Which is sharper (1 Viewer)

I am finally going to plunge and purchase an L lens for wild life and birds ..My wife and i have always used cheap lens as that was all we could afford ,and we do get some keeper shots but require tons of editing so we finally rented a 300 4.0 and a 1.4 TC and went down to Wabasha to shoot the bald eagles ...all i can say is now i know what peopel meant when they say the L can focus quicker and more accurate holy cow this lens was awesome especilaly after 10 years of shooting with the cheapest lens i could buy ... i always figured it was me as to why my shots failed and somewhat it was ..anyhow i was blown away by the speed even with teh 1.4 attached it blew my tamron 100-300 and 200-400 away ... i finally got some really awesome perched eagle shots ..that didnt require tons of editing in PP ...
now the bif shots were a bit different way better than my usuall attempts but still somewhat out of range for the 300 with 1.4 ... as the eagles were but mer speaks as my wife says in the fram ..albeit when blown up had way more details than with any of my other lens ...owe i shoot with a 20d ...

Anyhow my wife tried it and just looked at me and was like this lens is awesome it doesnt hunt , she calls it jumping and lerching in and out of focus ... wow is all i can say L glass was awesome now i am hooked and my wife finally looked at me and said we need better glass ...

So this is why i am writting to you all hoping some of you bird and wild life shooters can help me out ..i have read tons of posts on lens choices ... and looked at many pictures taken by each lens ..and it is tough ..i here that the 100-400 is not as sharp as the 400 5.6 , but in the pictures i looked at they looked about equal ... but again this could be Post processing as well to some degree ... anyhow they both seem awesome and much larger leap forward from what i have been using to say the least ...not knocking the tamrons but my keeper ration went way up with the L and my post processing went way down ... but here is the thing or my question ...

for wildlife and birds and bif ...which is better ?
now for me i tend to tripod ,hand hold about 50-50 i used to do about 10-90 , but have found with my back yard bird set ups and a blind i can now sit and wait more so my tripod is being used a lot more ..however when i travel about the northwoods up here with my wife we like to drive the old forest roads looking for stuff so i hand hold alot then... i love to go down once or twice a year and shoot the bald eagles (my dream is to some day catch a real awesome shot for the wall ) i love to shoot fox, bear, raccoons, deer etc ,many back yard song birds and osprey and eagles ... anyhow i was tossed as i love the idea of IS for hand holding as with my current lens teh 200-400 i get soft details in beak and eyes hand holding even at fast shutter speeds -could be optics coudl be hand shake i wasn;t sure 100% ..anyhow i thought IS might be nice as i used it with the 300 4.0 and 1.4 when we rented it and the images were very good , the beak and eye and feather detail was awesome ... but i keep hearing the 100-400 is not as sharp as the 300 or the 400 5.6 and i am looking to get the sharpest shots i can ...after all a good shot is cool but a sharp shoot is what its all about ... but i wasn;t sure hand held the 400 5.6 would deliver , as sharp , on a tri pod i no doubt it would be stellar ... but is this lens light enough and fast enough to deleiver pin sharp images hand held ? or would i be better off with the 100-400 with the is ? i no maybe not so much with birds is a zoom a concern as it would be most likily at the 400 mm end , but with animals especially large ones like bears (which we love to go to Vince SHulte bear sanctuary to photograph them and they come in real close i was afraid a 400 prime might cut off a lot of the animal ...maybe not but they come right up to the viewing platform within say 20 feet or so .... its an awesome place ...

now the 300 4.0 i already no was awesome fast , and very accurate didnt hunt hardily at all ... even with the 1.4 atatched to it ... and i really didn't notice much softness even with the 1.4 attached ...especially compared to images shot with my tamron 200-400 ... but 420 is pretty short for bif , so i figured a 100-400 or 400 5.6 with a 1.4 ext would be a better routte especially if the sharpness is really really close ....it is a lot of money for us so we want to do it right ...the 200-400 is a push pull zoom so that is not an issue ....

any help would be greatly appreciated ...hope i explained it all ok ...
i cannot beleive my wife will fianlly let me get an L glass ....and living in Minnesota has afforded us the oppurtunity to view ,many wild animals and birds (as they migrate through ) so we cant wait ... to create some incrediable sharp wall hanging images ....

