It's really weird, it seems the majority are against the 100-400 IS. The users of the 100-400 have addressed all of the cons with examples of flight shots, sharp close up bird photos, insect flight shots (amazing). Although the thread martin england referenced was pretty convincing that the 400prime is definitely sharper in the right hands. Which leads me to believe that maybe it is not so much about which of these 3 lenses you have, but how you use them.
-
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.
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM or EF 400mm f/5.6L USM (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter CCRII
- Start date
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
I think you are right 'CCRII'. For birding the only possible reason that I would get the 100-400 over the 400 prime would be IS but as far as I am concerned this is no big deal for me and my style of shooting - the IS on the 1-4 is first generation which gives just 2 stops (the latest generation gives 4 stops which is a different ball game)). I reckon that good hand holding technique is worth at least 1 stop and bumping up the ISO can easily give you another stop. Most of my shooting is done in good light on and around the estuary so getting a fast shutter speed is rarely a problem for me. Now if I was constantly shooting in the woods in poor light that would be different (I would be looking at a faster lens with IS).
I do not think that the 2 stop IS on the zoom is any compensation for good technique and IMO this is where a lot of people go wrong - they think that IS is going to guarantee sharp shots every time and all you need do is point and shoot - even the experts agree that a lot of softness on the 100-400 is user error and there is a longish learning curve with this lens.
I have no doubt that IS helps rather than hinders but whether or not 2 stop IS is essential is down to the individual.
If Canon bring out a updated 100-400 with the latest genration IS I could be interested but until then I am more than happy with my cheaper and lighter 400mm f5.6 prime.
GYRob
Well-known member
GYRob
Well-known member
and thats what i mentiond in my first reply
Rob.
Well apparently there is no backing out the company I ordered from very firmly told me that it was very hard and expensive for them to get the lens I originally ordered. So I guess I'm stuck with the 100-400. I will just make do until I can upgrade to something with much more clout.
Don't worry I am sure you will not be disapointed in this lens, I personally know 10+ people who use the 100-400 IS and love it. There are a few bad reviews of it on the web but there are far more good ones. When you get the lens it may take a bit of time getting used to using IS (took me a while), but then you'll get the most out of it. Take a look in Keith Reeder's or Paul Goode's gallery and you'll see just how good the 100-400 really is.
paul goode
Well-known member
Don't look at it like that! As Peter has said there's no need to be negative, the 100-400 is a first class lens that many people would give their right arm for. I don't think the other lenses you have considered should be thought of as upgrades, more variations on a theme. The upgrades are 300f2.8, 400f2.8, 500f4 and just think what they cost!!
I've had a delve through my gallery and tried to come up with some shots taken with the 100-400 that I am really pleased with to give you some encouragement.
Enjoy your lens!
Attachments
Those were the upgrades I was referring to. Thanks for the examples! They are sizzler's!
Tony Brown
Tony B
Photography equipment usually involves compromises. This ubiquitous question has right answers for all the lenses- on varying occasions-mentioned in this thread. Make a list of pros & cons for as many situations you think may arise for you. Sports,birds,landscapes etc,IS ?, shooting conditions, versatility etc etc..Buy the lens that best fits your needs. I ended up with the 100-400 which I do not regret. This lens was invaluable for candid shots when visiting India, including a couple of bird sanctuaries. A 300 or 400 prime would have been unnecessary baggage as we did not see any birds or tigers. As I said this purchase was for my situations & preferred subjects, not any one elses. 99% of my bird shots are with this lens. The others with a 70-200 2.8 + 1.4TC. I have never missed a shot because I was too close & it is the preferred zoom in this class for the majority of wildlife photographers. However because of my opening statement I am looking at the purchase of a 400 prime . If I had initially purchased the 300 or 400 prime I would be looking at a zoom for the shots I could not make.Horses for courses.
Just purchased a...........
456 instead of the 100-400 after much agonising and research. So what was my rationale?
Following oft quoted advice to actually 'try' the lens I have used a friends 100-400, albeit briefly and then at the shop I compared the feel of the two lenses. Result? I have to say, for some reason I hated the ergonomics of the zoom and conversely really liked the ergonomics of the prime.
Next consideration was that I will be using the lens primarily for birds and primarily in India where it is very dusty and very bright - outside of the monsoon season.
I am convinced that for all practical considerations the IQ is essentially the same for the two lenses so no issues there. This only leaves the matter of IS. Obviously it's an advantage, nevertheless I will be taking most of my pictures with either a tripod or monopod, further, in India many of the birds I will be trying to photograph are very active, necessitating high shutter speeds in the first place. I have to say that with a 30D at iso800 noise is amazingly well dealt with by the use of Neat Image.
Whatever, the above is the theory, what about practice? Well I have to say that the weather has obeyed the ' Buy a long lens and the cloud cover will become unbroken' rule so far but even in the current anticyclonic gloom I was able to take the attached picture of a turnstone, handheld. Clearly I have a huge amount to learn but this picture showed me that there is a lot of potential with this set up.
456 instead of the 100-400 after much agonising and research. So what was my rationale?
Following oft quoted advice to actually 'try' the lens I have used a friends 100-400, albeit briefly and then at the shop I compared the feel of the two lenses. Result? I have to say, for some reason I hated the ergonomics of the zoom and conversely really liked the ergonomics of the prime.
Next consideration was that I will be using the lens primarily for birds and primarily in India where it is very dusty and very bright - outside of the monsoon season.
I am convinced that for all practical considerations the IQ is essentially the same for the two lenses so no issues there. This only leaves the matter of IS. Obviously it's an advantage, nevertheless I will be taking most of my pictures with either a tripod or monopod, further, in India many of the birds I will be trying to photograph are very active, necessitating high shutter speeds in the first place. I have to say that with a 30D at iso800 noise is amazingly well dealt with by the use of Neat Image.
Whatever, the above is the theory, what about practice? Well I have to say that the weather has obeyed the ' Buy a long lens and the cloud cover will become unbroken' rule so far but even in the current anticyclonic gloom I was able to take the attached picture of a turnstone, handheld. Clearly I have a huge amount to learn but this picture showed me that there is a lot of potential with this set up.
Attachments
Last edited:
Tony Brown
Tony B
Good Luck with your lens. Despite good results & the fact I would recommend the 100-400, I still wonder at times if I made the right choice & would have managed more consistent results with a f4 5.6L . At least I have the weather to make good use of a f4 5.6 should I go down that path!
Tony Brown
Tony B
Good Luck with your lens. Despite good results & the fact I would recommend the 100-400, I still wonder at times if I made the right choice & would have managed more consistent results with a f4 5.6L . At least I have the weather to make good use of a f4 5.6 should I go down that path!
Attachments
Newbie to forum with similar quandry
Hello and many thanks in advance for any help or advice!
I am an enthusiastic albeit amateur birder and have been directed here via a helpful "Canon SLR lens" forum posting on the DPReview web-site.
I hope you won't mind me semi-hijacking the thread but I was interested to learn what others thought of the 400mm Prime versus a zoom.
I am in the process of (probably) purchasing a 30D and a lens for birding. My budget isn't that great as far as Canon kit goes but, as always, you wish for the best value for your pennies.
I did start off looking at the Sigma "Bigmas"; the 80-400mm and the 50-500mm (one has the Sigma version of USM and the other has IS ... in "switchable" planes, so to speak). However, much trawling and forum advice later has led me to break the piggy-bank open and opt for the best Canon lens that I can afford for birding purposes.
There are many tempting offers (e.g. 7Day shop's: Canon Digital SLR Camera Kit - EOS 30D with EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 & EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM Lenses for about £1250) but I would like to aim for an "L" if possible and so have arrived at the 400mm Prime.
I try to use some support (tri/mon-pod/beanbag) where possible but haven't had the opportunity to use any "Big" lenses in the field before.
So, to zoom or not to zoom, that is the Q?
Also, how good/bad are converters like a 1.4x on a 300mm or 400mm lens?
I should add that the light down on the S. Coast of England, where I am often to be found, is often not that good as I am sure many will already know!
Many thanks once again
Hello and many thanks in advance for any help or advice!
I am an enthusiastic albeit amateur birder and have been directed here via a helpful "Canon SLR lens" forum posting on the DPReview web-site.
I hope you won't mind me semi-hijacking the thread but I was interested to learn what others thought of the 400mm Prime versus a zoom.
I am in the process of (probably) purchasing a 30D and a lens for birding. My budget isn't that great as far as Canon kit goes but, as always, you wish for the best value for your pennies.
I did start off looking at the Sigma "Bigmas"; the 80-400mm and the 50-500mm (one has the Sigma version of USM and the other has IS ... in "switchable" planes, so to speak). However, much trawling and forum advice later has led me to break the piggy-bank open and opt for the best Canon lens that I can afford for birding purposes.
There are many tempting offers (e.g. 7Day shop's: Canon Digital SLR Camera Kit - EOS 30D with EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 & EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM Lenses for about £1250) but I would like to aim for an "L" if possible and so have arrived at the 400mm Prime.
I try to use some support (tri/mon-pod/beanbag) where possible but haven't had the opportunity to use any "Big" lenses in the field before.
So, to zoom or not to zoom, that is the Q?
Also, how good/bad are converters like a 1.4x on a 300mm or 400mm lens?
I should add that the light down on the S. Coast of England, where I am often to be found, is often not that good as I am sure many will already know!
Many thanks once again
Hi Roy and welcome to Birdforum from all the Admin and Mods.
Depending on what your main use of the camera would be I'd probably not go for the 7day kit. It's good stuff but 300mm is very limiting for bird photography and you'd be better off with a longer lens.
As for prime vs zoom, it's been discussed at length on here (look through some old threads too). Both lenses have pros and cons - the 400 f5.6 prime is lighter, faster focusing and more reliable with a 1.4x tc, while the 100-400 IS hs a better minimum focusing distance, image stabilisation and the flexability of a zoom. Both are good birding lenses, the best bet is to try them out and see which you prefer. A quick look around the gallery will show that both are more than capable of producing excellent images.
