, the image quality is excellent with and without the 1.4 TC attached (I keep autofocus with the 1 series). I have also used it extensively with my Rebel XT (350D to some of you) with excellent results, the TC makes me lose autofocus with the Rebel so while the image quality is still excellent I haven't had much luck trying to shoot moving objects.

[tirc83]

Canon EF 100-400mm L Image Stab. or Canon EF 400mm f5.6 LUSM lens?

I am looking to purchase a long lens for use with a Canon 20D for photographing birds.
Thanks,

I use the 400 f/5.6L with my 20D <a href="http://www.pbase.com/tirc">lots of examples here</a>.

One of the main differences between the 2 lenses you asked about is weight and size. The zoom is noticeably heavierand larger.

Most people find that for birding they are shooting at 400 most of the time with the zoom - so why not go for the lighter cheaper option.

Re the teleconverter, it depends which make you use - my cheap Tamron 1.4x autofocuses on the 400 but the Kenko 2x doesn't. I belive the Canon TCs need the pins taping to work.

You might find it cheaper to buy the lenses mail order from the US (bandhphotovideo.com and adorama.com) and pay the duty as that's what I usually so - but the $ is now down to 1.6something so maybe warehouse express compares quite favorably.

Hope this helps.