Bill B

Hi Bill
Welcome to Birdforum.
I'm not too sure of your weather out there but my vote goes to the 100-400. It likes good light, the push/pull zoom is superb for finding birds in flight and the image quality is arguably as good as the 400 5.6 prime.
Many people who complain about the image quality of the zoom usually are taking pics handheld with the shutter speed too slow and complain the shots are soft ( I was guilty of this myself when I got mine ).
I'm not sure if the 20d will auto focus with a 1.4x on it, someone else will be able to help you on that, good luck,
Ian

The 400/5.6 is better for BIF, but a zoom would be much better for large animals like a bear.

The 300/4 probably has the best minimum focus distance so may be best for shots of dragonflies and butterflies.

we get a lot of over cast days now ... and its generally cooler ...

This has been a big debate for me ... as i no from shooting high school sports with a 70-200 2.8 Tokina shutter speed is everything , and most softness is from lack of shutter speed ..but i have experimented as well with it on a tripod and at 2.8 it was soft no matter ... anyhow i keep thinking will IS be a huge concern , or is a fast enough shutter speed enough .,..i know with my 200-400 tamron with similar 5.6 at 400 even at fast shutter speeds 1/1600 and higher you still get noticable softness in beaks , eyes... etc ... for larger mamals that are moving slow not as much so... so is it my hand shake ? or is it the optics ? or both ?

i want to get as tack sharp images as i can and i hand hold a lot of the time as many of our shots are spurt of the moment we see something and shoot it ...

i was scared about the IQ of the 100-400 espeiclaly at the 400 end ... if its anything like the 300 4.0 IS i rented it would rock as that was one fast focusing lens and very accurate it didnt hunt much and i used it both hand held and tripod and got same results , very sharp even with the ext ... i was shooting at F8.0 and about 1/400 to about 1/1600 pictures of eagles both in flight and perched ...the in flight shots werent as good but the birds were pretty far out there ...i did go to the zoo yesterday and found that for animals in there a zoom is the way to go as they are all over the place and a 400 prime would just be to much zoom and you 'd cut off legs etc ...especially when trying to shoot something cool and dealing with and staying out of teh crowds way .... but for most wild life and bird shots i think the 400 end would get more use ...

i just want the one that i can use for years and years and will give me tack sharp images i can print and frame for my walll that when people see them they will be like you took that wow that is awesome ... right now i get so fed up with my 200-400 tamron as the images are usually dull , soft etc and require a lot of editing to make them look good and they dont wow me ... but the shots with the rented 300 4.0 did ...they were as close as i have ever gotten to bragging shots so to speak ... anyhow thats what i am looking for ... and if the 100-400 can do it then thats my lens ...
,many of the animals and birds we see are why we are hiking or driving the old forest roads and we just come upon them ... and most times it is tough to get the tripod set up in time ...

now maybe with weight of the 100-400 it needs to be stabalized and the 400 5.6 can be hand held and give equally sharp images because it is lighter thus doesn't require IS ?
i know my 200-400 tamron is not light but i am used to it ..now my 70-200 2.8 tokina is a tank and very heavy ... but i still hand hold it or mono pod it and it gives pretty good results , a tad soft especially at 2.8 ...so how does the weight of the 100-400 compare ? because i can see why they have IS on these 70-200 2.8 they are heavy lens even with a fast shutter speed is would be nice to eliminate the hand shake which i get alot when using it .... again thanks Bill

Both the 300/4 and the 100-400 have max magnifications of roughly 1:4. I know from experience that the zoom is fine for dragonflies and butterflies (though obviously not as good as a macro). The zoom also has a floating element which improves the close focus IQ. The 300/4 is obviously one stop faster which can come in handy, and the 400/5.6 is probably the best walk-around BIF lens out there.

