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

tzanampeths · Jul 1, 2008

Judging from the pictures I've seen here, both lenses produce great results.
Myself being a bit simpleminded went with the prime, ie one control less = no zoom.
I must confess that I would love a closer focus though.

In conclusion I don't think anybody can go wrong buying any of those two. I'de be inclined to assume identical IQ and decide based on the other feature of the lenses.

All the best

Takis

postcardcv · Jul 1, 2008

paul goode said:
Well thats Postcardcv and me put in our place8-P
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=115095&page=2
posts 32 & 33.
Have to say I stick to my comments in that thread as I'm pretty certain does postcardcv.

I definitely stand by what I said in that thread, it took me a clear month to get the hang of using the 500 f4 (and that was coming from another 500mm prime). Now almost a year later I am still learning more about the lens and am still finding ways of getting more from it. I agree that the 456 is easier to get used to (shorter focal length and no IS), but it still takes a while to get the best from it. If you feel you've mastered any long lens within the week you're either an outstanding photographer or you're not using the lens to it's full potential.

a.dancy said:
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.

Spot on. It's amazing how often people will complain about a lens being soft within a few days of buying it. If people took the time to learn to use the lens they'd probably be able to see how good it really is. I have seen a soft copy of the 100-400, but they are clearly a lot less common than is often suggested.

gmax · Jul 2, 2008

websurfer said:
I think this lens demands more long lens technique than others. ..

I agree ... its learning curve may be quite long ... sharpness-wise, I've never been disappointed with this lens right from the start, but I started getting some satisfaction after many months of costant use and thousands of shots .. and still learning something day by day.

Furthermore I made my life harder by glueing a TC on it :eek!: , which made things tougher and tougher ...

Yes, it's true that this lens loves good light (which one doesn't?), but I must add though that nowadays I feel quite confident when using it beyond its limits with decent results for my standard (obviously a good tripod technique is a must)

Cheers,

Max

gmax · Jul 2, 2008

postcardcv said:
Now almost a year later I am still learning more about the lens and am still finding ways of getting more from it.

I agree, that's the way to go with many lenses, which usually have a greater potential, often superior to our skills

postcardcv said:
I agree that the 456 is easier to get used to (shorter focal length and no IS),

I politely disagree, especially when it comes to using a TC... I guess that shooting at 560mm, f/8, no IS, must be harder than shooting at 500mm, f/4, with IS ... o

.. now, where's my chequebook?

GYRob · Jul 2, 2008

I really carn't see how it can take longer than a week to learn how to use a new lens (a camera yes ) and get decent shots from it, this was after a couple of hours use with my new sigma 150/500 will a year's use let me get a better shot ?
i know its only a duck in my garden but the shot would have been just the same at a res or pond 1dmk3 lens at 500mm f8 iso 500 .
Now it could be better but thats nothing to do with the lens or the fact its new, a brighter day iso 100 same setting's would have more finer detail and less noise so in effect a better shot .
the same goes for the 400f5.6 a weeks use should be plenty of time to find out how Not to use it and 99% of the time that will be to slow a shutter speed.
Rob.

Roy C · Jul 2, 2008

I think people are mixing up general photographic skills with Lens specific skills.
As far as photographic skills goes one can never know it all. I for one would consider myself very much a novice and as I gain more general photographic knowledge so I hope my pics will improve but this will be applicable no matter what lens I am using.

For the vast majority of shots with my 40D and 400mm f5.6 I use the following settings:
ISO 400 or 800
AI Servo (not lens specific)
High Burst Mode (not lens specific)
Lens wide open at f5.6
Partial or manual metering (not lens specific)
AWB (not lens specific)

The only two things that I might change if I had a different non IS telephoto would be the ISO (which I keep high to give me a fast shutter speed). and maybe a different lens would not be so effective wide open.

Its not like you could say that a particular lens is better using spot metering than say partial metering or that with lens a you should use one shot but with lens b it is better to use AI servo.

I agree with Rob, if you are a reasonable competent photographer I fail to see how it would take much more than 1 week to get good results from this lens.

websurfer · Jul 2, 2008

Roy C said:
I think people are mixing up general photographic skills with Lens specific skills.
As far as photographic skills goes one can never know it all. I for one would consider myself very much a novice and as I gain more general photographic knowledge so I hope my pics will improve but this will be applicable no matter what lens I am using.

For the vast majority of shots with my 40D and 400mm f5.6 I use the following settings:
ISO 400 or 800
AI Servo (not lens specific)
High Burst Mode (not lens specific)
Lens wide open at f5.6
Partial or manual metering (not lens specific)
AWB (not lens specific)

The only two things that I might change if I had a different non IS telephoto would be the ISO (which I keep high to give me a fast shutter speed). and maybe a different lens would not be so effective wide open.

