Thanks Chris, if you click on a photo there should be a link on the right that says 'more properties' that will show the full EXIF data.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Which is sharper (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter zwdb08
- Start date
As always.....I will put my two cents in for the 300F4L. True, the 400 has distance, but the 400 also lacks IS, lacks the ability to go less than 400. I was in Ecuador the other week and was photo'ing birds that a 400 would have been way too close for. My 300 did just fine. So with a 300 I can have outstanding shots, and with a 1.4 TC, get up to 420mm or more considering I have a 1.6 crop factor. Also, with a 400 and a converter, you need to have along a tripod or at least a mono pod, so while your reach might be greater, do you want to carry the extra weight of a tri pod? ... Anyhow, my two cents as this one conversation just continues one more time.... 
these were shot with the 100-400
the pictures are awesome ,and you shot these using the 100-400 ?
were they tripod or hand held ?
awesome job what type of bird is the one that looks like an eagle but is black and white that is a cool looking bird ...i love the way you captured it ...and the fox are awesome ..
Bill B :eat:
the pictures are awesome ,and you shot these using the 100-400 ?
were they tripod or hand held ?
awesome job what type of bird is the one that looks like an eagle but is black and white that is a cool looking bird ...i love the way you captured it ...and the fox are awesome ..
Bill B :eat:
Thanks Bill, yes they were all handheld. That eagle is a Stellers Sea Eagle (the same one as in my avatar).
Here is a better gallery of my 100-400 flight shots.
The 100-400 is a good lens. At times the 400 5.6 or 300 F4 may be a better option but for a do it all one lens solution I'd recommend the 100-400 anytime.
Last edited:
sorry to rehash the lens issue
My apologize for hashing the old lens issue out again ...it's a tough decision as i like many are on a tight budget and want the best we can get for our money ..I am not shooting to sell pictures at least at this time...for me its more of a its fun going out and very challenging to search ,learn , sit and shoot and capture some amazing shots ...sure i could go and order and buy one from some one else and have an awesome shot hanging on my wall , but its not mine ... i learned real quick shooting high school sports , that there are those that dont care about who shot it and just want a great shot of their kid , then there are those that like me love the challenge of shooting for the perfect shot ...the issue is equipment cost money big money ...
can you get a perfect shot with a $300 lens sure , how often can you duplicate it ? for me i love shooting birds and wild life ,its awesome and it beats hunting with a gun i get a trophy so to speak and someone else can also have that same oppurtunity ...my issue is i heard and heard and read and read reviews etc ...some very biased , some biased but trying not to seem like they are ,and some just being equal "like magazines , they will rate a camera or lens better than another but its generally barily better or they seem to make it seem so ...like you cant go wrong ,now if that was true then there would be no L glass no VR or IS etc ..everyone would be out shooting with a $300-$800 tamron and all our magazines would be loaded with pictures from just those lens etc ...but they are not ...so is there more to it ?
sure technique is huge you have to be able to duplicate the shot etc...some is luck , or being at the right place right time etc , but first you must be there to begin with ,which is putting in countless hours ... technique no doubt plays a part ...but i have seen people standing side by side same light each using different equipment each on tripods , and their images are way different ...
for example i used a tamron lens -got a meter reading and shot ,from tripod , in the same lighting etc switched to a rented canon L and wow the exposure the camera gave me was different and so was the IQ it was brighter ...why ? same light same subject etc ...because of the equipment i was supposing ..that made me think ... then i compared focus speed and accuracy that was where the L really grabbed me ...sure i could obtain good images with cheaper glass but it is consitancy i am looking for , and when i tried that day my tamron hunted way more , most all the images from it were vastly underexposed and not nearly as sharp especially for BIF ,..then it hit me the focus speed and ability of the lens to keep tracking the birds was tough as it is slow ... could it be done yes ,but for every one good shot a hundred were tossed ...now the l was much brighter , faster and the keeper ratio went way up ... then talk camera bodies the newer bodies have more pixels to create more details ...as i noticed watching a man shoot eagles with a 200-500 tamron his images were sharp ,but he had way more pixels to help him with his D300S than my canon 20d as my images were no where near as sharp ...