I picked the zoom over the 400/5.6 or the 300/4+Tc four years ago because I knew from experience that my shooting style would benefit from a zoom, and I haven't regretted it. But others would justifiably say the same about the two other lenses. For all practical purposes I think that the IQ is close to identical between the three of them.

Thomas

Perched Birds and BIF 400mm f5.6 one lens cannot do all.

Keith Reeder uses the 100-400 and has an excellent gallery on Birdforum. He also has some advise on using the zoom with the IS on his website. I can't remember the name of it unfortunately.

Nigel Blake also has an incredible landscape shot of a Barn Owl, taken in fading light, using the same zoom.

Helios, Keiths site is called "Capture the moment". Though where you will find it is beyond me. Try POTN ?

JohnZ said:

Helios, Keiths site is called "Capture the moment". Though where you will find it is beyond me. Try POTN ?

Click to expand...

this is Keith's site - http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/ he does get some stunning results from the 100-400.

"Cameras come and go but good glass lasts forever"

Your camera may not be a 1DMKIV but if you put cheap lenses on a MKIV the images may not be any better that you get now.

Sadly when you head down the "L" route of lenses there is no going back you have consigned yourself to a life of potential divorce and poverty.

The good side is that you will have an exponential gain in the satisfaction in the quality of your images "IF" you take the time and put in the effort into learning how to get the best out of your equipment.

I won't bore you with my equipment list but suffice to say that out of 30 Lenses only one is not a "L" series lens and it should be that is the 100mm f/2.8 Macro.

Now the bad news. Myself and most bird photographers here, grew away from the 100-400 Zoom years ago as its image quality does not match up to the primes and that is a generally undisputed fact.

You will find many owners of the 100-400 will show you the wonderful images that they have achieved with this lens and this is no lie. This I do not dispute but when overall performance is considered, it will show that a good user of prime lenses who take time to learn field craft and learn to "Zoom with their feet" will get better, clearer and sharper images more often, the zoom is also a renowned "Dust Pump" and can fill your camera body with dust owing to its push pull zoom system. I spent many hours cleaning my sensors when I used this lens, it is also not a cheap "L" lens.

The only zoom tele that I recommend is the 70-200 f/4 which is a wonderful bit of glass either with IS or not and it takes a 1.4X TC with no observable loss of IQ and far cheaper than the 100-400.

I do most of my bird in flight photography hand holding my outfits and I always travel by foot with three outfits. 7D with a 300 mm f/4 L IS, 1DMKIII with a 400 f/5.6 L + 1.4XTC = 570 MM f/8 and the 70-200 f/4 on my 5d MKII for closer shots and when I need wider backgrounds.

The 400 f/5.6 is probably the finest fast tracking and focusing Bird in Flight lens ever made but I would not suggest you start at that lens "you will however one day end there " and you may find the 70-200 a bit short for your needs but the lens I would recommend is the 300mm f/4 IS L.

The 300mm f/4 takes a 1.4X very well giving you 420mm at f/5.6 which will auto focus on all Canon's present Cameras and if you rigidly "Pre focus" your lens "a good habit to get into anyway" the difference in AF speed is of little consequence. The 300 f/4 is a very close focusing lens and with Macro tubes added is a fantastic long Macro lens especially because you have IS.

The link is a great site for comparing Camera Lens combos and should help you in your choice of equipment.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

Best of luck and welcome to the land of the poor but happy.o

tjsimonsen said:

...For all practical purposes I think that the IQ is close to identical between the three of them.

Thomas

Click to expand...

I agree with Thomas regarding the real world IQ comparison here. It's like splitting hairs, if all shooting conditions are otherwise the same. I'm not doubting the 400 5.6 prime, with fewer elements, is ultimately sharper than the zoom at 400mm or the 300 with TC. But without a tripod, a trigger release, and mirror lock-up...you'll be hard pressed to see a difference in the field.

