This qualifies as "interesting"... (400 zoom vs 400 prime)

[Keith Reeder]

No apologies for this - it's really interesting.

I'm a huge fan of the 100-400mm IS, and enjoy discussing its merits relative to the 400 prime (which is great too of course).

www.photozone.de (http://www.photozone.de) have recently re-tested the 100-400mm.

Their earlier test in 2005 produced fairly mediocre MTF results - certainly not up to the standard set by the prime.

But they're recently tested the zoom again (a newer one, I expect) and the MTF charts from this lens are better at 400mm than the MTF for the prime!

We're not talking huge resolution differences (I'll only mention values at the centre of the field), but they're there.

At f/5.6 the prime scores 1657, the zoom 1670.

At f/8 the prime scores 1767, the zoom 1785.

Admittedly, at F/11 the prime scores 1768 and the zoom 1745, but personally I don't much care about F/11..!

;)

So here is an objective, thorough, more-or-less industry standard (Imatest) review of the IQ of the 100-400mm which says that the tested example is at least as sharp (which is what we're really talking about here - these are MTF50 results, which apparently correlate very well with actual lens sharpness) as the prime at 400mm.

Just thought I'd share this interesting snippet...

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_400_56/index.htm

[Lisa W]

Keith, thanks for the comparison. I do know that I am getting just as sharp (to my untrained eye) a picture from my 100-400 at full zoom as I do from my 400 prime, so this isn't a huge surprise to me.

[Adey Baker]

And, just to throw the odd cat amongst the pigeons ;) here's a similar test for the Sigma 400mm Apo/Macro HSM which has centre readings of 1792 at F5.6 and 1899.5 at F8

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_400_56/index.htm

Incidentally, these tests are carried out on a specific camera - years ago MTF tests used to test only the lens in isolation from any camera or film/processing to evaluate the optic on its own

[JohnZ]

Good Lord ! I will have to sell my prime lens immediately and get the zoom ! Ha Ha.

[Roy C]

From these test it looks like the Sigma is better than both the Canon's :h?:

[Cashie]

No surprise to me either Keith, I have both lenses & only use the prime for flight shots, because I feel it focues better/quicker on moving subjects.

[Keith Reeder]

That Sigma was always had the potential to be a bit special though - they really should reintroduce it (with IS and HSM) and watch Canon squirm!

;)

Hi John,

no, I don't suggest that anyone should sell their prime for the zoom - but if this has any effect on the number of silly, unsupportable "my lens has to be sharper than yours because it's a prime" posts, I'll be happy enough..!

;) ;) ;)

[Lisa W]

Keith,
All anyone has to do is look at your pictures and they would know that
"my lens has to be sharper than yours because it's a prime" is rubbish.

[Keith Reeder]

You'd be surprised, Lisa!

;)

Now don't get me wrong, the the 400mm prime has proven to be sharper in some hands in certain situations (and maybe you'd expect that) but I bridle at the oft-repeated argument that it will always, for ever, in every circumstance, be the sharpest of the two when that's demonstrably not the case.

This latest test just serves to underline the point.

[Roy C]

These days I read far more 'my lens is better than your lens' post from 100-400 users than just about any other lens on the market (not just on BF).It may well be the best lens in the world but what good does it do to go on about it?. As long as you are happy with your gear that is all that should matter. What is it about Photographers that they have to justify their purchases to everyone. When someone claims they have a better Camera or Lens than someone else the only inference that can be drawn is that they are really saying 'what a prat you were for buying that' and this does not make anyone feel good.
Life's to short - whatever gear you have, get out there and enjoy it. After all it is the Photographer and not the kit that makes the picture.

[Taxboy]

[QUOTE=Keith Reeder;879961]No apologies for this - it's really interesting.

I'm a huge fan of the 100-400mm IS, and enjoy discussing its merits relative to the 400 prime (which is great too of course).

www.photozone.de (http://www.photozone.de) have recently re-tested the 100-400mm.

Their earlier test in 2005 produced fairly mediocre MTF results - certainly not up to the standard set by the prime.

But they're recently tested the zoom again (a newer one, I expect) and the MTF charts from this lens are better at 400mm than the MTF for the prime!


So here is an objective, thorough, more-or-less industry standard (Imatest) review of the IQ of the 100-400mm which says that the tested example is at least as sharp (which is what we're really talking about here - these are MTF50 results, which apparently correlate very well with actual lens sharpness) as the prime at 400mm.

Just thought I'd share this interesting snippet...

Or is this evidence that there really is significant sample variation for this particular lens ? If you look on the US forums there are no end of "I had to check out x samples before I got a really sharp one." posts

[JohnZ]

Well said Roy.

[gmax]

These days I read far more 'my lens is better than your lens' post from 100-400 users than just about any other lens on the market (not just on BF).It may well be the best lens in the world but what good does it do to go on about it?. As long as you are happy with your gear that is all that should matter. What is it about Photographers that they have to justify their purchases to everyone. When someone claims they have a better Camera or Lens than someone else the only inference that can be drawn is that they are really saying 'what a prat you were for buying that' and this does not make anyone feel good.
Life's to short - whatever gear you have, get out there and enjoy it. After all it is the Photographer and not the kit that makes the picture.

Agreed Roy!
But, just my humble thought, this poses some interesting questions (following your suggestion ...), given that so many people (I can think of Arthur Morris and other photographers, then here on BF Romy Ocon and - obviously - Keith) decided that
1. it was time to give the zoom the right status it seems to deserve. Result: the zoom is as sharp as the prime
2. it was time to give the combo (+TC 1.4x) the status it deserves. Result: the combo zoom is as sharp as the combo prime
3. it was time to give third-party TCs the right status they deserve. Result: a cheap Tamron/Kenko or whatever is as sharp as an expensive Canon/Nikon Tc
What does all this mean?
A. Build design of a prime doesn't count when compared to a zoom? Why? o:D
B. Cheap accessories can be as good as expensive accessories - are Canon/Nikon robbing us? :-C
C. How the h### can these testers always put their hands on 1. first test = poor lens copy 2. second test = excellent sublime stunning sharpest lens copy? :cool:
D. How much is Canon paying for receiving better than average comments on their zoom and not on other lenses? Does this lens really need all that support? :h?:
E. Why all (sharp) shots used as evidence for the zoom are usually taken at close range and on standing subjects? Any chance of seeing good flight shots at far range (perhaps handheld, it has IS ...)?

PS just for Keith ;)
"Keith,
All anyone has to do is look at your pictures and they would know that
"your shots are sharp because you are a good photographer" ... but you could be a very good photographer with a prime (which one? mmmh, let me think...) :'D

PS PS As you may already know, I like stirring a bit the forum during my lazy Sundays when I'm not out shooting with my sharpest combo :loveme:

Cheers,
Max

[pe'rigin]

As I was always taught the optimum on any lens is F11, @ the highest exposure factor, the sharpness results for the prime are better the higher you go. If you are evaluating solely on sharpness then the zoom does stand up, but, I think that with any testing such as this, you also have to give an equal valuation on other important factors, such as colour density, H&S and enlargement capability, before comparing these two lenses.

[Robert L Jarvis]

Can the human eye really discern a noticeable difference in the images by both lens? for all the factors.

[rjb25073]

Hi Keith,
to be honest I just thought it was me that couldn't tell the difference between the sharpness of the two.