but that brought me back to glass ... i want to capture better images , with better more consitant image qaulity ...i love to hand hold when i am not in a blind ... most of my shots when i looked at the exif were shot at about 350-400 mm , so i was strongly thinking 100-400 , or 400 5.6 ...so i reveiwed many images on the web and its hard to figure which is better ,because A most images on the web are compressed jpeg for displaying purposes and might not be a good representation of the true printed image ...b software can also play a part in over all look ...i noticed when i rented the 300 4.0 L I had way less post proccessing to do that blew me away ...
the metering seemed to be way closer as well ...
i have much to learn no doubt ... but the more and more i read the issue of which is better becomes more clouded ..as you have one group that loves the 400-5.6 and one that loves the 100-400 ,and the 300 4.0 , but then you hear things like if you get a good copy or it is a little less sharp or softer , softer and less sharp are scary words right there ...its either sharp or soft or its not ...and if we are talking you must blow it up like 200 % to see any difference and its not something you will see printed then its all moot anyhow ... i guess what i want to know is if two guys are sitting side by side both hand holding in the same light say mid morning ,and an eagle flies by at the end of their zoom range and the both were using the same camera etc which would deliver the better shot , the better end image 100-400, 400, 300 4.0 with 1.4 TC ...and if you sat there all day which would deliver again and again ? now if they all are so close you couldnt tell then for me its simple the 100-400 would be the one because of IS ,and i can back off the zoom a little for larger animals that may be closer etc ..like a buffalo or elk at yellowstone ... now if the 400 is sharper , and IQ is noticably better over all ,then i guess i would have to zoom with the old legs and go that routte ...
i am looking for consitancy ..i know with my 200-400 hand held it is awkward and unless your shooting really fast over 1/800 you probaily will get hand shake also its optically not sharp to begin with so that also hurts you ... i try to keep the aperature at f8- f 11 ...now maybe the 400 5.6 hand held is lighter ,smoother and better focusing so you can get better, consitant hand held results even at slower speeds ...if so then that would be an awesome lens ...these are the things i want to know ... and there are no places near me to try them out or i would and be done with it ...i know that the 300 f 4.0 with the 1.4 was an awesome lens very light and easy to hand hold and shoot and gave excellant results but i used the IS and am not sure if it mattered or would have as i shot at 1/800- 1/1600 most of the time with it at f 8.0 ...i was usuing it for the day and never thought to try it without is ,however i did learn that IS must be turned off if on a monopod or tripod well at least when i went to shoot the eagles that was right in front of me as he was grabbing a fish ...all my shots were blurred bad then i realized i had the IS on and set wrong my error ...the 300 with the 1.4 tc was at the bare minimum for most of the birds especially the in flight ones or i would have bought this lens because everything else was awesome ...but i thought a 100-400, or 400 with a 1.4 would give you a bit more reach and be handy as i am always complaining about to little reach barly to much reach ...but for like the zoo or bear sanctuary where the animals re real close or can be ...i was thinking that a prime may have a disadvantage there as with crowds etc there isnt much room to zoom with your feet or as the case maybe to back off ... and around us most will not allow tripods or monopods in them do to people ..maybe in a spot like that the 300 would still be usable though and make it the better choice if the optics and IQ of the prime are that much better than the 100-400 ? anyhow the choice is not easy i just was looking for a practical answer ...and was leaning towards the better IQ ...
thanks Bill
as i love to hand hold ...
As always.....I will put my two cents in for the 300F4L. True, the 400 has distance, but the 400 also lacks IS, lacks the ability to go less than 400. I was in Ecuador the other week and was photo'ing birds that a 400 would have been way too close for. My 300 did just fine. So with a 300 I can have outstanding shots, and with a 1.4 TC, get up to 420mm or more considering I have a 1.6 crop factor. Also, with a 400 and a converter, you need to have along a tripod or at least a mono pod, so while your reach might be greater, do you want to carry the extra weight of a tri pod? ... Anyhow, my two cents as this one conversation just continues one more time....