This is why I generally suggest you buy the best features for your use. If you need the extra stop for cloudy conditions or dawn/dusk work, go for the 300 4, and add the TC when you need the length. If you need to shoot large animals (relatively often), go for the zoom. If you like to shoot large bugs, get either one of those. If you generally find yourself more than 10ft from your subject, and you do BIF at least half of the time, just get the 400 prime.

I do think that IS can save some shots, and is indispensable when you really need it. But I don't believe that it is a must have most of the time. Besides, having it turned on actually cuts down your lock on time...maybe only by tenths of a second mind you, but it does increase the lag time nonetheless. Although IS is a nice feature I doubt that at 1/1600 you are experiencing much softness from hand shake. My guess is that the 200-400 Tammy is just not that sharp when you peek at the resolution limit of any DSLR sensors.

In the end, I bet you'd be happy stepping up to any one of the three. Get the best deal you can, and enjoy the quality of "L"uxury.

"..anyhow i was tossed as i love the idea of IS for hand holding as with my current lens teh 200-400 i get soft details in beak and eyes hand holding even at fast shutter speeds -could be optics coudl be hand shake i wasn;t sure 100% .."


Or it could be front/ back focusing issues. Have you not tested the lens with a static subject?



"after all a good shot is cool but a sharp shoot is what its all about "


I couldn't disagree with you more...... A relatively 'softish shot' with an interesting subject and pose with good colour, composition, background, foreground and lighting will look far more attractive on a wall than a lot of sharp shots would without all those attributes , see final comment below. Also not every shot you take will lend itself to being sharp. I think Ansel Adams said there is nothing worse than a soft subject being photographed sharply. If I want to photograph the grace of a swan on a misty lake I may decide not to sharpen it, a nuthatch doing it's usual pose may be a different matter. I have seen quite a few pics on front covers and full and double page spreads taken with the 200-400 Tamron and other third party lenses.

If you want your lens to go on forever don't get a 100-400. After a few years it may require maintenance (bearings may go, dust in the lens may become inhibiting to a minor degree and the IS may fail). however for the many benefits this lens provides that is a price I am prepared to pay.

For flight shots there is nothing better for fast focus acquisition than the prime 400...having said my 100-400 locked quickly onto a stooping peregrine today.

I cannot comment on the 300f4 with a 1.4 converter since I have not tested it, but my best guess is that it will deliver superb quality pics.

You may be able to use a 1.4 converter with the prime 400 and 100-400 but you will have to tape down three of the pins: focus acquisition may be a bit slow. When your camera eventually packs up the option may not be available to you.

Below is an image of a long tailed tit I took in poor light with the 100-400 @ 400mm FL, ISO 800 , f6.3 , 320 sec., hand held. I had to lean over a wall to get this and other images of the bird. At the shutter speed available it would not have been possible with a non IS lens, beleive me! The A4 print is sharp enough though if the shot had been taken with a tripod using the 400 prime or the 100-400 (and without having to contort myself it may have been a bit sharper still. That does not worry me one bit. The image is altogether very pleasing (in my view) and beats the heck out of many images where the bird is close up and 'razor sharp'. I probably go against the flow a bit in this regard but it is mainly photographers who get hung up on supreme sharpness issues.

I will add why those of us that shoot mostly BIFs use primes.

A good "very good" BIF photographer is happy with 3-5% keepers and after Post processing may even cull more so the attention to "getting it right out of the box", borders on extreme fastidiousness and an almost cruel assessment of ones work.

When photographing BIFs almost all photographers use one focus point and not necessarily the center point and we try to track the eye of the bird and this is almost impossible if you are holding a zoom and quite probably moving the zoom range even ever so slightly when (on the MKIII ) shooting at 10 FPS.

Primes beat Zooms hands down for BIFs but let us remember many photographers don't need the precision of a Prime and would prefer the variety of focal range of the zoom.

To decide which lens to buy you need to ask yourself whether the versatility of the Zoom is more important than the precision of the prime and I suspect that if you are new to photography and L lenses you may well get more use out of the zoom than a prime.