After I bought the 100-400 the prime hardly ever saw the light of day so I sold it. In 'everyday' or walkabout situations I'd go for the zoom every time. There are the odd occassions where the prime would be better (I'd agree with others that the AF is faster therefore it's better for birds in flight) but there are lots more occassions where I'd miss a shot either because 400 is too much, it was closer than 10 ft or the light was poor. In fact this weekend I got a nice shot of a wood warbler (at least i think that's what it was !) handheld at 1/250 which would have been pretty poor with the non-IS prime.

However I do so love the old 400 vs 100-400 debate and the new figures add another dimension to the nay-sayers and 'it must be better because it's a prime' brigade.

Thanks for the post,
Richard

[rjb25073]

<snip>

What does all this mean?
A. Build design of a prime doesn't count when compared to a zoom? Why? o:D
B. Cheap accessories can be as good as expensive accessories - are Canon/Nikon robbing us? :-C
C. How the h### can these testers always put their hands on 1. first test = poor lens copy 2. second test = excellent sublime stunning sharpest lens copy? :cool:
D. How much is Canon paying for receiving better than average comments on their zoom and not on other lenses? Does this lens really need all that support? :h?:
E. Why all (sharp) shots used as evidence for the zoom are usually taken at close range and on standing subjects? Any chance of seeing good flight shots at far range (perhaps handheld, it has IS ...)?
<snip>


I'll take a pot shot and give my own opinions to your questions (it's quiet in the office today)...
(a) the zoom is about 1/3 more expensive so pehaps has a more sophisticated design to overcome zoom weaknesses (perhaps explains the suggested copy variation ?). Maybe in realworld tests the IS just makes a big difference, it certainly does for me but I'm only an enthusiastic amateur.
(b) of course they are ripping you off ! I'm paying for peace of mind so on more expensive and complex items will buy Canon (e.f. the 100-400, 17-40 and flash - latter for compatibility) but on simpler items will buy a generic brand i.e. I have a Kenko 1.4x
(c) LOL ! strange how they only do this when their review seems to be out of kilter with user feedback. Reviewers typically get the first lens off the production lines so they can review the 'latest thing', this lens must be 10 years old now and production will be a lot more robust giving a more reproducible product.
(d) it's a top of the range zoom lens, Canon are paying a lot to advertise it and as sweetners it would be naive to think otherwise but they all do this so I'd say it's a moot point. No manfucaturer wants to see reviews of it's top lenses it doesn't like. If you were going to be really cynical maybe it either makes a higher gross profit margin on the zoom or is planning to update it and wants a loyal band of followers, or maybe just wants to try and make the pint that prime=best isn't a meaningful assumption in the 21st century.
(e) this is definitely it's weak point therefore not many people use it for this and there aren't as many good shots ;-) seriously though if you want a lens for a lot of flight shots I'd say the prime is better.

just a few random thoughts, not meant to troll purely debate amongst friends.

cheers,
Richard

[Malcolm Stewart]

...
(c) ... this lens must be 10 years old now and production will be a lot more robust giving a more reproducible product.
...

I wish you were correct. What follows is not about a birding lens, but I think it's relevant in view of the recent build date.

Last week I received and returned an EF70-200 f4L (original, non IS version) bought new from Warehouse Express. From the date code, it was built in Japan in October 2006. The replacement sample is acceptable, but having been alerted to poor sharpness and CA on the RHS of the first sample (tested on my 5D), I looked carefully for this on the 2nd. and found minor but acceptable traces. Before purchase, I'd trawled all the usual test sites, and fortunately I was alerted by photozone who needed a 2nd sample to get decent results. On the Fred Miranda site it gets a high 9.5 rating, so my purchase should have been risk free. (Buying 2nd. hand might have saved me £50 but I wonder how good a lens I would have received.)

Very impressed by Warehouse Express who dealt with the return and replacement very well; not impressed by Canon's QA, again.

[rjb25073]

I wish you were correct. What follows is not about a birding lens, but I think it's relevant in view of the recent build date.

Last week I received and returned an EF70-200 f4L (original, non IS version) bought new from Warehouse Express. From the date code, it was built in Japan in October 2006. The replacement sample is acceptable, but having been alerted to poor sharpness and CA on the RHS of the first sample (tested on my 5D), I looked carefully for this on the 2nd. and found minor but acceptable traces. Before purchase, I'd trawled all the usual test sites, and fortunately I was alerted by photozone who needed a 2nd sample to get decent results. On the Fred Miranda site it gets a high 9.5 rating, so my purchase should have been risk free. (Buying 2nd. hand might have saved me £50 but I wonder how good a lens I would have received.)

Very impressed by Warehouse Express who dealt with the return and replacement very well; not impressed by Canon's QA, again.

it is worrying how frequently you hear about these things. Glad you got it sorted.
Richard

[websurfer]

No apologies for this - it's really interesting.

I'm a huge fan of the 100-400mm IS, and enjoy discussing its merits relative to the 400 prime (which is great too of course).

www.photozone.de (http://www.photozone.de) have recently re-tested the 100-400mm.

Their earlier test in 2005 produced fairly mediocre MTF results - certainly not up to the standard set by the prime.

But they're recently tested the zoom again (a newer one, I expect) and the MTF charts from this lens are better at 400mm than the MTF for the prime!

We're not talking huge resolution differences (I'll only mention values at the centre of the field), but they're there.

At f/5.6 the prime scores 1657, the zoom 1670.

At f/8 the prime scores 1767, the zoom 1785.

Admittedly, at F/11 the prime scores 1768 and the zoom 1745, but personally I don't much care about F/11..!

;)

So here is an objective, thorough, more-or-less industry standard (Imatest) review of the IQ of the 100-400mm which says that the tested example is at least as sharp (which is what we're really talking about here - these are MTF50 results, which apparently correlate very well with actual lens sharpness) as the prime at 400mm.

Just thought I'd share this interesting snippet...

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_400_56/index.htm

Do you really believe that a the zoom beats the prime? Too many re-testings and too many sensational results from photozone.de. I don´t rely on photozone.de any longer. At a time the EF 300 f/2.8 was tested and got average resolution - then some complaints were made - and the test was removed.... The EF 300 f/4 IS + TC should according to Photozone.de MTF be better than the EF 400 f/5.6 and at the same time Klaus is claiming that on 400mm the EF 400 f/5.6 is the best choice..... :)

[macshark]

Even though they are putting in a lot of effort, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with PhotoZone's testing procedure. Note that the maximum resolution they measure is somewhat inversely proportional to the minimum focusing distance. It is hard to believe that the resolution figures they are getting for 400 f/5.6L is less than some of the Canon zooms with shorter focal length. IMHO, longer telephoto primes are the lenses that push the limits of the sensor resolution. Given that lots of people are able get very decent shots with a 1.4x or even 2x TC using the 400L prime, I am forced to believe that the PhotoZone test is not an accurate indication of resolution, at least for longer telephoto lenses.

[JohnZ]

Keith, This has got to be some sort of wind up surely ? Anybody who believes anything they read on photozone needs their head read.

[pe'rigin]

There is only one solution to this debate.

Go to Birdfair this year, armed with a memory stick and go and play with the lenses and record the results for yourself.

If you can't decide on the results, post them on a new thread and start a new debate on colour, quality, enlargement and reproduction.

[mjmw]

Arrrrggghhhh...losing...

...the will...

...to...

...live

;)

One day everyone will realise that they are basically the same in image quality for what 99.9% of people need...which is all this test really proves. Maybe people should spend as much time using their lens as they do arguing about it...they may find they actually enjoy photography rather than just trying to find pleasure in owning the whitest lens!

BTW, before anyone gets upset, that comment is not aimed at anyone in particular, just some Canon (100-)400/5.6 users on photography forums in general.