My apologize for hashing the old lens issue out again ...it's a tough decision as i like many are on a tight budget and want the best we can get for our money ..I am not shooting to sell pictures at least at this time...for me its more of a its fun going out and very challenging to search ,learn , sit and shoot and capture some amazing shots ...sure i could go and order and buy one from some one else and have an awesome shot hanging on my wall , but its not mine ... i learned real quick shooting high school sports , that there are those that dont care about who shot it and just want a great shot of their kid , then there are those that like me love the challenge of shooting for the perfect shot ...the issue is equipment cost money big money ...
can you get a perfect shot with a $300 lens sure , how often can you duplicate it ? for me i love shooting birds and wild life ,its awesome and it beats hunting with a gun i get a trophy so to speak and someone else can also have that same oppurtunity ...my issue is i heard and heard and read and read reviews etc ...some very biased , some biased but trying not to seem like they are ,and some just being equal "like magazines , they will rate a camera or lens better than another but its generally barily better or they seem to make it seem so ...like you cant go wrong ,now if that was true then there would be no L glass no VR or IS etc ..everyone would be out shooting with a $300-$800 tamron and all our magazines would be loaded with pictures from just those lens etc ...but they are not ...so is there more to it ?
sure technique is huge you have to be able to duplicate the shot etc...some is luck , or being at the right place right time etc , but first you must be there to begin with ,which is putting in countless hours ... technique no doubt plays a part ...but i have seen people standing side by side same light each using different equipment each on tripods , and their images are way different ...
for example i used a tamron lens -got a meter reading and shot ,from tripod , in the same lighting etc switched to a rented canon L and wow the exposure the camera gave me was different and so was the IQ it was brighter ...why ? same light same subject etc ...because of the equipment i was supposing ..that made me think ... then i compared focus speed and accuracy that was where the L really grabbed me ...sure i could obtain good images with cheaper glass but it is consitancy i am looking for , and when i tried that day my tamron hunted way more , most all the images from it were vastly underexposed and not nearly as sharp especially for BIF ,..then it hit me the focus speed and ability of the lens to keep tracking the birds was tough as it is slow ... could it be done yes ,but for every one good shot a hundred were tossed ...now the l was much brighter , faster and the keeper ratio went way up ... then talk camera bodies the newer bodies have more pixels to create more details ...as i noticed watching a man shoot eagles with a 200-500 tamron his images were sharp ,but he had way more pixels to help him with his D300S than my canon 20d as my images were no where near as sharp ...
but that brought me back to glass ... i want to capture better images , with better more consitant image qaulity ...i love to hand hold when i am not in a blind ... most of my shots when i looked at the exif were shot at about 350-400 mm , so i was strongly thinking 100-400 , or 400 5.6 ...so i reveiwed many images on the web and its hard to figure which is better ,because A most images on the web are compressed jpeg for displaying purposes and might not be a good representation of the true printed image ...b software can also play a part in over all look ...i noticed when i rented the 300 4.0 L I had way less post proccessing to do that blew me away ...
the metering seemed to be way closer as well ...
i have much to learn no doubt ... but the more and more i read the issue of which is better becomes more clouded ..as you have one group that loves the 400-5.6 and one that loves the 100-400 ,and the 300 4.0 , but then you hear things like if you get a good copy or it is a little less sharp or softer , softer and less sharp are scary words right there ...its either sharp or soft or its not ...and if we are talking you must blow it up like 200 % to see any difference and its not something you will see printed then its all moot anyhow ... i guess what i want to know is if two guys are sitting side by side both hand holding in the same light say mid morning ,and an eagle flies by at the end of their zoom range and the both were using the same camera etc which would deliver the better shot , the better end image 100-400, 400, 300 4.0 with 1.4 TC ...and if you sat there all day which would deliver again and again ? now if they all are so close you couldnt tell then for me its simple the 100-400 would be the one because of IS ,and i can back off the zoom a little for larger animals that may be closer etc ..like a buffalo or elk at yellowstone ... now if the 400 is sharper , and IQ is noticably better over all ,then i guess i would have to zoom with the old legs and go that routte ...