Its not like you could say that a particular lens is better using spot metering than say partial metering or that with lens a you should use one shot but with lens b it is better to use AI servo.

I agree with Rob, if you are a reasonable competent photographer I fail to see how it would take much more than 1 week to get good results from this lens.

So there must be plenty of "incompent photographers" with this lens - because I find that a lot of users are getting only average quality pics, whereas other people are able to get superb results, and a few are getting "top notch" results. So assuming all lenses are of same high quality (no quality variation) - then it all depens on the photographer - and maybe this long lens without IS - does punish you if you do not concentrate on having ultra steady hands and constantly having an eye on high shutter speed. I don´know.
I don´t have this lens myself- but I have been on my way to order it several times, but I am still hesitating, especially when I am visiting this website: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_400_56u. and listening to my friend, who needed some time to get the best out of this lens. Another reason for not having ordered is my hope, that Canon will release this lens with IS in the very near future.

postcardcv · Jul 2, 2008

gmax said:
I politely disagree, especially when it comes to using a TC... I guess that shooting at 560mm, f/8, no IS, must be harder than shooting at 500mm, f/4, with IS ... o .. now, where's my chequebook?

Adding a tc will undoubtably make the learning curve a lot steeper... when I got the 500 f4 the focal length wasn't an issue, but learning to get the best from IS was.

postcardcv · Jul 2, 2008

Roy C said:
I agree with Rob, if you are a reasonable competent photographer I fail to see how it would take much more than 1 week to get good results from this lens.

well that's put me in my place... I'll keep plugging away I might get there one day.

Roy C · Jul 2, 2008

websurfer said:
So there must be plenty of "incompent photographers" with this lens - because I find that a lot of users are getting only average quality pics, whereas other people are able to get superb results, and a few are getting "top notch" results. So assuming all lenses are of same high quality (no quality variation) - then it all depens on the photographer - and maybe this long lens without IS - does punish you if you do not concentrate on having ultra steady hands and constantly having an eye on high shutter speed. I don´know.
I don´t have this lens myself- but I have been on my way to order it several times, but I am still hesitating, especially when I am visiting this website: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_400_56u. and listening to my friend, who needed some time to get the best out of this lens. Another reason for not having ordered is my hope, that Canon will release this lens with IS in the very near future.

I can only go by my own experience of the lens and to this end I just cannot understand why people find it so difficult to get sharp shots (Thats not to say that a sharp shot is a good shot - I get many sharp shots that are only average at best but that is not down to the lens )
I am a frail pensioner who only took up photography a few a few years ago when I retired. I certainly would not claim to be anything more than a novice when it comes to photography but at least I can get a sharp shot if nothing else. Maybe people who cannot hand hold this lens should be looking for techniques in the way to hand hold telephotos as this is the only thing that can stop you getting a sharp shot. If all else fails then use some sort of support to help out.

paul goode · Jul 2, 2008

postcardcv said:
well that's put me in my place... I'll keep plugging away I might get there one day.

ROFLMAO!!
Maybe one day you could win an annual wildlife photography competition.
Oh, you already have....

paul goode · Jul 2, 2008

websurfer said:
So there must be plenty of "incompent photographers" with this lens - because I find that a lot of users are getting only average quality pics, whereas other people are able to get superb results, and a few are getting "top notch" results. So assuming all lenses are of same high quality (no quality variation) - then it all depens on the photographer - and maybe this long lens without IS - does punish you if you do not concentrate on having ultra steady hands and constantly having an eye on high shutter speed. I don´know.
I don´t have this lens myself- but I have been on my way to order it several times, but I am still hesitating, especially when I am visiting this website: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_400_56u. and listening to my friend, who needed some time to get the best out of this lens. Another reason for not having ordered is my hope, that Canon will release this lens with IS in the very near future.

Websurfer,

If you don't make a decision soon rising sea levels will have wiped out all the birds

websurfer · Jul 2, 2008

Roy C said:
......... ....... .. .
I certainly would not claim to be anything more than a novice when it comes to photography but at least I can get a sharp shot if nothing else. .

You most be a natural prodigy, because especially you and Gmax are simply getting the best out of this lens IMO. Simply top notch pics.

Roy C · Jul 2, 2008

postcardcv said:
well that's put me in my place... I'll keep plugging away I might get there one day.

Please give me one example of why/how the 400mm f5.6 is such a difficult lens to use. I am not talking about any other lens just the 400mm f5.6.
I keep hearing about how much a learning curve there is with this lens but no one has said why.

I reiterate what I have just posted, I think people are mixing up general photographic skills with Lens specific skills. If you are saying that it takes a year to get good bird shots then I would go further and say it takes much longer than that. I have been at it for three years and am still light years away from being even an average photographer but I do not blame this on my lens or my lack of understanding of it.