PS. Yes, I have a 400/5.6 amongst my white collection and no I don't think it is better than the 100-400...

[JohnZ]

Mark, For whatever reason Keith appears to have a bee in his bonnet when it comes to comparison between the 100-400mm and the 400mm prime lenses. In times gone by it was always the case that due to the more complex arrangement of the elements in a zoom lens a prime lens would always produce a sharper image. Whether this is still the case I do not know.
However one only has to look at some of Keiths piccies to realise that the zoom lens suits him perfectly. He has taken some fantastic shots with the zoom lens and should not bother himself worrying about whether one lens is better than the other. Hence my earlier comment about this being a wind up.
Although I do not own both lenses I too have used both and I am very happy with the one I chose to buy. Both Art Morris and yourself are in a different league, photographically, to me but that which I have bought suits me perfectly.
I believe the saying goes "You will have to prise it from my cold dead fingers".

[mjmw]

"You will have to prise it from my cold dead fingers".
oh yes ;-)

[gmax]

Arrrrggghhhh...losing...

...the will...

...to...

...live

;)


PS. Yes, I have a 400/5.6 amongst my white collection and no I don't think it is better than the 100-400...

Probably because you don't own a sharp copy ... ;)

[mjmw]

Probably because you don't own a sharp copy ... ;)

"a good image is a good image, and while an expensive lens may have made it a bit sharper the reality is most viewers would never know the difference"

from a recent Guy Tal essay (Guy's website: http://www.scenicwild.com).

[Keith Reeder]

Probably because you don't own a sharp copy ... ;)

But Max, it's a prime - surely they're all sharp, aren't they?

That's what I keep hearing..!

;) ;) ;)

[gmax]

But Max, it's a prime - surely they're all sharp, aren't they?

That's what I keep hearing..!

;) ;) ;)

That's the harsh, crude reality you keep hearing shouted aloud ;) ;) ;)

From the Cannon website:

• [04/17/07] - Canon have released a firmware update for the EOS cameras. You can download it HERE (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Donkey.jpg). According to Canon it fixes the lack of sharpness when using certain zoom lenses, by fooling the camera into believing that it is connected to a prime lens; different cameras may be selected when connecting with a zoom and this fix improves the reliability of communication with the other Canon photographers using a prime.

[gmax]

"a good image is a good image, and while an expensive lens may have made it a bit sharper the reality is most viewers would never know the difference"

from a recent Guy Tal essay (Guy's website: http://www.scenicwild.com).
Sorry Mark, but I do not agree.
As you can see, this image, taken with a zoom is clearly ...

while this second image, taken with a prime is ...

I think I have given enough evidence to cease this useless talk.
Kind regards,
Max

;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

[mjmw]

Sorry Mark, but I do not agree.
As you can see, this image, taken with a zoom is clearly ...

while this second image, taken with a prime is ...

I think I have given enough evidence to cease this useless talk.
Kind regards,
Max

;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

LOL, Max.

[mrmarklin]

That Sigma was always had the potential to be a bit special though - they really should reintroduce it (with IS and HSM) and watch Canon squirm!

;)

Hi John,

no, I don't suggest that anyone should sell their prime for the zoom - but if this has any effect on the number of silly, unsupportable "my lens has to be sharper than yours because it's a prime" posts, I'll be happy enough..!

;) ;) ;)


I agree. There is a thing known as "manufacturing tolerances" that would allow a good zoom to be equal to a good prime. Of course all things being equal (which they almost never are) a prime should be better. But with the computer controlled machinery we have today, the distinction is minimal at best. And almost never visible to the naked eye, which is what we always want to please.:'D

[Keith Reeder]

almost never visible to the naked eye, which is what we always want to please.:'D

I like that sentiment.

Stuff MTF charts, does the picture look good?

Mark makes same point further up too.

[gordon g]

Stuff MTF charts, does the picture look good?

I agree completely. The other factor I would consider is the ease of use of one lens over another, but that is a very personal thing.

[Quacker]

Well, in my opinion, Keith MUST purchase and use the 400 prime and re-evaluate. Then the debate between which 400mm prime can begin...

PS Notice you have two Canon's now Keith, did you trade-in the old Nikon gear Keith? (Not been keeping up for a long time).

Steve

[pe'rigin]

I was going to get all scientific last night and produce a light wave chart through glass from what some will call the ‘dark old days’ of pre digital, but I couldn’t find this ancient book of knowledge. So, I thought stuff it, you pays your money, you takes the choice.

[Keith Reeder]

Well, in my opinion, Keith MUST purchase and use the 400 prime and re-evaluate.

I just don't see the point or the need, Steve.

I get images which are more than sharp enough for my needs and expectations and which stack up very favourably against what I see from other lenses (including pictures taken with the prime), so I have no anxieties about what might be if I get a different lens.

Where does it stop? Testing one copy of the prime against another copy of the same lens to make sure you've got the sharpest of those two? Then doing it again to make sure that that copy is sharper than another prime?

That's not for me!

;)

As I've said loads of times, to me a lens is more than just how sharp it is: I really appreciate IS (IS will get you a sharp picture at shutter speeds where the prime will struggle) and I like the ability to zoom - the fact that I also get sharp pictures, including when I'm using a Kenko 1.4x (560mm that I can handhold!) means that there's no "upside" to the prime for me.

But the point of this thread is that someone has done a definitive comparison between the two lenses and come out in favour of the zoom. Last time, the same test favoured the prime.

So what to tests prove?

Nowt, probably!

To re-quote Guy Tal:

"a good image is a good image, and while an expensive lens may have made it a bit sharper the reality is most viewers would never know the difference"

And to re-quote me:

Stuff MTF charts, does the picture look good?

I really don't care about the rest, but it does bother me to see "a prime is always sharper than a zoom" thrown out there again and again as "fact" without any compelling proof to back it up, because this might put someone off buying the 100-400mm for the worst of reasons.

My Nikon stuff is still about, with buyers lined up for some of it - I just took it out of my sig to reduce the size of it.

[Roy C]

any[/i] compelling proof to back it up, because this might put someone off buying the 100-400mm for the worst of reasons.
I think this is just your Imagination Keith - for every one who says the prime is sharper than the zoom I see at least ten who claim the zoom is better/sharper than the prime. But at the end of the day, what does it matter as long as you are happy with your set-up. Surely you do not resent anyone who happens to have different gear from you. I happen to have a Canon 1.4 tc which I have no doubt is far inferior to your Kenko but I am happy with it - live and let live is what I say. Life is too short so get out there and enjoy your photography.

[Keith Reeder]

Indeed I don't resent other folks' choices, Roy - I think you might be misreading me.

All I'm saying is that this constant "prime is best" propaganda could put people off the zoom for the wrong reasons because, great though the prime is, it clearly isn't the only player in town where IQ - including sharpness - is concerned.

That really is all I'm saying.

[Keith Reeder]

• [04/17/07] According to Canon it fixes the lack of sharpness when using certain zoom lenses, by fooling the camera into believing that it is connected to a prime lens; different cameras may be selected when connecting with a zoom and this fix improves the reliability of communication with the other Canon photographers using a prime.

Interesting Max - doesn't that say very clearly that Canon consider that their zooms can be as sharp as their primes, but that the bodies need some education?

;) ;) ;)

[Roy C]

Indeed I don't resent other folks' choices, Roy - I think you might be misreading me.

All I'm saying is that this constant "prime is best" propaganda could put people off the zoom for the wrong reasons because, great though the prime is, it clearly isn't the only player in town where IQ - including sharpness - is concerned.