i am looking for consitancy ..i know with my 200-400 hand held it is awkward and unless your shooting really fast over 1/800 you probaily will get hand shake also its optically not sharp to begin with so that also hurts you ... i try to keep the aperature at f8- f 11 ...now maybe the 400 5.6 hand held is lighter ,smoother and better focusing so you can get better, consitant hand held results even at slower speeds ...if so then that would be an awesome lens ...these are the things i want to know ... and there are no places near me to try them out or i would and be done with it ...i know that the 300 f 4.0 with the 1.4 was an awesome lens very light and easy to hand hold and shoot and gave excellant results but i used the IS and am not sure if it mattered or would have as i shot at 1/800- 1/1600 most of the time with it at f 8.0 ...i was usuing it for the day and never thought to try it without is ,however i did learn that IS must be turned off if on a monopod or tripod well at least when i went to shoot the eagles that was right in front of me as he was grabbing a fish ...all my shots were blurred bad then i realized i had the IS on and set wrong my error ...the 300 with the 1.4 tc was at the bare minimum for most of the birds especially the in flight ones or i would have bought this lens because everything else was awesome ...but i thought a 100-400, or 400 with a 1.4 would give you a bit more reach and be handy as i am always complaining about to little reach barly to much reach ...but for like the zoo or bear sanctuary where the animals re real close or can be ...i was thinking that a prime may have a disadvantage there as with crowds etc there isnt much room to zoom with your feet or as the case maybe to back off ... and around us most will not allow tripods or monopods in them do to people ..maybe in a spot like that the 300 would still be usable though and make it the better choice if the optics and IQ of the prime are that much better than the 100-400 ? anyhow the choice is not easy i just was looking for a practical answer ...and was leaning towards the better IQ ...
thanks Bill
as i love to hand hold ...
Fowl Mouth
Just a guy with dogs
I think if you want a useful perspective, check out Romy Ocon's Pbase site. He initially used the 400 5.6 prime, under the guise that it was the sharpest, fastest focusing lens for BIF. I believe he eventually grabbed a 100-400 and never looked back. I recall reading a number of posts on various photo forums from him referring to his 100-400 as just as sharp in every respect to the prime. Might be worth looking at his work, since the proof is always in the pudding.
www.pbase.com/liquidstone
prime vs zoom - dollar bill test
If it were me, and I needed the focal length range, I'd buy the zoom without a second thought.
www.pbase.com/liquidstone
prime vs zoom - dollar bill test
If it were me, and I needed the focal length range, I'd buy the zoom without a second thought.
Last edited:
websurfer
Well-known member
Well I'd agree that the 400 f5.6 does have the edge for sharpness but both of the 100-400s that I have owned have been sharp enough wide open.
websurfer
Well-known member
The EF 100-400 is a good zoom, and there are definitely some very sharp copies out there.
a.dancy
Registered User
jameslj
Well-known member
I have both the 100-400 zoom and the 400 5.6 prime. I've had the zoom for about two years and the prime only for the last two weeks. They are both awesome lenses. In general, for most people, I'd recommend the 100-400 because it has excellent optics and is more versatile. But I do think the 400 5.6 prime has better optics - it's a bit sharper and has a bit better colour and contrast. This is subjective, but optically I'd grade the 100-400 as 8/10 and the 400 5.6 as 9/10.
For someone who has a fair amount of experience and is willing to do what is necessary to get the best possible results, it's easier to recommend the prime. But the average zoom shot I think will look like the average prime shot. I haven't used the 300 f/4. But unless a large percentage of shooting is at 300mm, I don't see how it's the best birding choice IQ wise. Can't go wrong with any of the three, though, if you're willing to work at it.