You must forgive us BIF fanatics, I shoot upward of 8000 images a week many of those just practice shots to keep my tracking skills honed and after two weeks in hospital recently I had to learn all over again when I returned to my beloved BIFs.

Sit back and look carefully at YOUR needs and follow your heart.

All the best.

can great bif pics be had hand held with the 100-400 ?
i noticed reviewing my pictures that i shoot between 350-400 most of the time even with back yard birds ... i am looking what can give the best IQ for wildlife and birds ?
how much iq drop is there between the 100-400 and the 400 5.6 ? is it huge ?
i was thinking prime especially if it focused faster it may make for more accurate hand held shots ...i like to hand hold most of the time ... i am looking for that lens if you had to get the shot and your livily hood depended on it getting a good sharp shot which lens would you use 100-400 or 400 5.6 ?

Hi Bill

I have the 100-400 L and find it great for BIF shots. I use it mainly on a 7D but also on a 1D Mrk II N with a 1.4 TC which still gives me AF on the centre point only. Even on this its quick to focus and the image quality is perfectly acceptable (for me anyway). Some of the shots taken with this lens of BIF can be seen here

http://andrewa.zenfolio.com

in the Birds in Flight gallery. If you move your mouse pointer to the top right of each pictuure it will give you all the EXIF data for the shot.

Rgds
Andrew

can great bif pics be had hand held with the 100-400 ?

Click to expand...

Yes but you need to learn the technique for hand held BIFs.

i noticed reviewing my pictures that i shoot between 350-400 most of the time even with back yard birds ... i am looking what can give the best IQ for wildlife and birds ?

Click to expand...

Is that 350,400 ths of a Sec.? if so that is far too slow and DON"T use your IS for BIFs it is useless. The longer the focal length of a lens the faster the shutter speed needed to steady the lens I never drop below 1/800 Sec. and my panning skills are superb (because I practice almost every day)

how much iq drop is there between the 100-400 and the 400 5.6 ? is it huge ?

Click to expand...

Not at all, but it will acquire focus quicker than the zoom but once again good technique is needed with both lenses.

i was thinking prime especially if it focused faster it may make for more accurate hand held shots ...i like to hand hold most of the time ... i am looking for that lens if you had to get the shot and your livily hood depended on it getting a good sharp shot which lens would you use 100-400 or 400 5.6 ?

Click to expand...

Before you even think about making money out of bird photography you need to do courses, read everything about it and be prepared to hate it from time to time, it took me ten years before I sold my first BIF print now I have about 30 consistent buyers but I don't sell all my work and the real good stuff never leaves my library.

Good equipment costs a fortune and you simply can't do without it.

You are at the very beginning of a great trial and experience and you need to learn all there is to know about your subject matter so become an amateur Ornithologist, join clubs and be prepared to feel like a rank amateur for some years, if you can't cope with that I strongly suggest you take up another photographic discipline.

i am looking for that lens if you had to get the shot and your livily hood depended on it getting a good sharp shot which lens would you use 100-400 or 400 5.6 ?

Click to expand...

In answer to your question, I would use a 300 f/2.8 IS L with a 1.4XTC attached to it, NOTHING focuses faster or takes sharper images, I would also be using a IDMKIII or my 1DsMKIII both very expensive cameras.

Be prepared to start small as divorce can be expensive.o

Start with this man, you won't find a better mentor or teacher.

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/

http://www.birdsasart.com/

n the Birds in Flight gallery. If you move your mouse pointer to the top right of each pictuure it will give you all the EXIF data for the shot.

Click to expand...

You have good reason to be proud of your work Andrew it is superb.

Chris,

Many thanks for the comment on the pictures.

Rgds
Andrew

Here's my collection of flight shots with a 7D/100-400 combo.

It may not be as good as a prime but it's no slouch. Most of the shots were @ 400mm.

Excellent collection Hokkaido, I would love to see the Exif data from those shots and show it to some of my 100-400 friends.

You do have some very pretty birds over there.