GYRob · Jul 2, 2008

WELL im happy to leave it that im a great photographer because if a lens is sharp then i know without any doult i will get sharp shots within an hour and most likely within 2 mins if the light lets me set the shutter speed needed for the lens.
Im not saying every shot i take is sharp its not and never will be because often fading light will force me to drop below the safer parameters but if im out then i will always have a go at a shot even though its odds on it wont be sharp .
Rob.

Jos Stratford · Jul 3, 2008

Roy C said:
Please give me one example of why/how the 400mm f5.6 is such a difficult lens to use. I am not talking about any other lens just the 400mm f5.6.
I keep hearing about how much a learning curve there is with this lens but no one has said why.

I would not say it is a 'difficult' lens to use, but I do think this lens has a learning curve, though not a year

Especially if coming from an IS lens, it takes a bit of time to see what you can get away with, how low a speed you can successfully handhold, etc.

Traditionally I have used the Canon 100-400 IS, but recently added the 400 f5.6, so am now directly comparing the two. Without doubt, the 100-400 is a much easier lens to simply 'point and shoot' as the IS allows you to survive lower shutter speeds, dodgier holding techniques, etc. As a handheld lens, however, the 400 needs to be treated with a tad more thought - and this does take a little getting used to, experiment will show on a person-to-person basis, what speed/how much support, etc you really need to still get a reasonable shot.

I have had the 400 lens for about a month now and, though I am already getting good shots, I still feel that I am getting used to it, particularly in that I have had little experience of it in poorer light conditions as yet ...I'll give it a while longer, then decide which lens will be my preferred long-term.

gmax · Jul 3, 2008

Jos Stratford said:
I would not say it is a 'difficult' lens to use, but I do think this lens has a learning curve, though not a year
...
As a handheld lens, however, the 400 needs to be treated with a tad more thought - and this does take a little getting used to,

I agree with Jos, and - although I do not own an IS lens - I can make a comparison with my Tamron 200-500mm

To be fair

I will not deal with sharpness, only with motion blur.
I will deal only with shots taken using a tripod, not handheld (different focus speed, focus limiter and full manual focus override do make too much a difference when for example you're already in big troubles panning and trying to hold the lens steady)

The Tamron is an f/6.3 wide open, while the Canon prime + TC is an f/8 - so the zoom should have an edge over the prime, but it isn't so.

Assuming that my skills are growing ( :'D ?) at the same pace, irrespective of the lens I'm using, at the beginning the results with both lenses were pretty similar in low light conditions - i.e. quite crappy |=(|; today I find I much prefer using the prime even in very low light conditions - perhaps because I have acquired a taste which allows me to adapt my skills and my tools to the environment I'm in - and I can get home with some decent shots in my bag.

I wonder therefore why this happens with the prime now and not with the zoom? I explain it to myself that either the prime has a much larger potential to be exploited (or that I'm not capable of getting the best out of the zoom, no matter how hard I try), or that the prime is much less forgiving, obliging you to be more thoughtful and always consistent in your technique, resulting in better captures...

gmax · Jul 3, 2008

paul goode said:
Websurfer,

If you don't make a decision soon rising sea levels will have wiped out all the birds

A good time for waders ... :king:

gmax · Jul 3, 2008

postcardcv said:
when I got the 500 f4 the focal length wasn't an issue, but learning to get the best from IS was.

That's quite intriguing, Pete ... since I've never owned an IS lens (just used it a few times), I'd be interested to know how and why the stabilization may affect the final result, especially when tripod mounted ... I know that many beginners consider IS as a magical recipe for getting sharp shots and then get disappointed by the results (and I also know that it's not your case), but:

possessing a good long lens technique
possessing a good tripod technique
possessing good general photographic skills

how can a poor knowledge of IS decrease the average IQ/number of keepers one usually gets?

JohnZ · Jul 3, 2008

Perhaps it is because as soon as folks get their lens they dash out and want to use it immediately. I know I did ! Unfortunately I paid scant regard to the light and fired away willy nilly. Needless to say I did not get the best results.
Was rather proud of just one shot which I had taken at 1/120sec in bad light with my 400mm lens. To this day I don`t know how I managed it. Came out alright though.
If nothing else the lens does need decent light, not necessarily sunny, possibly even overcast-ish but uniform light is essential.
I also have an IS lens and am finding it a bit of a struggle to be honest. At the moment I seem to have the IS turned off more often than not. Postcard Pete is correct in his assumption that the IS bit does take a bit of getting used to.

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

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Sontium Dweller

Attachments

Sontium Dweller

Well-known member

Attachments

Occasional bird snapper

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Occasional bird snapper

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Occasional bird snapper

Well-known member

Eastern Exile

Sontium Dweller

Sontium Dweller

Sontium Dweller

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread