• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

100-400 or 400 5.6 ? (1 Viewer)

P

Paul McNelis

Member
Hello everyone!

Wow, my second post! Hard to contribute much when I'm not a birder yet. Anyhoo...

Off and on over the past 2 years I've been researching the Canon 100-400 & 400 5.6 L lenses.

I plan to buy 1 of them, just not sure which, and they'll have to suffice for years to come because the 500 or 600mm lenses are out of the question, unless I take a mortgage out on my house lol.

The lens will strictly be for birding. So my first question is - If I buy the 100-400 won't I find myself at the long end most of the time? And if so, it would seem to make sense to by the 400 5.6 for the sharpness at the long end and for BIF shots.

But then you have the IS of the 100-400. But I have a tripod so I don't mind using that.

Then there's the composition factor - if I stumble upon bigger birds with the 400 5.6, like Herons, or if I want to compose a shot with the backround, the 100-400 seems to make sense.

So I'm confused, and have been, ever since I became interested in birding.

The 100-400 seems to be the most popular with reviews at various websites and even at places like adaroma.com and amazon.com. That makes sense, since #1 it has IS and #2 it's more versatile for things beyond birds.

I think I'm convincing myself to buy the 100-400 the more I write because the versatility factor alone for taking other wildlife photos, or photos that aren't even nature related to begin with.

I'd sure appreciate any advice anyone can offer! Thanks in advance!
Paul
 
Nevermind!

Decision made: 100-400. It only makes sense.

Besides, after looking at some of your galleries, Keith Reeder to name one, I sit in awe. Amazing stuff! Even if its post processing or not (final product is what it's all about anyway).

I'm getting excited now that I made the decision. I guess I should have waited before posting my question LOL

I'm hoping to get it in time before winter really sets in as there is Bombay Hook in DE within 90 mins of me and Tinicum wildlife reserve near Philadelphia (20mins away) that I could get some practice in with lots of birds.

Ok, I'm gushing and rambling now.
Paul
 
Wow!

I'm flattered, Paul.

But damn, I love that lens, and I honestly wouldn't be without it.

FWIW, my post processing is basic and uncomplicated.
 
Great way of starting, Don .. the raptor shot is really great! Looking forward to seeing your next captures ;)
 
Good choice Paul, I'm sure you will not be disappointed ... and now, keep your fingers crossed and hope you get your new toy in time for the season ;)
 
Don, those BIF pictures are exceptional. :t: Paul, the 100-400mm is a great lens and very versatile. Several people have bought both!
 
Paul McNelis said:
Hello everyone!

Off and on over the past 2 years I've been researching the Canon 100-400 & 400 5.6 L lenses.

I plan to buy 1 of them, just not sure which,
Click to expand...

Hi Paul and all

This is my dilemma too. My particular 'style' is that I don't like to lug the camera around on a tripod the whole time. I prefer to handhold if I possibly can. I'm a birder with a camera rather than a bird photographer. So the big question is, how much of a difference does the IS make?

I believe the prime is smaller and lighter than the zoom (yes?) so easier to handhold, but would I lose out because of hadnshake? By the way, where I live the light is usually pretty good in the open, but not so in the rainforest.

I'm hoping I can get away with the prime (because of the price difference and weight), but am willing to be convinced otherwise. Realise this is a bit of an old chestnut - sorry!

Thanks

Dave
 
Dave B said:
Hi Paul and all

This is my dilemma too. My particular 'style' is that I don't like to lug the camera around on a tripod the whole time. I prefer to handhold if I possibly can. I'm a birder with a camera rather than a bird photographer. So the big question is, how much of a difference does the IS make?

I believe the prime is smaller and lighter than the zoom (yes?) so easier to handhold, but would I lose out because of hadnshake? By the way, where I live the light is usually pretty good in the open, but not so in the rainforest.

I'm hoping I can get away with the prime (because of the price difference and weight), but am willing to be convinced otherwise. Realise this is a bit of an old chestnut - sorry!

Thanks

Dave
Click to expand...
Dave, the 100-400 gives you a 2 stop IS which basically means that you should be able to handhold it at 2 stop less than the prime BUT a lot depends on your hand holding technique. With the prime I can get sharp shots at 1/500 sec hand held which is usually easily achievable for my style of shooting - if the shutter speed is not there I just up the ISO to gain a stop or two. I very often take along a Monopod which I reckon gives me a couple of stops if needed but again technique with the Pod needs to be learned.
With good light out in the open the lack of IS is no big deal but shooting in the rainforest or in poor light it could be a different ball game, in these conditions you could probably do with something with a 3 or 4 stop IS but the older 2 stop on the 100-400 would obviously help.
Both lenses have good IQ and I am sure that you would be pleased with either. The zoom is more versatile if you do not have other lenses to cover the wide areas but for birding I reckon most people will use at the 400 end for 99% of the time and still wish they had another 400mm of focal length.
I am not anti IS and if Canon bought out a IS version of the 400mm f5.6 I would be first in line providing the weigh did not increase much.
 
