• 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.

Which one - Canon Prime 400mm F5.6 or canon 100 - 400 IS L (1 Viewer)

Cannot give an option on the 100-400 v 400 5.6 as I only have one of these.
The 70-200 2.8 lens that you have is a cracker so I would have though you need to work out weather you would miss the f2.8 for low light stuff. The 70-200 works very well with a 1.4 tc which means you have 98-280 covered.
 
Thanks to all for their input. I have decided to go with the 400L F5.6 Prime and (as almost everyone has said) I will keep the 70-200 F2.8L.

Thanks again to all who replied. Now anyone want to sell a good 400L F5.6 at a good price???
Chris
 
I have the 400mm f5.6,canon 600mm and canon 70-200 and they are all great lenses but there is a new sigma coming out soon a 200-500 the only zoom with a fixed F number. Its going on sale for about £17,000 and im thinking of buying.B :)
 
chrisli said:
I am using all the above lenses, advise keep the 70-200 and you can consider the following option.
1] IQ quality 400mm f/5.6 is still the best gives you 560mm FL with 1.4xTC, it doesn't AF, taping would help but only with good lighting.

2] 300mm f/4.0 with 1.4xTC gives you 420mm FL has IS and will AF with 1.4TC, IQ still very good with TC.

You can never have enough FL when you come to birding, the trick is try to get as close as possible to the subject.
Click to expand...

1] IQ quality 400mm f/5.6 is still the best
Why is this advantage not seen in the gallery then? Not much difference IMO if any at all. And I think people forget to tell that this lens is not for everyone, cos there is a considerable learning curve (one year is normal) according to what I was told by a friend.
 
Last edited:
websurfer said:
1] IQ quality 400mm f/5.6 is still the best
Why is this advantage not seen in the gallery then? Not much difference IMO if any at all. And I think people forget to tell that this lens is not for everyone, cos there is a considerable learning curve (one year is normal) according to what I was told by a friend.
Click to expand...
Not sure there is much of a learning curve with the 400mm f5.6 but I have heard this said of the 100-400 IS.
I have had the 400 5.6 for a few years now and I reckon the learning curve would be around a week at most - what is there to learn? there is no IS or focal length (zoom) to worry about.
 
Roy C said:
Not sure there is much of a learning curve with the 400mm f5.6 but I have heard this said of the 100-400 IS.
I have had the 400 5.6 for a few years now and I reckon the learning curve would be around a week at most - what is there to learn? there is no IS or focal length (zoom) to worry about.
Click to expand...

I think this lens demands more long lens technique than others. It demands an eye on shutter speed, and needs good light and is not so easy to handhold under low light scenes - only some kind of experts (Like Roy C and some others in here) are able to get the best out of this lens. For most others it demands every kind of firm support most of the time. My friend is satisfied with his lens now, but at first he was a bit dissappointed. So I dare to say it´s not a lens for everyone to benefit from IQ of this lens unless your arrms are steady as a tripod. :)
And if you look at gallery pics form this lens - only in the arms of experts this lens does shine IMO...
 
Last edited:
There are only two particular things to learn with the 400 f5.6 if hand holding IMO:

1) Holding the lens correctly (but this would apply to any telephoto when hand holding)

2) The most important thing is keeping the shutter speed up, I look for 1/500 or better. this can be achieved by shooting wide open (f5.6) and upping the ISO to suit. Even in a bright sunny day I always use ISO 400 as standard. I still see hand held shots with this lens at, say, ISO 200 and 1/400 far better to use ISO 400 with 1/800 or even a higher ISO if you need it.
 
Hi Chris.
I started off with a Canon 20D and 100-400 mm IS. When I upgraded I went for a 500mm f4.0 IS. Ive never looked back,its a great lens but obviously pricey. Alternatively the Canon 400mmDO is also a lens I would realy like to own.
I sold my 100-400 lens to help fund my 500mm but its all about what you can afford.
Good Luck
 
I am far from an expert, having got my first compact a little over a year ago and only upgrading to a DSLR last November, but I am more than happy with my shots with a 400D and the Canon 400mm prime. All my shots are taken handheld as well as I have not invested in a tripod as of yet. However here in Greece the light is very good in the summer and this helps keep up the shutter speed. In the winter we have similar light to an English summer so maybe I will need to get that tripod/monopod in order to get the quality shots I have come accustomed to since I bought the 400mm f5.6 last month.
 
stu78 said:
I am far from an expert, having got my first compact a little over a year ago and only upgrading to a DSLR last November, but I am more than happy with my shots with a 400D and the Canon 400mm prime. All my shots are taken handheld as well as I have not invested in a tripod as of yet. However here in Greece the light is very good in the summer and this helps keep up the shutter speed. In the winter we have similar light to an English summer so maybe I will need to get that tripod/monopod in order to get the quality shots I have come accustomed to since I bought the 400mm f5.6 last month.
Click to expand...

I have seen your gallery. May I compliment you on your work? Great shots - so I consider you to be very skilful. I can only state, that your gallery is far above standard.
Living in Greece with very good light most of the time, surely make the job a bit easier as well.
 
Websurfer,

I think I get what you mean. I agree that there are a few users of this lens who really shine.
Do you think maybe it's because its a popular lens for birders who just want a lens in case they want a few pics (i.e who aren't particularly bothered about the outcome / aren't "dedicated" photographers)?

I have recently got this lens, and I think there probably is a bit of a learning curve for it, my results seem to be getting better, or maybe its just the weather is! :-O

Regarding IQ, i dont think looking at gallery pictures is a fair way to view this, as they have all been resized, and goodness knows how much cropping, sharpening and other pp has been applied.
 
Roy C said:
Not sure there is much of a learning curve with the 400mm f5.6 but I have heard this said of the 100-400 IS.
I have had the 400 5.6 for a few years now and I reckon the learning curve would be around a week at most - what is there to learn? there is no IS or focal length (zoom) to worry about.
Click to expand...

I Could not agree more 1 week and a bit of forum reading should do for any lens if you not starting to get decent shots then -then you dont know the basic's of photography or the subject your shooting IF you shoot the 400f5.6 and your shots are mostly blury just look at your shutter speed the chances are that is the problem some can handhold below 1/500sec but double that is more relistic for sharp shots the faster the shutter speed the better, its a super sharp lens one of the best .
Rob
 
AC/DC said:
......... ... ..
Do you think maybe it's because its a popular lens for birders who just want a lens in case they want a few pics (i.e who aren't particularly bothered about the outcome / aren't "dedicated" photographers)?............. ... .


.
Click to expand...
Possible reasons:
1) the lens is more difficult to use as expected as general birding lens in order to get top quality pics - only very skilful users can do this
2) reviews based on some studio shootouts = hype = not real world relevant - but this is selling
3) because its certainly the best BIF lens, often used as second lens, so it has a lot of users

You asked, what I think, this is my answer - but who knows?
 
Last edited:
The 400 5.6 is not so popular as the 100-400 with the brits on BF but if you look at a site like POTN the prime is widely used by birders in the states and probably more popular than the 100-400 for bird photography.
For some reason the word 'zoom' is associated with long lenses in the UK. I am often told by non photographers that my 400mm f5.6 is a big zoom lens, when I try to explain that it is not a zoom the stock answer is 'I thought all big lenses were zooms' ;)
 
Lets settle this once and for all..........

Now come on, lets just accept that the 456 is an amazing lens, utterly sharp, beautifully built, easy to hand hold etc. The 100-400 on the other hand is an ergonomic nightmare and about 50% of copies produce horrid soft pictures. There, I said it.

Yes, well, I'm having a bit of a mardy today cos a mates just got a 500/4!
 
ChrisSearle said:
Now come on, lets just accept that the 456 is an amazing lens, utterly sharp, beautifully built, easy to hand hold etc. The 100-400 on the other hand is an ergonomic nightmare and about 50% of copies produce horrid soft pictures. There, I said it.

Yes, well, I'm having a bit of a mardy today cos a mates just got a 500/4!
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's not the lenses but the photographers that produce soft results with the 100-400 zoom. Equally I have seen soft results with people using the prime.

I have had quite a number of zooms from other people stuck on my camera and have not come across a soft one yet. The attached shot of a coot has been resized for the web and a slight crop applied. No other alteration has been made in levels, contrast or colour and there has been no sharpening. I might add the shot was taken at the 400 end which if we believe what we are told should be soft. I do not regard this image as soft even after downsizing.

I did some long-tailed tits recently with my zoom in very poor light. The birds were very close and in range for my zoom. I was able to rattle off a few shots and all were sharp. With the prime I would have had to step back a few paces and get the birds smaller in the frame and in all probability I would have been forced to crop then most likely bin them for being soft.

The two lenses serve different purposes and in my view comparisons cannot make one better than the other. One buys a lens to fit the circumstances of the photography involved. There are pros and cons for each of the lenses. It is that simple.

If you make sharpness the single criteria in determining which lens to buy then you are deceiving yourself. If that criteria is driven by the need to crop excessively because you haven't got a 500 then you are using the lenses inappropriately. We are probably all guilty of that IMHO.
 

Attachments

  • Elton Res 14th June 08 CR A.DANCY 030.jpg
    Elton Res 14th June 08 CR A.DANCY 030.jpg
    173.7 KB · Views: 341
Warning! This thread is more than 16 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
Frank van Drogen
Canon RF 200-800mm IS USM
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
15K
colincurry
colincurry
B
Canon EF 400/f5.6 L USM + EOS 7D Mk II combo anyone???
Replies
2
Views
977
BoldenEagle
B
ermine
Canon EF USM L 100-400 Mk1 repair -
Replies
0
Views
788
ermine
ermine
BenjiS
Budget Canon lens
Replies
8
Views
1K
nikitasius
N

Users who are viewing this thread

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