A couple of my sharpest 100-400 shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jameslj/3719220284/sizes/o/ (tripod)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jameslj/4336471580/sizes/o/ (handheld)
A couple of my sharpest 400 5.6 prime shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jameslj/4485168995/sizes/o/ (tripod)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jameslj/4467737791/sizes/o/ (handheld)
For someone who has a fair amount of experience and is willing to do what is necessary to get the best possible results, it's easier to recommend the prime. But the average zoom shot I think will look like the average prime shot. I haven't used the 300 f/4. But unless a large percentage of shooting is at 300mm, I don't see how it's the best birding choice IQ wise. Can't go wrong with any of the three, though, if you're willing to work at it.
A couple of my sharpest 100-400 shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jameslj/3719220284/sizes/o/ (tripod)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jameslj/4336471580/sizes/o/ (handheld)
A couple of my sharpest 400 5.6 prime shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jameslj/4485168995/sizes/o/ (tripod)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jameslj/4467737791/sizes/o/ (handheld)
Last edited:
Russ Jones
Well-known member
Good glass is good glass, whether it has an L on the lens or not. Some of the sharpest lenses canon has ever made are not in their L series, their macro lenses fro instance. My 100 f2.8 is amongst the sharpest lenses I have ever used. My 400 F4 DO is also an incredible non-L series lens. Also, Nikon lenses are as good as Canon... they just don't have as many to choose from! My biggest complaint with Canon is the choice of colour, white? white for god sakes?? what were you thinking??!!
Russ
Russ
tjsimonsen
Well-known member
Well, Romy is one of the best bird photographers around. What he shows more than anything IMO is that the photographer matters as much as the equipment.
To me at least IQ is not all about absolute sharpness in 100% crops. As I said in an earlier post, as far as I can judge, the IQ differences between the three lenses are pretty theoretical. My 100-400L IS can give me photos that make sharp, contrasty 12''*18'' prints, which is enough for me.
And whatever way you look at it, the EF70-200/4L IS is one of the sharpest lenses around - despite being a zoom with IS and having loads of elements
Thomas
paul goode
Well-known member
Stunning!! :t:
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
There are obviously good/sharp copies of the 100-400 around but one should note Romy's comments as he himself admits that his first copy was soft
"So, going back to the question of which lens I recommend after taking thousands of bird photos with both..... I'd lean towards the 100-400 L IS but on the condition that it has to be tested first before one commits buying to make sure it's a good copy. "
Of course, like most lens reviews there are always alternative conclusions like this one The 400mm shoot out This one clearly favours the prime.
At the end of the day either lens would be capable of good images in the right hands!
Disclaimer – I am just an amateur/hobbyist snapper and do not claim to be an expert so take what I say with a pinch of salt.. Be warned, my thoughts will probably be challenged by the more knowledgeable
"So, going back to the question of which lens I recommend after taking thousands of bird photos with both..... I'd lean towards the 100-400 L IS but on the condition that it has to be tested first before one commits buying to make sure it's a good copy. "
Of course, like most lens reviews there are always alternative conclusions like this one The 400mm shoot out This one clearly favours the prime.
At the end of the day either lens would be capable of good images in the right hands!
Disclaimer – I am just an amateur/hobbyist snapper and do not claim to be an expert so take what I say with a pinch of salt.. Be warned, my thoughts will probably be challenged by the more knowledgeable
Looking at the sample shots on that does make me wonder, perhaps it's the way the test was done, but if not that must be the softest 100-400 around. All the copies I have tried have been sharper wide open than there shots are at either f5.6, f8 or f11... I also think that these tests only tell half the story. I would agree that the 400 f5.6 is sharper in tests than the 100-400, but in real work situations I've struggled to see the difference (I did at one point have both of them).
If I was looking for a lens purely for bird photography then I would go for the prime over the zoom everytime. However if you want to shot other stuff too the zoom comes into it's own. For me it's the ideal walkabout lens, as I can photograph birds, insects, animals and my kids without changing the lens.
