-
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.
Canon camera and lens (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter S Crisp
- Start date
Just one person in this thread has suggested that there just maybe something other than the 100-400 to considered and all the fanboys are up in arms -Wow betide anyone who would even suggest that there maybe be alternatives to the perfect 100-400. I just cannot work out why a lot of 100-400 users seems to have an inferiority complex about their lens - after all it is very capable of producing nice images.
As for posting a few images to prove how good a lens is, that does not really wash with me I am afraid. I could post some shots taken with the 400/5.6 + stacked 1.4 and 2x tc's (1120mm) that are quite tidy but I would not like to give the impression that it is a usable everyday combination when it clearly is not.
Just one final though from me - if I had £1 for every post I have seen on the web where a 100-400 user claims that his copy is soft at the long end, then I would be well on the way to getting my 800/5.6 LOL. To be fair if I had a pound for all those that claim the 400/5.6 is soft I would probably be able to get a 2 GB memory card :-O
Is the one person who suggested another lens Marcus, John or Dave as all suggested other options before you'd posted?
I guess the fanboy dig is aimed at me as much as anyone else as I've suggested that the 100-400 is the best walkabout option? I guess I can live with the title as I am a fan of the lens, but not just because it's what I use. I have been through the three options (100-400, 400 f5.6 and 300 f4) and after spending time using them in the field I have concluded that the zoom is the best lens for me. Does your recommendation of the 400 prime come from similar testing? I didn't find any situation where the prime could deliver images that the zoom would miss, the same cannot be said the other way around.
I agree that web images mean little or nothing when trying to assess the relative merits of lenses or cameras. I've done large prints of images taken with both the 400 f5.6 and the 100-400 and both come up great.
As for the soft copy theory, I think a lot of people see issues that simply are not there. New users often see IS as being infalable and assume that they can shot an dany shutter speed and be fine, users of the prime are more likely to use decent support and keep the shutter speeds up.
666taz
Phill Wain
I love my 100-400mm but the 400mm 5.6 is slightly sharper and lighter a beautiful lens,I like my 100-400mm as i like the short focus distance as it helps me get insects easier.Another lens a freind of mine has is the Tamron 200-500mm it gives him very good pics not as good as the 400mm 5.6 but maybe as good as the 100-400mm when stopped down to f8 soits horses for courses .
Paul Jarvis
Registered Member
Well I shoot the 300F4 which has great min focus distance, able to add a TC with not much loss in IQ and have been able to take pics of barn owls in low light that my brother could not with his zoom. So its personal preference, only the user can decide what will be best for their situation.
sugarzebra
Active member
I'm new around here so probably haven't earned the right to comment however I've enjoyed this thread too much not too I use the 400/5.6 and chose it over the 100-400 because of its faster AF speed, lighter weight and sharpness wide open. That said, I have other glass to cover 100-399mm range and for most bird photography image stabilization is not that important due to the higher shutter speeds required. As you are purchasing your first DSLR gear, my recommendation would be to get the 100-400 as being your only lens the versatility it provides is invaluable (if possible, buy a body with a kit lens as well). I would also start with the 7D as the tracking ability of the AF is better and for birds anything that improves your keeper rate is worth investing in, plus its 'cropability' is better than the 40/50D which is also significant for bird photography.
Enjoy your research, but pull the trigger & enjoy using your new gear even more
I use the 400/5.6 and chose it over the 100-400 because of its faster AF speed, lighter weight and sharpness wide open. That said, I have other glass to cover 100-399mm range and for most bird photography image stabilization is not that important due to the higher shutter speeds required. As you are purchasing your first DSLR gear, my recommendation would be to get the 100-400 as being your only lens the versatility it provides is invaluable (if possible, buy a body with a kit lens as well). I would also start with the 7D as the tracking ability of the AF is better and for birds anything that improves your keeper rate is worth investing in, plus its 'cropability' is better than the 40/50D which is also significant for bird photography.Enjoy your research, but pull the trigger & enjoy using your new gear even more
jameslj
Well-known member
It's hard to go wrong with the 100-400. The image quality is very high. The main limitation in getting quality shots is usually me. But, if I shoot in attractive light, get close enough so I don't have to crop severely, and get my setup reasonably stabilized, I'm usually thrilled with the results.
The IS is really valuable, a lot of my favourite shots are slower than 1/400. I try as much as possible to shoot off a tripod. But despite my best efforts, probably about half of my shots end up being handheld. Although the manual says to turn IS off when using a tripod, I usually leave it on unless the tripod setup is rock solid.
I sometimes think the 400mm f/5.6 prime is a good choice for photographers that already have a fair amount of experience or have consistent opportunities to get stabilized well.
The 40D/50D/7D are all quality cameras. The 7D is the best of those, though. So if it's in your budget, I'd get that one.
The IS is really valuable, a lot of my favourite shots are slower than 1/400. I try as much as possible to shoot off a tripod. But despite my best efforts, probably about half of my shots end up being handheld. Although the manual says to turn IS off when using a tripod, I usually leave it on unless the tripod setup is rock solid.
I sometimes think the 400mm f/5.6 prime is a good choice for photographers that already have a fair amount of experience or have consistent opportunities to get stabilized well.
The 40D/50D/7D are all quality cameras. The 7D is the best of those, though. So if it's in your budget, I'd get that one.
mtyoung400
Stealing food from your picnic!!
Just one person in this thread has suggested that there just maybe something other than the 100-400 to considered and all the fanboys are up in arms -Wow betide anyone who would even suggest that there maybe be alternatives to the perfect 100-400
As for posting a few images to prove how good a lens is, that does not really wash with me I am afraid. I could post some shots taken with the 400/5.6 + stacked 1.4 and 2x tc's (1120mm) that are quite tidy but I would not like to give the impression that it is a usable everyday combination when it clearly is not.
Just one final though from me - if I had £1 for every post I have seen on the web where a 100-400 user claims that his copy is soft at the long end, then I would be well on the way to getting my 800/5.6 LOL. To be fair if I had a pound for all those that claim the 400/5.6 is soft I would probably be able to get a 2 GB memory card :-O
G'day everyone,
I'm currently looking at purchasing either a 100-400mm f4.5 L IS, or a 300mm L IS f4.5. At the moment I'm leaning towards the 100-400mm as I;ve heard a lot of good stuff about this lense, as well as seeing what other people's photo's are like with it.
Something that Roy posted is a very relevenent comment, and one I'm trying to find out more info on; Does the 100-400 produce softer images when opened right up?
My current 70-300mm does this and it's one issue I dont want to have in a new lense. If it does then getting the sharper 300mm would be better. The addition of a 1.4tc would make it a f4.5 lense with 420mm reach, but would that produce a sharper image than the 100-400mm opened wide up?
a.dancy
Registered User
mtyoung400. Would I be correct in assuming that you will often have good light?
Please go back to my post and read it. I own a 100-400 and use it because I like the versatility of it. It is with respect utter nonesense to make sharpness the main criteria for deciding which lens to buy. Different folk are very happy with what they have. Some love the 400 prime....and so they should. Others love the 300 with the option of a converter allowing extra speed at 300 and extra reach when a converter is added. Others like myself love the 100-400 because of the versatility. I also have a Sigma 300f2.8 which is extremely 'sharp'. If the 100-400 was that inferior I would never take it out , but I carry it with me every day.
To answer your question honestly, the 100-400 does drop in IQ ever so slightly wide open but it can still produce a lot of detail and sufficient enough for publication. I will shoot at f5.6 and not give a moments thought about it.
The reason I posed the question at the beginning was that if you are often blessed with good light you would be shooting at around f8 anyway which is the point at which sharpness or rather 'detail' optimises with this lens. The terms sharpness and detail are sadly often confused. You can sharpen in photoshop but you cannot add detail.
The lens you should get is the one that would best suit you, your subjects (size and distance etc) , your light, your environment and your style. Everything else is just de minimis (not worth considering) in my humble opinion.
Please go back to my post and read it. I own a 100-400 and use it because I like the versatility of it. It is with respect utter nonesense to make sharpness the main criteria for deciding which lens to buy. Different folk are very happy with what they have. Some love the 400 prime....and so they should. Others love the 300 with the option of a converter allowing extra speed at 300 and extra reach when a converter is added. Others like myself love the 100-400 because of the versatility. I also have a Sigma 300f2.8 which is extremely 'sharp'. If the 100-400 was that inferior I would never take it out , but I carry it with me every day.
To answer your question honestly, the 100-400 does drop in IQ ever so slightly wide open but it can still produce a lot of detail and sufficient enough for publication. I will shoot at f5.6 and not give a moments thought about it.
The reason I posed the question at the beginning was that if you are often blessed with good light you would be shooting at around f8 anyway which is the point at which sharpness or rather 'detail' optimises with this lens. The terms sharpness and detail are sadly often confused. You can sharpen in photoshop but you cannot add detail.
The lens you should get is the one that would best suit you, your subjects (size and distance etc) , your light, your environment and your style. Everything else is just de minimis (not worth considering) in my humble opinion.
Nikon Kid
Love them Sula Bassana
Anyone who has a 400mm will say its the best lens, anyone who has the 100-400mm will say its the best lens, you don't hear many people doing down there own lens. Its all about how and what you want to use it for. 400mm best lens for BIF, 100-400mm best versatile lens a small compromise on sharpness, but you get the butterflies and insects easier. I don't think the big Sigma's come into the equation.