In theory you lose AF if you use either of these lenses with a 1.4x tc on a 30D, however there is a trick here you tape three fo the pins to fool the camera and allow AF. This seems to work well with both lenses, though how well the IS on the 100-400 works with the tc seems very variable.
Thank you for the welcome and for the quick reply!
I HAVE just found the thread about the converters ... one chap even mounts both the 1.4x with the 2x together with the 400mm lens for a 1000+ mm result!! Not so sure I am up to that extreme. Yes, the 7Day shop is very tempting but as you say 400mm is probably the shortest for bird photography and I will continue in my web/shop trawl for a good price and supplier ... unless anyone has any suggestions about that!
Finally, shame the 400mm prime doesn't have IS ... although then the price would definitely be out of my budget range ... maybe someone could invent IS elbow patches ....
I HAVE just found the thread about the converters ... one chap even mounts both the 1.4x with the 2x together with the 400mm lens for a 1000+ mm result!! Not so sure I am up to that extreme. Yes, the 7Day shop is very tempting but as you say 400mm is probably the shortest for bird photography and I will continue in my web/shop trawl for a good price and supplier ... unless anyone has any suggestions about that!
Finally, shame the 400mm prime doesn't have IS ... although then the price would definitely be out of my budget range ... maybe someone could invent IS elbow patches ....
magpiemick
Well-known member
Hello Royco,
I take 99.9% bird photograph and a year ago went for 30D & 400 prime with 1.4x converter which is on all the time..
My reasons for chosing this set-up was that i would be using the 400 end of the lens most if not all the time so prime it was.. in the year that i've had the set up never been to close to a bird more like I NEED TO GET CLOSER because 400+1.4x is still not enough.
The 400 is a good lens you won't be disappointed..
Mick..
I take 99.9% bird photograph and a year ago went for 30D & 400 prime with 1.4x converter which is on all the time..
My reasons for chosing this set-up was that i would be using the 400 end of the lens most if not all the time so prime it was.. in the year that i've had the set up never been to close to a bird more like I NEED TO GET CLOSER because 400+1.4x is still not enough.
The 400 is a good lens you won't be disappointed..
Mick..
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Hi Royco, I have the 30D and 400mm f5.6 prime which I use handheld for most of the time with no problem - one thing that helps a lot is that you can bump up the ISO to 800 with very little noise on the 30D (thus keeping up the shutter speed).
I can confirm that the prime takes a tc very well although in lesser light I use a monopod when using this combo. As you indicated, I have had great results with a 1.4 and 2x tc stacked but you need good light and a sturdy tripod.
Whichever of the 400's you choose you will not be disapointed.
BTW, check out 'Kerso' for a good deal - I have bought my last three lenses from him (inc the 400 f5.6).
I can confirm that the prime takes a tc very well although in lesser light I use a monopod when using this combo. As you indicated, I have had great results with a 1.4 and 2x tc stacked but you need good light and a sturdy tripod.
Whichever of the 400's you choose you will not be disapointed.
BTW, check out 'Kerso' for a good deal - I have bought my last three lenses from him (inc the 400 f5.6).
Last edited:
I am not an expert here, but I have learned something from this thread which might help.
This advice came to me too late, but I would head GYRob advice and get a 300mm USM IS F4 lens with a canon 1.4x teleconverter. With this setup you will actually have more reach then a 400mm lens which is very important because so rarely you are 10 feet from a bird. You will also be well within the budget of the 100-400 zoom lens. The most important feature of this setup is the F4 with this you could stay in the field longer and shoot in darker conditions then with the 100-400mm zoom. This is very important for your area as it is cloudy more often then not. Yes you will lose the zoom feature but I think from what I have read most people have a huge problem getting close enough to a bird to use the 100-200mm except for maybe flight shots where you are extremely fortunate to have a bird fly over you.
Good-luck with what you decide!
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Soon as you stick a TC on, that advantage is pretty much gone - and even without a TC most of us would struggle to get really sharp shots hand-held at low shutter speeds and with the tiny DOF f/4 will give you if you're close enough to the bird to use 300mm effectively.
IS does makes a hell of a difference in low light though - I've had usable hand-held pics at 1/15 from my old Sigma 80-400mm OS.
Royco, head to the gallery and do a search for images taken with the 100-400 and with the prime, assess lots of them, then decide.
FWIW I wouldn't swap my 100-400 for the prime even if the difference in price was made up with Selma Hayek..!
I use a 1.4x TC on my lens pretty much all the time now, and I think I do OK. Have a look at my gallery too.
Don't dismiss the benefit of a zoom for birding either: I've had lots of pictures I only got because I was able to reduce the focal length of the lens.
There are no "bad" lenses among what has been suggested though, and they'll all give you pictures as sharp as you'll ever need: look at the other factors and make a decision taking into account what else the various lenses can do for you.
Last edited:
