EF 400mm f/5.6L USM v 100-400mm IS?

[Quacker]

Any thoughts, pros or cons for either lens?

I want my next purchase to be either of those lenses, and while the versatility of the zoom AND IS seems tempting, the fact that it would mostly be used at 400mm (also considering a 70-200mm L Canon).

IS would be negated with the use of a pod, while handheld shots with the zoom enhanced. I realise it is all opinions, but would like to hear a few. One can only read so many reviews or tech papers.

Steve

[postcardcv]

If you look around you'll find plenty of threads discussing this, really it's just a matter of personal choice. The prime tends to be sharper wide open, but does not have IS or the versatility of a zoom. Decide which of these factor is more important to you and go with the obvious lens.

[rjb25073]

Any thoughts, pros or cons for either lens?

I want my next purchase to be either of those lenses, and while the versatility of the zoom AND IS seems tempting, the fact that it would mostly be used at 400mm (also considering a 70-200mm L Canon).

IS would be negated with the use of a pod, while handheld shots with the zoom enhanced. I realise it is all opinions, but would like to hear a few. One can only read so many reviews or tech papers.

Steve

ah the old chestnut ! there are some good threads covering this in the forum but here's my twopenneth worth

I have both. I started with the the prime and found that a monpod was useful and it's fantastic in good light. However, I was missing shots because of the lack of zoom and min focusing distance of 11ft or so. I therefore got the 100-400 and love it, for me the flexibility and IS are more than worth the slightly slower AF, it is now the lens I use the most by far. I personally have found them both to be nice and sharp. Note that I often shoot birds in the garden or from a hide where you can be pretty close. Also, we try and go on a wildlife holiday once a year where 400 mm isn't always required so the zoom is ideal here.

Richard

[christineredgate]

I use both these lenses.I love the 400F5.6.Non IS is not a prob ,as the lens is so light,it focusses well with the 1x4,(providing the pins are taped).I have taken shots in not very good light,and it is not a prob,all my KF shots have been taken with this lens.BUT,if I go further afield,then I do take the 100-400.It takes less space in the cam bag and is more versatile.I must admit,if I had to choose as to which one to keep,if I had to part with one,it would be a very difficult decision. I guess I would keep the cheaper 400F5.6 and use a lower quality zoom.

[Quacker]

Great stuff. It is good to get comments from someone who uses both. Normally with scopes/bins if torn between two, I buy both. I'm trying not to replicate this with lenses.

A secondary or supplementary question, which Christine touched on was with the converter - the taped pins work with 1.4. with the prime. Does the converter work with the 100-400 maintaining autofocus (taped pins or otherwise)?

Back to the research but all input welcomed. Meanwhile, a day off work, fiilthy weather and all day to research.

S

[Keith Reeder]

The 100-400 will work with a 1.4x TC, Steve, but you'd really need good light to get useful AF and IS.

From what I've seen, image quality is fine as long as the light is there.

To put this in context - I'm going to buy a Kenko Pro 300 TC when I get round to it, for my 100-400mm: I wouldn't be doing that if I didn't think it would work!

;)

Oh - and the Kenko TCs don't need the taped pins trick either.

[Robert L Jarvis]

Hi Keith

Kenko pro300 1.4x are £99 on Microglobe.

Robert

[Keith Reeder]

Thanks Robert - I knew I'd seen 'em for that somewhere.

[Roy C]

The 100-400 will work with a 1.4x TC, Steve, but you'd really need good light to get useful AF and IS.

From what I've seen, image quality is fine as long as the light is there.

To put this in context - I'm going to buy a Kenko Pro 300 TC when I get round to it, for my 100-400mm: I wouldn't be doing that if I didn't think it would work!

;)

Oh - and the Kenko TCs don't need the taped pins trick either.
Keith, thought it was only the cheap Kenco's (not the pro) that did not report back to the camera (i.e 8 pins and not 11). If this is so then the pro would need the tape trick.

[nigelblake]

Keith, thought it was only the cheap Kenco's (not the pro) that did not report back to the camera (i.e 8 pins and not 11). If this is so then the pro would need the tape trick.
This is correct Roy, the pro spec Kenkos need taping...... puzzled that they have the same brand name as instant coffee!

[Keith Reeder]

Uummm... errr.... OK, I'll double check that then - I'm pretty sure I've read that the Pro 300 works "as is".

It did on my Nikon D70 + Sigma 80-400mm!

;)

Added: Aye, looks like I got my TCs mixed up - it is the cheaper one that works without tape.

Still, I don't see having to tape the thing as a high price to pay.

Thanks for the heads-up, guys.

[christineredgate]

Yes the 1x4 works with the 100-400 on auto focus with the pins taped.

[macshark]

400 f/5.6L is a great lens for birds in flight or birds at a distance using the 1.4x TC. It is light enough (at least when mounted on a 350D/400D) that you can go on a reasonably long hike and carry the camera+lens in your hand.

For medium shutter speed range, using a monopod is a good idea. I have been able to get some decent shots as slow as 1/200 or 1/250 hand-held, but success rate (i.e. percentage of pictures that are sharp) are much better when used with a good monopod.

100-400L is a more versatile lens, thanks to zoom, IS and the shorter minimum focus difference. But optically, the 400 f/5.6L is superior.

[IanF]

I'm still using both and both are very good lenses.

I bought the 100-400 with the camera and then picked up the 400mm f5,6 a few months later second hand for a good price.

I intended comparing them and then selling the other - but I honestly can't decide between the two of them. Each has it's strong points.

The 400mm is a really sharp lens and great for bird photos at a distance on a bright day - read that as sunny day. It's pretty light compared to the 100-400, slimmer so it's easier to hand hold and the autofocus works really fast. The built in lens hood is easy to just pull out and lock in place. The downside is the lack of IS - a 400mm lens plus the 1x6 crop factor means it really shows up camera shake. Unless it's very bright to get a decent shutter speed then hand holding is pretty hit and miss - not so bad if panning a flight shot - but hard if trying to hold it still for a stationary bird - hence I mainly use it with a monpod. Another downside is the minimum focus distance of 3.5m - it can be a pain sometimes - even using thick extension tubes doesn't greatly reduce the distance.

The 100-400 is a wider body and a bit heavier - but the focuses a lot closer and the IS is a real boon whether for normal use or when taking macro shots with or without extension tubes. It's not often mentioned but in comparison to the 400mm f5,6 the autofocus is noticably slower - which only matters for fast moving flight shots. I sometimes think it's not quite as sharp as the 400mm f5,6 - but other times I can hardly tell the difference - especially if stopped down to f6,3 or more. With being a zoom it's quite compact for carrying around in a camera bag. I don't particulalry like the way the lens hood fits, at least compared to the 400mm prime.

As regards using a teleconverter then you lose autofocus with both lenses but you can do the pin taping trick which gives slow autofocus but you can touch the zoom to manual focus somewhere near then autofocus is pretty quick - not much use for birds in flight though. With the 400mm f5,6 there's hardly any noticeable loss in quality. There is some but it's negligible. With the 100-400 then it's really noticeable - I think it must be due to all the extra glass - I seem to always be carrying it but seldom use it.

If I was starting afresh then knowing what I do now I'd have to say the 100-400 is a much more versatile lens to use. If I owned only one lens and had to pick between the two - then the 100-400 is the one I'd keep.

For bird photos the 400mm is barely enough - let alone going down to 200mm. Even at Hawthorn Wood at Washington WWT the 400mm is barely enough.

[Keith Reeder]

But optically, the 400 f/5.6L is superior.I keep reading that, but I never see it in the pictures from these two lenses..!

;)

[JohnZ]

Now now Keith behave yourself. Ever since our minor disagreement on this forum I have declined to comment on either of these lenses despite many opportunities.
At the risk of kicking it all off again, which is not my intention, I was always led to believe that a Canon prime lens will always be optically superior to an equivalent zoom lens.
I have now had a go of a 100-400mm and very nice it was too. But as it has taken me the best part of a year to try and get to grips with my 400mm it would be madness to change now. The one I had a go with had some sort of zoom adjustment whereby you could vary the smoothness, if that`s the right word, of the zoom. I was not too keen on that. My very old 70-210 f4 had a very nice zoom action, no slipping whatsoever, and had the 100-400 been the same who knows ?

[eastwood]

The lower end Canons are made in such a way that they will only AF if the aperture they record is 5.6 or brighter. The IDs and 1D will do it with F8 or faster. I use the 100-400 with my Rebel XT (350D) most of the time and it gives me very good results. But once I put the 1.4 extender on (I have a Canon Ext II and a Tamron Pro) I was never able to get a satisfactory image despite taping the pins to retain AF (and both Extenders will do the trick). This is one aspect I have to learn. The next lens I then considered was a 300 F4 L IS. After a long mind struggle, I settled for the 300 2.8L because I would like the 600 F5.6 with the 2X extender on that will give me a longer reach just in case I need it. Otherwise the 300 F4 with the 1.4 can give me a 420 F5.6 with AF without taping. I have not been using the 400 F5.6, so I cannot comment on it. But I have seen a lot of superb images in different galleries taken with this lens, many handheld. So it goes back to square one - it is a really a personal choice, depending on ones need, of course.

[postcardcv]

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

this might be worth a look, it's a direct comparison between the two lenses.

[rjb25073]

Great stuff. It is good to get comments from someone who uses both. Normally with scopes/bins if torn between two, I buy both. I'm trying not to replicate this with lenses.

A secondary or supplementary question, which Christine touched on was with the converter - the taped pins work with 1.4. with the prime. Does the converter work with the 100-400 maintaining autofocus (taped pins or otherwise)?

Back to the research but all input welcomed. Meanwhile, a day off work, fiilthy weather and all day to research.

S

I've found the converter not only slows the AF but also reduces the accuracy, the latter can be more frustrating when birding especially when shooting through tree branches.

as mentioned by someone else the AF is a function of the body and not the lens. Top end bodies AF will work in lower light and will AF with f8 lenses, lower end only focus at f5.6. Taping the pins fools the camera into thinking that there is no converter present.

I was very pleased with some 100-400 shots taken with a 1.4 x converter but you need good light. The IS really helps as you can shoot handheld with the converter at say 1/400, I need much faster, say 1/1000 with the prime.

Good luck with the decision,
Richard

[rjb25073]

I keep reading that, but I never see it in the pictures from these two lenses..!

;)

ditto. My view is that the prime may be better with ideal conditions and/or a pro but for most others the difference isn't apparent, maybe the IS levels the playing field.

at £1100 or so the zoom should be a damn good lens !

Richard

[Keith Reeder]

Hi guys,

as I've suggested before now, there's more to "sharpness" than the supposed ability of the lens alone (Richard makes much the same point above).

This is a picture from this site, one of many posted by a 100-400mm user who thinks he has a pretty sharp lens.

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=41865

Is he wrong?

Put it another way: if you got this pic from the 400mm prime, wouldn't you happily use it to prove how sharp the prime was?

;)

QED

[Keith Reeder]

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

this might be worth a look, it's a direct comparison between the two lenses.Hi Pete,

yer man got an absolute shitstorm of flak for that review from happy 100-400mm users who were convinced he'd used a knackered lens.

[Keith Reeder]

Now now Keith behave yourself. Ever since our minor disagreement on this forum I have declined to comment on either of these lenses despite many opportunities.Heh!

I am behaving myself of course (always do!) but while I've never denied that the prime is a cracking lens, it remains the case that - out of the thousands (seriously) of pics I've looked at from these two lenses - I've yet to see a single one where the quality of the image could incontrovertibly be attributed to the sharpness of the prime.

I have however, seen hundreds of brilliant shots where the IS has clearly made all the difference...

Please don't get me wrong, John: if someone stuck £900 in my hand tomorrow, I'd buy the 400mm prime in a heartbeat, because it is unquestionably a superb lens - I've never suggested otherwise.

And because - it's worth pointing out - I've got a pretty good hand-holding technique anyway, stabilisation or not.

But as things stand, it's surely not the "ideal" lens for me, and the theoretical, supposed, maybe, probable extra sharpness edge it has is lost to me because of the crappy light I routinely shoot in.

The 100-400mm just does the job...

[postcardcv]

Hi Pete,

yer man got an absolute sh*tstorm of flak for that review from happy 100-400mm users who were convinced he'd used a knackered lens.

Can't say I'm totally shocked, having never used the lenses side by side I was suprised at how obvious the difference was. That said I do feel that in the right conditions (good light and a tripod) a prime will almost always out preform a zoom.

However is it clear that they are both excellent lenses (if they weren't people wouldn't buy them), and as I said in my first post it's a matter of working out which suits the individual. As someone who has never owned a Canon L series lens I'd leap at the chance to use either of them.

[IanF]

It's the proposed use of the lens that decides which I take out.

On bright sunny days, more distant birds and for flight shots the 400mm prime wins hands down - it is a sharper lens for those conditions and for flight shots the autofocus is noticeably faster - vital for panning.

On 'normal' days, at feeding stations, closer birds, for macro or low light then it's the 100-400mm - the IS, closer minimum focus and zoom range make it more suitable. No doubt about it, it's a very sharp lens - just not quite as sharp as the 400mm prime if used side by side in perfect conditions for birds over 3.5m.

IMHO - the 100-400mm is the more useful lens - it can be used in all situations and is a very sharp lens.

The 400mm maybe better in it's niche - but more restrictive when it can be used.

[Quacker]

Can't say I'm totally shocked, having never used the lenses side by side I was suprised at how obvious the difference was. That said I do feel that in the right conditions (good light and a tripod) a prime will almost always out preform a zoom.

However is it clear that they are both excellent lenses (if they weren't people wouldn't buy them), and as I said in my first post it's a matter of working out which suits the individual. As someone who has never owned a Canon L series lens I'd leap at the chance to use either of them.


I have to agree!

No wonder he got abuse for that review. Indeed his conclusion bit mentioned that. I don't think this was merely owners sticking up for their own lens, but if, as he says there is nothing wrong with his lens used, then I can only conclude it was a crap photo he took with it in the first place!

Also this re-curring question, and answers from people kind of answers it's own question.

The answer seem to be: The prime is slightly sharper (as expected) but not noticeably or overly so. The zoom is more convenient and has closer focus. BOTH are fine lenses.

The most interesting thing I have found is the amount of people who have both! - right, where's that coin....not to choose between them, but which one to buy first lol.

[Keith Reeder]

That said I do feel that in the right conditions (good light and a tripod) a prime will almost always out preform a zoom. Aye, I don't doubt that in "ideal test conditions" you could pull out some differences, Pete.

But in real world circumstances - shade, clouds, 30mph winds shoving you all over, obliging birds coming too close to frame at 400mm (it happens! ;)) - the zoom has an awful lot to recommend it, and the sharpness advantage which might exist in the prime in ideal circumstances isn't the be all and end of all.

If I routinely used a tripod though, I'd see much less in favour of the zoom.

[Robert L Jarvis]

It strikes me that even if you did use a tripod or other support the versatility of the zoom would win out. In India this year, Alan in our group had a 400mm prime. We were photoing a Nightjar, it was too close for him and he had no other lens and it could not be digiscoped. He borrowed my 75-300mm.

To me with the zoom you are covered for most eventualities, far more so than with a prime, also is it not better to just carry one lens on the camera rather than having to change over from prime to zoom and in reverse!

I am at the moment agonising over this very choice.

[Roy C]

It strikes me that even if you did use a tripod or other support the versatility of the zoom would win out. In India this year, Alan in our group had a 400mm prime. We were photoing a Nightjar, it was too close for him and he had no other lens and it could not be digiscoped. He borrowed my 75-300mm.

To me with the zoom you are covered for most eventualities, far more so than with a prime, also is it not better to just carry one lens on the camera rather than having to change over from prime to zoom and in reverse!

I am at the moment agonising over this very choice.
Crikey, you must have been close to fill the frame with a Nightjar or was it the minimum focus of 3.5 metres that was the problem.

[Robert L Jarvis]

Roy, we were very close about 2.5 mtrs.

Robert

[Quacker]

It strikes me that even if you did use a tripod or other support the versatility of the zoom would win out. In India this year, Alan in our group had a 400mm prime. We were photoing a Nightjar, it was too close for him and he had no other lens and it could not be digiscoped. He borrowed my 75-300mm.

To me with the zoom you are covered for most eventualities, far more so than with a prime, also is it not better to just carry one lens on the camera rather than having to change over from prime to zoom and in reverse!

I am at the moment agonising over this very choice.

Easy choice innit Robert lol?

Which way you leaning?

S

[rjb25073]

It's the proposed use of the lens that decides which I take out.

On bright sunny days, more distant birds and for flight shots the 400mm prime wins hands down - it is a sharper lens for those conditions and for flight shots the autofocus is noticeably faster - vital for panning.

On 'normal' days, at feeding stations, closer birds, for macro or low light then it's the 100-400mm - the IS, closer minimum focus and zoom range make it more suitable. No doubt about it, it's a very sharp lens - just not quite as sharp as the 400mm prime if used side by side in perfect conditions for birds over 3.5m.

IMHO - the 100-400mm is the more useful lens - it can be used in all situations and is a very sharp lens.

The 400mm maybe better in it's niche - but more restrictive when it can be used.

that makes complete sense to me and I 100 % agree !
Richard

[jiminlondon99]

Any thoughts, pros or cons for either lens?

I want my next purchase to be either of those lenses, and while the versatility of the zoom AND IS seems tempting, the fact that it would mostly be used at 400mm (also considering a 70-200mm L Canon).

Steve

Having deliberated like yourself for several weeks on the options I finally made the choice and purchased the 70-200-2.8 IS USM for 2 main reasons;
1. http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=12&sort=7&cat=27&page=2
Good reviews
2. Internal focusing, sealed against water and sand, 1.4* TC provides 280mm-f4,1.4m close focus and 2*TC gives 400-f5.6 & IS in all these modes and great for close hide/tripod work.

Pro's; build quality fast AF with both TC's, far better hit rate finding birds quickly using zoom, useful as a fast 70-200 general purpose lens and closer focusing than the 100-400 or the 5.6.

Con's; heavy and expensive with the TC's.

I have put some early comparisons with my 5.6 prime in my gallery FYI. My early opinion is that the prime has the edge on quality but loses out on versatility. The zoom allows me to find more birds but I suspect the prime will still be my first choice on long walks.

Jim