Last edited:
Roy C said:
Dave, the 100-400 gives you a 2 stop IS which basically means that you should be able to handhold it at 2 stop less than the prime BUT a lot depends on your hand holding technique. With the prime I can get sharp shots at 1/500 sec hand held which is usually easily achievable for my style of shooting - if the shutter speed is not there I just up the ISO to gain a stop or two. I very often take along a Monopod which I reckon gives me a couple of stops if needed but again technique with the Pod needs to be learned.
With good light out in the open the lack of IS is no big deal but shooting in the rainforest or in poor light it could be a different ball game, in these conditions you could probably do with something with a 3 or 4 stop IS but the older 2 stop on the 100-400 would obviously help.
Both lenses have good IQ and I am sure that you would be pleased with either. The zoom is more versatile if you do not have other lenses to cover the wide areas but for birding I reckon most people will use at the 400 end for 99% of the time and still wish they had another 400mm of focal length.
I am not anti IS and if Canon bought out a IS version of the 400mm f5.6 I would be first in line providing the weigh did not increase much.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this Roy. I'm thinking of getting a Canon Powershot A640 to overcome my lack of zoom, since this will give me versatility and eventually, a decent camera for a digiscoping set-up.

Dave
 
Dave,

Both lenses are great and will not disappoint. However no matter what, there will be circumstances when you will wish for a longer lens not matter what you buy.

In addition, weight, portability and ease of use are not insignificant considerations.

After trying out and taking a close look at the 100-400 as well as the Sigma 80-400, we went in a different direction.

We recently purchased the Canon 70-300 IS USM. The IQ is tops, it's light, easy to hold, focus and carry around. so far we are very pleased and it was less than half the cost of the 100-400.

Good luck with your selection process. From your choices, whatever you end up with will be great.

Ron

Dave B said:
Hi Paul and all

This is my dilemma too. My particular 'style' is that I don't like to lug the camera around on a tripod the whole time. I prefer to handhold if I possibly can. I'm a birder with a camera rather than a bird photographer. So the big question is, how much of a difference does the IS make?

I believe the prime is smaller and lighter than the zoom (yes?) so easier to handhold, but would I lose out because of hadnshake? By the way, where I live the light is usually pretty good in the open, but not so in the rainforest.

I'm hoping I can get away with the prime (because of the price difference and weight), but am willing to be convinced otherwise. Realise this is a bit of an old chestnut - sorry!

Thanks

Dave
Click to expand...
 
Hello everyone!

Thanks for the replies and I am actually deciding now more towards the 400 5.6. So I'm going to CTRL-Z my previous decision for now. ;) I know, I drive myself crazy to no end.

While the 100-400 would be versatile, with birds, especially small ones, and BIF shots, I invision myself at the 400 end of the lens the majority of the time, and needing all the light and length I can get. I especially want BIF shots, not that the 100-400 can't do them, but I would prefer the 400 5.6.

I don't really plan on doing other wildlife besides birds so to me it makes sense to go with the fixed length of the 400. Plus it's only a tad over $1000 and the money saved will be needed for cf cards, rechargeable batteries, etc.

I don't mind using a tripod either. I have a Gitzo 2220 Explorer already. May not be the greatest but hey it's better than nothing I think and I do macro with it too.

Anyhoo.. I still need to convince the wife that the $3000 in equipment is worth it (I also plan on getting the 40D as well)

Don - great shots BTW!
 
bokeh?

One way that these lens should differ is in bokeh - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

As I understand it the number of blades in the diaphragm has a big effect on bokeh, the more blades the better the bokeh. So in theory the 400 f5.6 (with 8 blades compared to the 100-400 with only 5 blades)should give more pleasing backgrounds when shooting wide open. As I say it's just a theory, perhaps a memebr with both lenses could put this to the test...
 
Postcard, where do you have that information on the number of appature blades from? As far as I know both lenses have 8 blades. But I only have the information fron 2nd hand sources (thedigitalpicture.com and photozone.de).

Thomas
 
Now I like the bokeh in both of those pictures, Thomas, though I can see what you mean.

Personally I reckon that that the shape of the aperture (which is what the number of blades affects) only really impacts on specular highlights.
 
Keith Reeder said:
Thomas,

this page from Canon UK's website confirms the 100-400mm's 5 blades:
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Pro...F100_400mm_f4.5-5.6L_IS_USM/index.asp?specs=1

Here's the 400mm prime page:
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Pro...al_Length/EF_400mm_f56L_USM/index.asp?specs=1

Personally I'm routinely very happy with the zoom's bokeh.
Click to expand...

Hi Keith,

Strangely, Canon Lens Work III says both the 400 prime and 100-400 have 8 diaphragm blades.

Romy

EDIT - I just checked my 100-400, definitely 8 blades.... so the Canon UK site has a misprint. It's quite easy to check this - set the Av to f/8 or so, then look straight into the front end of the lens, out through the view finder. Aim at something bright so the outline of the blades is easier to see. Then press the DOF preview button (near the lens release button), and if the camera is on, the aperture blades stop down to the set Av.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

G
Lighter alternative to 100-400 II
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
Mikbul
Mikbul
Oregon John
R7 and RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 IS USM performance in low light?
Replies
5
Views
6K
pdwinter
pdwinter
ermine
Canon EF USM L 100-400 Mk1 repair -
Replies
0
Views
781
ermine
ermine
Evan Atkinson
Choosing between 2 lenses.
Replies
9
Views
1K
mav12
M
G
OM-1 with Panasonic Leica 100-400
2
Replies
20
Views
5K
Jim M.
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top