• 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)

nigelblake said:
Yes I still have one of the two 100-400mm lenses that I had.

It is a very good lens and I personally think that there is a lot of tosh about its quality on the net, and that much of the problems of sharpness that are expressed is down to user error rather than lens problems, I have even proved this to a couple of people by shooting images with their lenses that are, to their surprise, sharper than what they get themselves! Long lenses do take some getting used to and lots of people are all to willing to blame the kit rather than themselves.
Click to expand...
I, for one have never said a bad word against the 100-400 (how could I, I have never tried it) from what I have seen it is obviously a very fine lens. but I have on occasions defended the 400mm f5.6 prime. I like the lens a lot and get a little peeved when people who have never even used it start running it down - this is akin to saying to everyone out there who has bought one must be a *#@% because it has not got I.S. All I try to point out is that it is possible to get decent shots on a non IS lens, but mostly get slated for even daring to mention it or even compare it to the mighty 100-400.
 
Last edited:
I cannot wait for websurfers piccies myself. As he sure to post some to demonstrate his prowess with the mighty 100-400.
Going to look a bit of a mug if they are good though !
 
I am not disagreeing with you on any aspect, I personally turn IS of a lot of the time as I think it takes up processor power that is better allocated to autofocus, especially for flight shots.
The problem with IS is not in the mechanics of it but in peoples perception that it is a cure-all for camera shake outside of its usable parameters, they then expect to take pin sharp hand-held shots at 1/30th of a second when the wind is vibrating feathers, and blame the lens because the results are poor!
 
Last edited:
What puts me off the 100-400 is the reports of the zoom bearing jamming up. I've no idea of the percentage but I know of 2 people using this lens having the problem. From what I recall best part of £200 to get fixed.
 
Last edited:
I use the 400mm prime and find it to be an excellent piece of kit; very sharp wide open and fast focussing birds in flight.

Personal technique with any lens goes a long way to the results achieved.
 
Roy C said:
It is funny how all the 100-400 users go on about the versatility of the zoom and yet they almost all dream of upgrading to a prime at sometime. e.g. 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 400 f4, 500, f4 or 600 f4. I never hear the guys with these big prime lenses dreaming of a zoom lens (unless Canon come up with, say a 200-500 'L').
Click to expand...

LOL, I remember having said something similar some time ago ... glad to hear from someone sharing the same view ;) ;) ;)

In any case, these are the actual trends going on re. these "400mm items"

prime vs zoom:
1. prime is better 2. both are equal 3. zoom is better

Canon Tc vs Kenko Tc
1. canon is better 2. both are the same 3. kenko is better

Combo (Tc+ zoom)
1. no Tc on zoom 2. can be used 3. better than prime + Tc


.. there is something "slippery" here I can't understand .... 3:)
 
My five Rupees worth

I went to the shop, the excellent Park Cameras, with sufficient funds to buy either lens. I had read all the stuff on the forums, spoken to people who use the lenses, even tried them myself ( albeit briefly) and when it came down to it I plumped for the 456. It was an agonizing decision and there are still occasions when I'm not 100% sure I made the right choice. What I do know however is that:
1: The real world difference between the IQ at 400mm of the two lenses is in my experience negligible or even zero.
2: IS is not a cure all, especially when photographing moving subjects.
3: That for me, the 100-400 is an ergonomic nightmare.
4: That I have been immensely pleased with the results I have obtained with the 456, hand held.
5: I was out all day yesterday with three other birders, one of whom had the zoom and was not happy with it, ergonomically,or, in his view from an IQ perspective (softness), wishing he had bought the 456. The others had the 456 and were very happy.
Actually on this last point, it did cross my mind to offer to swap ;-)

One important point that I feel I should mention and which I am sure materially affects the relative usefulness of each lens is that I do most of my bird photography in Maharashtra, India, where there is a tad more light than back home, making shutter speeds higher and/or ISOs lower for the most part.
Bottom line? Both lenses are amazing, both can take fantastic, thrilling pictures when you know how to use them and so at the end of the day it comes down to personal requirement and personal choice.
 
ChrisSearle said:
I went to the shop, the excellent Park Cameras, with sufficient funds to buy either lens. I had read all the stuff on the forums, spoken to people who use the lenses, even tried them myself ( albeit briefly) and when it came down to it I plumped for the 456. It was an agonizing decision and there are still occasions when I'm not 100% sure I made the right choice. What I do know however is that:
1: The real world difference between the IQ at 400mm of the two lenses is in my experience negligible or even zero.
2: IS is not a cure all, especially when photographing moving subjects.
3: That for me, the 100-400 is an ergonomic nightmare.
4: That I have been immensely pleased with the results I have obtained with the 456, hand held.
5: I was out all day yesterday with three other birders, one of whom had the zoom and was not happy with it, ergonomically,or, in his view from an IQ perspective (softness), wishing he had bought the 456. The others had the 456 and were very happy.
Actually on this last point, it did cross my mind to offer to swap ;-)

One important point that I feel I should mention and which I am sure materially affects the relative usefulness of each lens is that I do most of my bird photography in Maharashtra, India, where there is a tad more light than back home, making shutter speeds higher and/or ISOs lower for the most part.
Bottom line? Both lenses are amazing, both can take fantastic, thrilling pictures when you know how to use them and so at the end of the day it comes down to personal requirement and personal choice.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your experiences and considerations. You dont make MY choice easier. Still not 100% sure of what to buy.
 
I have had the 400 F5.6 for a little over a year now. I find it very easy to work with. Easy to handhold. Have never even put it on a tripod. Birds are too far away for a tripod with such a short lens anyway. Either I sit in the car or have it over my shoulder when I walk on trails. I have a Tamron TC 1.4 which I am not pleased with. The images are much softer with the TC and always come out brighter (as opposed to darker) for some reason.
The TC does produce some acceptable results in good light.

I would like to get the 500 of course but can't afford it. I would like a shorter lens at times and have been through the pros and cons between the 100-400 and the 300 F4.0.
In the end I believe the primes are handier, less likely to fault and do the job.

http://www.pbase.com/peterericsson/pda&page=all

A page of shots with the 400 F5.6....other galleries with this lens are the ones from Malaysia, Sweden and New Zealand...
 
Had two of each. My first 100-400 IS didn't set the world on fire but was nice enough, certainly a step down from the Sigma 100-300mm EX 4.0 I had previously. Same with my second one, which i bought thinking maybe my first wasn't such a good one and I wanted IS and some flexibility in framing. Sold that too. My firast 400mm 5.6 L was a lovely lens but performed best stopped down. My current 400mm L easily out performs any of them and is perfectly usable wide open. Took it to Africa nad was wonderful.

So, there are lots of variables, not least ones own ability and understanding, when judging these lenses: IS or not, flexibility or not, usability, push-pull zoom style, etc. so really is best to try. I do know I will never buy another 100-400. I gave it two good chances and didn't produce for me. My Sigma 100-300 Ex f4.0 did and my latest 400mm 5.6 L did.
 
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

C
I've got a Canon R7 and need to update my lenses
Replies
15
Views
1K
Barred Wobbler
Barred Wobbler
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
788
ermine
ermine
Evan Atkinson
Choosing between 2 lenses.
Replies
9
Views
1K
mav12
M

Users who are viewing this thread

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