That really is all I'm saying.
My point is Keith - where are you seeing all these "prime is best" post because I am not seeing them. As I say I am seeing a darn sight more " the zoom is best" post.

[websurfer]

Canon L Primes ARE better than Canon L zooms - no question about that - but you can find some VERY sharp zooms performing excellent - very CLOSE to primes . I am convinced that Keith does have such an excellent zoom.
- but the primes will generally always be slightly better due to construction: no gliding elements etc.....

[joe cockram]

As I say I am seeing a darn sight more " the zoom is best" post.

That may be beacuse a lot more people have the zoom than the prime?

joe

[Keith Reeder]

My point is Keith - where are you seeing all these "prime is best" post because I am not seeing them. As I say I am seeing a darn sight more " the zoom is best" post.

Hi Roy,

funny how different folk see different things!

;)

What I seem to see is a lot of "the zoom is just as good" posts, after someone has posted that the prime is the only lens worth having, or words to that effect (you see it on DPReview, POTN, here...)

As far as I'm concerned we're blessed to have such a "tough" choice to make, because in truth they're both wondrous lenses: I just try to keep the books balanced as far as the IQ argument is concerned, because you can't go far wrong with either.

It's the other stuff that should really influence someone's choice of lens, because in IQ terms the prime and the zoom are too close to split in any real world situation.

I reckon...

[Keith Reeder]

Canon L Primes ARE better than Canon L zooms - no question about that -

But there is a question about it - or there wouldn't be twenty million (and counting!) discussions just like this on the web.

;)

Indeed, if you spend a while on say, DPReview's Canon lens forum (or the POTN equivalent) you'll see ample "proof" (if anything on the net is proof) that there are quite a few Canon zooms that are "better" (if we accept that "better" equates to "sharper") than primes in the same focal length range.

So - again - it isn't cut and dried that prime invariably means better: and "better" isn't just about sharpness anyway, IMHO.

Yes, I think I have a nice 100-400, but I have no reason to think it's any better than anyone else's..!

;) ;) ;)

And that's me done.

[Roy C]

Hi Roy,

funny how different folk see different things!

;)

What I seem to see is a lot of "the zoom is just as good" posts, after someone has posted that the prime is the only lens worth having, or words to that effect (you see it on DPReview, POTN, here...)

As far as I'm concerned we're blessed to have such a "tough" choice to make, because in truth they're both wondrous lenses: I just try to keep the books balanced as far as the IQ argument is concerned, because you can't go far wrong with either.

It's the other stuff that should really influence someone's choice of lens, because in IQ terms the prime and the zoom are too close to split in any real world situation.

I reckon...
Hello Keith, I see you are having trouble sleeping as well :'D . I must admit I rarely go on to DPReview these days, is it just me or are there some weirdo's on there?. I have also grown a little tired of POTN as well and do not read the lens section much now. You are right that they are both great lenses.

[Keith Reeder]

Aye, I'm a bit of a night owl too, Roy..!

;)

If I'm honest I only really bother with the likes of DPReview and POTN because of the insomnia!

Getting back to the toys, that point - that they're both great lenses in their own way - is all I'm ever trying to say in these discussions, so that people who are looking to make their own decision about which lens to buy don't get swept away with the idea that only the prime can give 'em the IQ they aspire to.

[websurfer]

But there is a question about it - or there wouldn't be twenty million (and counting!) discussions just like this on the web.

;)

Indeed, if you spend a while on say, DPReview's Canon lens forum (or the POTN equivalent) you'll see ample "proof" (if anything on the net is proof) that there are quite a few Canon zooms that are "better" (if we accept that "better" equates to "sharper") than primes in the same focal length range.

So - again - it isn't cut and dried that prime invariably means better: and "better" isn't just about sharpness anyway, IMHO.

Yes, I think I have a nice 100-400, but I have no reason to think it's any better than anyone else's..!

;) ;) ;)

And that's me done.

I have dropped my plan to get the EF 100-400 because I fear to get a soft copy. I have heard a lot of people with a soft copy of the EF 100-400 but almost never heard the same about the EF 400 f/5.6.
Keith, as for your EF 100-400 maybe you are right, you have no reason to think it's any better than anyone else's - but then we may conclude you are doing a little better job with PP than most owners of this zoom. :)

[Keith Reeder]

Actually I hardly do any PP, Websurfer - and it's very basic stuff: cropping, resizing, levels and a single pass of the basic "sharpen" function in PaintShop Pro X.

So I don't think my rudimentary PP skills contribute that much, but the end result is usually OK...

I'm sure you'll do just fine with the prime, but bear in mind that there are a great many soft pictures taken with that lens too.

[mjmw]

Actually I hardly do any PP, Websurfer - and it's very basic stuff: cropping, resizing, levels and a single pass of the basic "sharpen" function in PaintShop Pro X.

So I don't think my rudimentary PP skills contribute that much, but the end result is usually OK...

I'm sure you'll do just fine with the prime, but bear in mind that there are a great many soft pictures taken with that lens too.


Keith, you are doing more PP than many - the amount of photos that get cropped, re-sized and posted without basic adjustments to counter the effects of the digital processes is frightening...especially when they then complain that their lenses are not sharp!

Websurfer - check the qualifications of all those that claim they have soft copies of the lens. The 'zoom isn't as sharp as a prime' debate is older than the 100-400, founded on good reason - early zooms just weren't sharp enough. I imagine that a lot of the technical photography teaching material has not been updated to reflect the fact that modern zooms are actually very good today. The prejudice against zooms lives on and the internet provides an excellent soap box for half-baked ideas and lack of understanding to be spouted ad nauseum.

Besides, say you do get a soft copy of any lens - just return it for another! It is no different to any other thing you buy!

[websurfer]

Keith, you are doing more PP than many - the amount of photos that get cropped, re-sized and posted without basic adjustments to counter the effects of the digital processes is frightening...especially when they then complain that their lenses are not sharp!

Websurfer - check the qualifications of all those that claim they have soft copies of the lens. The 'zoom isn't as sharp as a prime' debate is older than the 100-400, founded on good reason - early zooms just weren't sharp enough. I imagine that a lot of the technical photography teaching material has not been updated to reflect the fact that modern zooms are actually very good today. The prejudice against zooms lives on and the internet provides an excellent soap box for half-baked ideas and lack of understanding to be spouted ad nauseum.

Besides, say you do get a soft copy of any lens - just return it for another! It is no different to any other thing you buy!

it´s easy to say - "just return it for another". Only few stores do have this return policy. That´s why I am hesitating.

[JohnZ]

Another interesting link ?
http://www,michaelfurtman.com/comparing_canon_400s.htm

Keith, I think the majority of folks on POTN are in love with the prime and should anybody suggest that the zoom is better then they are looking for trouble ! I am surprised you even wasted your time and trouble typing a reply.
However I did go out today and struggled, albeit manfully, to get any decent piccies at all such was the total lack of light. Now if the prime had IS........
Nah, I will stick with my trusty prime lens with its lightning quick af and tack sharp images (Only joking !)

P.S. Just tried the link and it did not work but if you just Google it the article will appear.

[paul goode]

Another interesting link ?
http://www,michaelfurtman.com/comparing_canon_400s.htm

Keith, I think the majority of folks on POTN are in love with the prime and should anybody suggest that the zoom is better then they are looking for trouble ! I am surprised you even wasted your time and trouble typing a reply.
However I did go out today and struggled, albeit manfully, to get any decent piccies at all such was the total lack of light. Now if the prime had IS........
Nah, I will stick with my trusty prime lens with its lightning quick af and tack sharp images (Only joking !)

P.S. Just tried the link and it did not work but if you just Google it the article will appear.

Try this link
http://www.michaelfurtman.com/comparing_canon_400s.htm

[Paul Jarvis]

Interesting link Paul, thanks. To my eyes that are untrained to detail, I could not see a big difference between the zoom and the prime, so I guess its personal preference which lens to go for after weighing up the pros and cons.

[mjmw]

As Michael points out in his review, there may have been different lighting between shots - this type of comparison becomes fairly meaningless if constant conditions aren't maintained, IMO. There was a huge difference in contrast between the 400/5.6 and 400/4 shots, making the image 'appear softer'. I wonder if the review just points out that the digital technique (for example picture style setting in camera or PP techniques) should be adjusted for the characteristics of the lens used. A different contrast setting may have removed that difference.

[Modular]

Like a few of said there is'nt much difference ... Biggest difference i saw was
that the 100-400 With Tc cropped at 100% was far superior to the 400 IS,
The 400 IS looked way too soft compared to the 100-400,
John,

[Modular]

Just had another look ... It seem's the 400 non Is produce's better
picture's to me than the 400 IS ... Just my opinion,
John,

[Keith Reeder]

Paul,

I suspect that's because there is precious little difference between the two lenses: the comparative tests I've seen (assuming that both lenses were good ones) have been too close to call, and as you say, personal preference is the point.

Mark,

that's a good point about consistent testing.

On that point, here's a link to a very thorough, consistent test where the tester kept the zoom and sent the prime back: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/teletest

Hi John,

it's great that folk love their primes - but it doesn't change the fact (which - again - is all I'm trying to get across, though I'm running out of ways to put it so that people look at what I'm actually writing rather than automatically assuming I'm bashing the zoom) that there's no definitive proof out there that the prime is routinely superior to the zoom - or of course, vice versa. One test swings one way, then another test redresses the balance.

So we should look at the bigger picture (no pun intended). If the sharpness of the two is close (and it is), then the other factors should be considered as part of the decision.

If the user is always in fantastic light, he might not need IS - but for myself I can't guarantee good light, so I tick the IS box.

Close focus might not matter, but if it does the 100-400 is favourite again.

And personally I've found that being able to actually zoom is very useful too.

The prime is faster focussing - but setting the focus distance switch on the 100-400 to 6.5m does a lot to redress that balance (at the expense of close focussing ability, obviously).

The zoom takes up less room in the bag too!

;)

But even if the prime is a hair sharper than the zoom wide open, on a test bench, that doesn't guarantee sharper pictures in the Real World - the whole package needs to be considered, and I am in no doubt that as a package the zoom has a hell of a lot to offer.

And that's the point. They're both excellent, and any suggestion that one is clearly better than the other in any meaningful, Real World way, is just not supported by the evidence.

[Modular]

Paul,

I suspect that's because there is precious little difference between the two lenses: the comparative tests I've seen (assuming that both lenses were good ones) have been too close to call, and as you say, personal preference is the point.

Mark,

that's a good point about consistent testing.

On that point, here's a link to a very thorough, consistent test where the tester kept the zoom and sent the prime back: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/teletest

Hi John,

it's great that folk love their primes - but it doesn't change the fact (which - again - is all I'm trying to get across, though I'm running out of ways to put it so that people look at what I'm actually writing rather than automatically assuming I'm bashing the zoom) that there's no definitive proof out there that the prime is routinely superior to the zoom - or of course, vice versa. One test swings one way, then another test redresses the balance.

So we should look at the bigger picture (no pun intended). If the sharpness of the two is close (and it is), then the other factors should be considered as part of the decision.

If the user is always in fantastic light, he might not need IS - but for myself I can't guarantee good light, so I tick the IS box.

Close focus might not matter, but if it does the 100-400 is favourite again.

And personally I've found that being able to actually zoom is very useful too.

The prime is faster focussing - but setting the focus distance switch on the 100-400 to 6.5m does a lot to redress that balance (at the expense of close focussing ability, obviously).

The zoom takes up less room in the bag too!

;)

But even if the prime is a hair sharper than the zoom on a test bench, that doesn't guarantee sharper pictures in the Real World - the whole package needs to be considered, and I am in no doubt that as a package the zoom has a hell of a lot to offer.

And that's the point. They're both excellent, and any suggestion that one is clearly better than the other in any meaningful, Real World way, is just not supported by the evidence.

Hey Keith,
Hope your well Sir,
Like you say they are extremely close ... But the 100-400 look's clearer
than the prime with the TC added on that last 100% crop, I seen a
discussion on here only a Week or Two ago about Prime vs Zoom and
SomeOne said that they had never seen around the Internet that people
constantly say "Prime is Better" ... I see this all the Time and was One of
the Thing's i was told when entering the Dslr World, But i have never in all
the reading's and Test's i've tried ever seen evidence to this ...
Does AnyOne out there have any evidence or proof that Prime is better
than Zoom ... I really am tired of hearing "Because it is ... " Answer,
The other answer i've heard is that there's no moving part's so it must be
better ... Now we all know that statement is'nt true ... It can't be,
So Why do People say that Prime is better?, Completely baffled by that
argument,
If i had to say from my experience of handling lens ... Then my answer would be ... "It depend's on the Glass and has nothing to do with Zoom ...
I actually tried a 400 Prime straight after a 100-400 and i could'nt see a
difference in picture or speed ... But then again if the Weather was better
on that Day ... One of them could of but i have no idea on which One it
would have been, I just wish i owned One of them lens anyway lol,
Take care,
John,

[websurfer]

Why all these complaints about substandard copies of the EF 100-400, if this lens is so good? I have almost never heard that about the EF 400 f/5.6. Naturally you can also see soft pics taken with the EF 400 f/5.6 - but this is possible to see with all lenses due to lack of user skills.
But complaints of bad copies aren´t often heard, when we are speaking of the EF 400 f/5.6 whereas there have been A LOT of reports about bad copies of the EF 100-400.
And the EF 100-400 do cost a lot of money - so getting a bad copy is scarring me - and if you are getting a bad copy then all the bother with recalibration or returning, and who can guarantee you, that things will be better. Buying an EF 100-400 lens means: It´s spending a lot of money with a high risk IMO.

But all you guys with a good copy of the EF 100-400 - be happy cos you have been lucky in "The Canon Glass Lottery" (when we are speaking of EF 100-400 lenses).

But at the same time I must admit, that when I am viewing Galleries in this forum - a lot of you do have excellent copies of the EF 100-400. Hard to tell any difference compared with the EF 400 f/5.6, if any in the field.

[postcardcv]

Buying an EF 100-400 lens means: It´s spending a lot of money with a high risk IMO.

But all you guys with a good copy of the EF 100-400 - be happy cos you have been lucky in "The Canon Glass Lottery" (when we are speaking of EF 100-400 lenses).

From what I've heard there were a few issues with this lens when it was first released at at the time getting a bad copy was a potential problem. However this seems to be much less of an issue now, I know plenty of people who use this lens and none of them had problems with bad copies. It's always the way that those with problems make the most noise while happy customers just get on with using their new lens. Given the huge number of copies of this lens that are made it's not surprising that a few are not quite up to standard.

I'd check with your local retailer, over here any retailer would have to accpet you returning a lens if it didn't perform as it should.

[JohnZ]

Keith, Only winding you up mate. That makes a change !
Pete, You raise an interesting point in that how does one go about returning a lens ? How do you prove that the lens is not working properly and that it is not just user error/incompetence ? I would imagine that any issue of front, or back, focussing should show itself fairly easily but.....other than that ?
God I am so bored ! Steady rain here and, as usual, sunshine forecast for tomorrow. Aaaarrrggh !!!

[Malcolm Stewart]

...
Pete, You raise an interesting point in that how does one go about returning a lens ? How do you prove that the lens is not working properly and that it is not just user error/incompetence ? I would imagine that any issue of front, or back, focussing should show itself fairly easily but.....other than that ?
God I am so bored ! Steady rain here and, as usual, sunshine forecast for tomorrow. Aaaarrrggh !!!

Recently, I've had serious problems with two lenses.
1. Having read probably all the reviews etc., I bought an EF 70-200 f4L (not IS) new and quickly found that it showed signs of decentering(?) shown by poor sharpness on the RHS of the image at the 70mm setting. (This was on my 5D.) i.e. the poor results were obvious on screen at the 100% setting, whilst very much sharper on the LHS. Found suitable test target and placed myself dead square and took a series of comparison shots which confirmed the problem. Phoned Warehouse Express and they delivered a new lens and collected the original the next day. Repeated the tests using the same test target.
The 2nd. copy is very much better and I shall keep it, but it still shows slight disparity between the two sides of the image. (Doubt if I would have looked so closely if the 1st. copy had been OK.) Somewhat disappointing in view of the high marks in the Fred Miranda columns for this non-IS lens.

2. Old EF 300 f2.8L. Bought this s/h about a year ago from well known London dealer, and it checked out fine immediately after purchase. 6 months later after sorting out tripod problems etc., I started using it more seriously, and was disappointed in my results, but put it down to my in-experience with such a long and heavy lens. A few months later, I was convinced that either my 5D or the lens was faulty. It seemed to be front focusing on bird type subjects, or was it misalignment between the 5D's centre AF viewfinder spot and the actual AF sensor? So I scoured the ads for another affordable 300 f2.8L and couldn't find one, and instead settled for a s/h 30D. (My old 10D was well known for having an imprecise central AF spot so not much use as a diagnostic tool.) Using the lens on my 30D confirmed quickly that the lens was faulty, so I took it in to Fixation. Initially they thought they could fix it (at a reasonable price), but then said that a circuit board required was unavailable, and returned it to me "unfixed". I checked it out and to my surprise, it was OK again. But I now knew that the lens is too old for servicing.

Two very different lenses, and two very different methodologies:
1 - very obvious fault requiring a few test images to demonstrate.

2 - Very much into simple statistics and analysing hundreds of actual bird shots for front, correct and rear focus, before deciding what was the real problem and culprit!

[gmax]

From what I've heard there were a few issues with this lens when it was first released at at the time getting a bad copy was a potential problem. However this seems to be much less of an issue now, I know plenty of people who use this lens and none of them had problems with bad copies. It's always the way that those with problems make the most noise while happy customers just get on with using their new lens. Given the huge number of copies of this lens that are made it's not surprising that a few are not quite up to standard.

Right you are Pete, but nevertheless there's little or no evidence at all that some prime users received and complained about a bad copy (and a huge number of copies has been sold as well - the poor 400 prime is rather older ).
I guess therefore we should assume that

the early zoom production was under a bad/unefficient quality control and/or not so efficient build design with large room to improve > which supports somewhow the "unsupported" old rumours of "a prime is better than a zoom", probably now not correct but hard to dieI believe the zoom to be a great lens, with many advantages and should be chosen on the basis of the actual use it is intended to, but I'm getting a bit tired of so many people trying to rebalance the gap between the two: they were AND are two different high quality lenses. Fullstop.

If the zoom production quality nowadays is OK, much the better, I just do not see the need to hide under the carpet some "malfunctions" of the past.
If one lens has some better features over the other, I do not see the childish need to degrade them just for the sake of balance

One final word: it's unwise to mix bench tests/charts and real world usage, no lens will guarantee sharp pictures ... but it's so weird that:

bench tests are usually the basis of most of our choices
long lenses used by professionals are 98% primes
very, very, very few of them ever complained about a bad/unsharp copy
not all of these lenses have IS
all of them work well with TCs
most long primes today have IS, but what it is usually said is that it increases the % of keepers, NOT sharpness; on the other hand, sometimes IS may somehow decrease IQ on certain lenses (I personally tested my mid-long older 300 f/4 against the newer 300 f/4 IS and IT IS sharper wide open... again that was SURELY a bad copy, or I have a sharp copy, eh?)
all of us dream of getting a Canon/Nikon 500/600 prime sooner or later, not a super zoomCheers,

Max

|})| |})| |})| |})| |})|

[Modular]

I know little of Lenses ... But i alway's work on the same Theory ...
Car's ... Mobile Phone's ... Hi-Fi's ... Lenses ... The more a Manufacturer
put's in there Merchandise ... The more can go wrong with it ... This i'm
guessing is the difference between a Prime and Zoom ... Zoom will alway's
have more problem's as there are more part's to go wrong and movement is
generally wear etc, Also i'm guessing more 100-400 IS's have been
produced so again more copies will produce the odd Crap One ...
Just a Theory lol,
Take care,
John,

[pe'rigin]

I think Max is right, we tend to dismiss the older lenses, but some are incredibly sharp. Slow they may be, but is that down to us demanding faster response time, or are we not anticipating fast enough.

For an example if we look at this issue of Birds Illustrated, there’s an old sepia image of a group of wardens taken in the seventies (I’m guessing, as I don’t have the mag here). Now that was probably a scanned print, but look at the definition held within the printed version, it’s detail is sharper than most all of the other images in the magazine.

[mjmw]

I think Max is right, we tend to dismiss the older lenses, but some are incredibly sharp. Slow they may be, but is that down to us demanding faster response time, or are we not anticipating fast enough.

For an example if we look at this issue of Birds Illustrated, there’s an old sepia image of a group of wardens taken in the seventies (I’m guessing, as I don’t have the mag here). Now that was probably a scanned print, but look at the definition held within the printed version, it’s detail is sharper than most all of the other images in the magazine.

But what does that tell us except that someone took some care over the repro'?

and you are one of the few who would notice ;)

[mjmw]

One final word: it's unwise to mix bench tests/charts and real world usage, no lens will guarantee sharp pictures ... but it's so weird that:

bench tests are usually the basis of most of our choices
long lenses used by professionals are 98% primes
very, very, very few of them ever complained about a bad/unsharp copy
not all of these lenses have IS
all of them work well with TCs
most long primes today have IS, but what it is usually said is that it increases the % of keepers, NOT sharpness; on the other hand, sometimes IS may somehow decrease IQ on certain lenses (I personally tested my mid-long older 300 f/4 against the newer 300 f/4 IS and IT IS sharper wide open... again that was SURELY a bad copy, or I have a sharp copy, eh?)
all of us dream of getting a Canon/Nikon 500/600 prime sooner or later, not a super zoom

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[pe'rigin]

Mark,

You’re right, I have an unnatural obsession with image quality, but that’s what I do.

The point I was raising. Does it really matter what lens you have? Keith made a valid point that a sharp picture is a still a sharp image.

To illustrate his point I noted the images in the magazine, now, I looked at the rag last night and the image wasn’t taken in the seventies, but 1952. The camera used was probably a German rangefinder, I don’t know, but it still stands up with today’s efforts in reproduction quality.

To get to ink on paper stage, the image will have degraded by about 20% +, through the various stages, digital camera images don’t have this handicap, it is direct plate process. So you’d think that with all this modern technology, today’s images would leap from the page in terms of definition, but they don’t.

[Modular]

Right you are Pete, but nevertheless there's little or no evidence at all that some prime users received and complained about a bad copy (and a huge number of copies has been sold as well - the poor 400 prime is rather older ).
I guess therefore we should assume that
the early zoom production was under a bad/unefficient quality control and/or not so efficient build design with large room to improve > which supports somewhow the "unsupported" old rumours of "a prime is better than a zoom", probably now not correct but hard to dieI believe the zoom to be a great lens, with many advantages and should be chosen on the basis of the actual use it is intended to, but I'm getting a bit tired of so many people trying to rebalance the gap between the two: they were AND are two different high quality lenses. Fullstop.

If the zoom production quality nowadays is OK, much the better, I just do not see the need to hide under the carpet some "malfunctions" of the past.
If one lens has some better features over the other, I do not see the childish need to degrade them just for the sake of balance

One final word: it's unwise to mix bench tests/charts and real world usage, no lens will guarantee sharp pictures ... but it's so weird that:
bench tests are usually the basis of most of our choices
long lenses used by professionals are 98% primes
very, very, very few of them ever complained about a bad/unsharp copy
not all of these lenses have IS
all of them work well with TCs
most long primes today have IS, but what it is usually said is that it increases the % of keepers, NOT sharpness; on the other hand, sometimes IS may somehow decrease IQ on certain lenses (I personally tested my mid-long older 300 f/4 against the newer 300 f/4 IS and IT IS sharper wide open... again that was SURELY a bad copy, or I have a sharp copy, eh?)
all of us dream of getting a Canon/Nikon 500/600 prime sooner or later, not a super zoomCheers,

Max

|})| |})| |})| |})| |})|

Nice Info Max ... Appreciate knowing all this, I'm new to the Dslr World to
be honest and i am eager to learn etc,
It's just a shame i have'nt seen any Evidence or Proof that Prime's are
better still ... I was hoping someOne could show me but eh,

"long lenses used by professionals are 98% primes" ... Could You point me
to where you got this Info please as i'd like to read more on this ...
I would base that on One Theory ... Professional's can generally afford a
prime i guess,
But i would like that link to 98% of Pro's please ... Sound's good info,
Also if you have any Link's etc to show any evidence on the "Prime" thing
being better etc i'd enjoy reading that,
Another question as i was a little confused on this ...
"most long primes today have IS, but what it is usually said is that it increases the % of keepers, NOT sharpness;"
If it's not Sharpness ... Why would there be more keeper's? ... Did'nt quite understand that ... What apart from Sharpness would
you keep it for ... Please remember i am new to this and i have no idea what other reason you'd have more Keeper's
apart from the Sharpness etc,
Thank's for listening and Take care,
John,

[postcardcv]

Right you are Pete, but nevertheless there's little or no evidence at all that some prime users received and complained about a bad copy (and a huge number of copies has been sold as well - the poor 400 prime is rather older )....

...If the zoom production quality nowadays is OK, much the better, I just do not see the need to hide under the carpet some "malfunctions" of the past.
If one lens has some better features over the other, I do not see the childish need to degrade them just for the sake of balance

I'm certainly not trying to make disparaging comments about either of these lenses, they are both excellent. I was just trying to say that the issue of bad copies is not the big problem that it is made out to be on some websites, it certainly should not put someone of buying the zoom if it is the right lens for them.

My biggest issue with the zoom is that it has shown me how useful IS can be... and now I really want a 500 IS! ;)

[tracker]

Ive seen excellent images taken with both the 100-400 and 400 prime. When I decided to purchase my 400 prime about two years ago, I was swayed away from the zoom due to reports of dust suction and bearing problems. These may be resolved issues now.

At the end of the day, the ability of the individual photographer comes into play with whatever lens is used. If 'your chosen lens' works for you, then celebrate and keep pushing your boundaries and limitations. If you suspect a fault, sell it on ebay! lol

Less reading and more shooting; thats what Im working on! ;)

Keith, do me a favour, let me know your take on the Canon 500mm f/4 in comparison to the 600mm! 8-P Actually think ive decided on the 500mm; just need to search ebay!lol Anyone got one lying around doing nothing? ;)

Ok, im off to the classified section :)

[Modular]

At the end of the day, the ability of the individual photographer comes into play with whatever lens is used. If 'your chosen lens' works for you, then celebrate and keep pushing your boundaries and limitations. If you suspect a fault, sell it on ebay! lol

Less reading and more shooting; thats what Im working on! ;)




:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[mjmw]

Nice Info Max ... Appreciate knowing all this, I'm new to the Dslr World to
be honest and i am eager to learn etc,
It's just a shame i have'nt seen any Evidence or Proof that Prime's are
better still ... I was hoping someOne could show me but eh,

"long lenses used by professionals are 98% primes" ... Could You point me
to where you got this Info please as i'd like to read more on this ...
I would base that on One Theory ... Professional's can generally afford a
prime i guess,
But i would like that link to 98% of Pro's please ... Sound's good info,
Also if you have any Link's etc to show any evidence on the "Prime" thing
being better etc i'd enjoy reading that,
Another question as i was a little confused on this ...
"most long primes today have IS, but what it is usually said is that it increases the % of keepers, NOT sharpness;"
If it's not Sharpness ... Why would there be more keeper's? ... Did'nt quite understand that ... What apart from Sharpness would
you keep it for ... Please remember i am new to this and i have no idea what other reason you'd have more Keeper's
apart from the Sharpness etc,
Thank's for listening and Take care,
John,

Thought I would quote someone, rather than use my own words - "Why are primes sharper? A number of reasons. Zooms lenses by necessity have more elements than primes. This makes them more difficult to design, increases the risk of various forms of optical aberration, and can reduce contrast and increase flare." - Michael Reichmann.

The rest of this article can be read at his website:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharp.shtml

I think he does a good job of putting this all into perspective.

[mjmw]

most long primes today have IS, but what it is usually said is that it increases the % of keepers, NOT sharpness;

I guess that you mean 'sharpness of the optics' rather than final image. That is, IS will help eliminate slight movement and vibration and reduce the number of shots with softness introduced by technique, rather than make the glass itself resolve the light any better.

[Modular]

Thank's Mark for the Link ... I'm definetly going to give it a read,
I am in the process of Buying my first "Good" lens ... Definetly an "L" but
i have no idea if it will be Prime or Zoom ... I'm thinking Zoom only due to
price to be honest, Thank's so much for the Info too,
Take care,
John,

[mjmw]

Thank's Mark for the Link ... I'm definetly going to give it a read,
I am in the process of Buying my first "Good" lens ... Definetly an "L" but
i have no idea if it will be Prime or Zoom ... I'm thinking Zoom only due to
price to be honest, Thank's so much for the Info too,
Take care,
John,

John, tough choice but don't let that ruin the experience - if you have never owned or used top-end glass, then either lens should make you very happy.

[postcardcv]

I am in the process of Buying my first "Good" lens ... Definetly an "L" but i have no idea if it will be Prime or Zoom ... I'm thinking Zoom only due to price to be honest

but the 400 f5.6 prime is significantly cheaper than the 100-400 IS...

[Modular]

but the 400 f5.6 prime is significantly cheaper than the 100-400 IS...

Hello Pete,

Is it? lol ... There you go ... I did'nt know that ... I was looking at
spending around £850 on the 100-400 ... Seen it a few place's going for
about that, Is the 400 Prime an "L" ?, I'll go check actually,
Thank's Pete ... I would have definetly not thought that,
Take care,
John,

[Modular]

Just checked ... Not much difference in price to be honest Pete,
WHE price's which are'nt alway's good ... There is just over £150 difference
with the Cashback on the 100-400,
100-400 = £989
400 Prime = £829
Decision's decision's lol,
Thank's Pete,
Tc,
John,

[tracker]

Is the 400 Prime an "L" ?

It sure is! ;)

[shoshone]

:clap:
Thanks for that link Mark...very enlightening.

The best quote I found there was... "Most Lenses are Better Than Most Photographers"

:brains:

Jamie

[Modular]

It sure is! ;)

Nice One ... Thank's,
Beautiful DragonFly's by the way ;) ,
John,

[gmax]

Just checked ... Not much difference in price to be honest Pete,
WHE price's which are'nt alway's good ... There is just over £150 difference
with the Cashback on the 100-400,
100-400 = £989
400 Prime = £829
Decision's decision's lol,
Thank's Pete,
Tc,
John,

Not much difference? With 150£ you can get another fine lens, e.g. a good 50mm for everyday use or you can just send them to me ;)

PS From Mark's link (thanks, interesting reading), my preferred quotation:
"You can fret all you want about how sharp a given lens may be, but if your photographic technique isn't first rate, having a lens capable of producing high resolution and high contrast is hardly worth a damn."
:'D

[gmax]

I guess that you mean 'sharpness of the optics' rather than final image. That is, IS will help eliminate slight movement and vibration and reduce the number of shots with softness introduced by technique, rather than make the glass itself resolve the light any better.

Thanks for getting things clearer than I managed to ..

Quoting from your link:
"For serious long lens work, even when working on a tripod, Canon's family of Image Stabilized "L" series lenses are worth their weight in gold (which partially explains their price)."
... How I wish it were not true (the price I mean :'D )

[Modular]

Lol when your spending around a £1000 on a lens i would'nt say £150 was
a "significantly" cheaper amount of Money ... But i guess that would
depend on how rich you are eh ;)

[Keith Reeder]

But at the same time I must admit, that when I am viewing Galleries in this forum - a lot of you do have excellent copies of the EF 100-400. Hard to tell any difference compared with the EF 400 f/5.6, if any in the field.

How do you rule out user error for the 100-400 pictures that aren't as sharp though?

;)

I really reckon (based on the fact that I'm never lucky with what I buy - if it will break it will, and I've had bad examples of other kit, including several recent cameras) that the presence of IS causes people to assume that they don't have to have good hand-holding technique: they do, and not applying good technique overwhelms the IS ability of the lens.

But to balance the argument, just today I've looked at some pictures on BF taken with the prime on a tripod and a beanbag which I'd have deleted out of hand if I'd taken them with my kit.

So the idea that the prime is a "guarantee" of better pictures than the zoom is capable of, just doesn't wash... and I'll say again that sharpness isn't the whole story anyway.

[Roy C]

Thank's Mark for the Link ... I'm definetly going to give it a read,
I am in the process of Buying my first "Good" lens ... Definetly an "L" but
i have no idea if it will be Prime or Zoom ... I'm thinking Zoom only due to
price to be honest, Thank's so much for the Info too,
Take care,
John,
Not sure I follow you here John as the 400mm f5.6 prime is cheaper than the 100-400 zoom

[Modular]

Not sure I follow you here John as the 400mm f5.6 prime is cheaper than the 100-400 zoom

Yeah your right Roy ... I did'nt realise that it was ... After checking and seeing good result's like i have ... It's One on my list for sure,
Cheer's Roy,
John,

[Roy C]

But to balance the argument, just today I've looked at some pictures on BF taken with the prime on a tripod and a beanbag which I'd have deleted out of hand if I'd taken them with my kit.
.
Keith, the big unknown with trying the see the lens quality via web pics is that you dont know how much the image as been cropped. A very heavily cropped pic of a bird that was say, 40 meters away will hardly ever be a good as one taken from 7 or 8 metres away with any long lens. My best shots have always been when I have been fairly close to the bird (which is very rare).
Also by the same token you must have seen loads of shots taken with the 100-400 that are so bad that you must have squirmed with embarrassment when they have been posted (I certainly have, but I would not blame it on the lens!)

[gmax]

there's no definitive proof out there that the prime is routinely superior to the zoom - or of course, vice versa. One test swings one way, then another test redresses the balance.

So we should look at the bigger picture (no pun intended). If the sharpness of the two is close (and it is), then the other factors should be considered as part of the decision.

- the whole package needs to be considered, and I am in no doubt that as a package the zoom has a hell of a lot to offer.

:'D :'D :'D

PS Just for fun Keith, no offense intended |;| |;| |;|

[postcardcv]

PS Just for fun Keith, no offense intended |;| |;| |;|

This is one situation where the zoom offers a clear advantage as it allows you to alter the height of your table!

Also the stabilisation would help avoid spills!

[mjmw]

This is one situation where the zoom offers a clear advantage as it allows you to alter the height of your table!

Also the stabilisation would help avoid spills!

Unfortunately the 70-200/2.8 doesn't change length when you zoom, great idea though - would the zoom twist lock on the 100-400 take the weight though...

...sorry...too geeky with my lens identification... :bounce:

[Tannin]

I don't know if this is relevant here, but I'll chuck it in anyway.

There are shots I've taken with the 100-400 which stand up very well indeed to my prime (which is a 500/4). Not a great many, but a reasonable number. When everything is right, the zoom is as good as you could possibly want.

BUT if I look at the good shots I have which were taken when everything wasn't right - i.e., when the light wasn't what I'd really want, they are just about all taken with the prime.

This leads me to my own personal theory: that the zoom can be close enough to as good as the prime, but only when the light is really good. Once conditions deteriorate, all that extra glass takes its toll. I make the same comment about using teleconverters: you should only do it when you have light to burn.

Could this apply equally to the 100-400 vs 400/5.6 debate?

[mjmw]

I don't know if this is relevant here, but I'll chuck it in anyway.

There are shots I've taken with the 100-400 which stand up very well indeed to my prime (which is a 500/4). Not a great many, but a reasonable number. When everything is right, the zoom is as good as you could possibly want.

BUT if I look at the good shots I have which were taken when everything wasn't right - i.e., when the light wasn't what I'd really want, they are just about all taken with the prime.

This leads me to my own personal theory: that the zoom can be close enough to as good as the prime, but only when the light is really good. Once conditions deteriorate, all that extra glass takes its toll. I make the same comment about using teleconverters: you should only do it when you have light to burn.

Could this apply equally to the 100-400 vs 400/5.6 debate?

Sorry Tannin, but this really is not relevant here - how does this tell me if the twist lock on the 100-400 zoom would be able to take the weight of a glass table with a bottle of wine and some glasses? Obviously the prime doesn't suffer this issue, although you don't have the advantage of height adjustment...

Also, having read so much interesting tripe on the interweb about varying quality of the 100-400, can I assume that some examples will and some won't take the weight or is it due to poor twist technique?

[postcardcv]

Also, having read so much interesting tripe on the interweb about varying quality of the 100-400, can I assume that some examples will and some won't take the weight or is it due to poor twist technique?

does this mean that my wobbly coffee table is actually an effect of my poor long lens technique, rather than the dodgy construction that I normally blame.

[Tannin]

I find that when the table gets wobbly it's usually because I've been puttingg whsiskey in itsh againnn