[birdman000]

Hello,

A quick question I was wondering about...

What's the difference between a zoom lens and I believe they're called a Prime lens.

Canon has a 100mm-400mm Zoom lens and Prime 400mm lens. The zoom lens seems to be a little more expensive and has Image Stabilizer.

From reading other posts, it sounds like a person can use a 1.4x telephoto converter and still get good shots but not with the zoom lens.

So what is the real difference between the two lenses (besides IS).

Thanks (My girlfriend just bought a Canon XTI and I'm trying to help her out)

[IanF]

The prime lens is a fixed lens of 400mm.

The 100-400 mm zoom can be used at 100mm to 400mm and anywhere in between.

Because zoom lenses are more complex with more glass elements, usually they are a little softer focus than prime lenses so by adding a teleconverter you magnify this softness.

The 100-400mm is a very high quality zoom lens, one of the best money can buy, however it's not quite as sharp as the 400mm prime lens. The zoom is a little bulkier, heavier and the autofocus a tiny bit slower but minimum focus is a lot less and the zoom range makes it a more versatile lens.

It's swings and roundabouts between them depending on what you mainly want a lens for.

[Colin Key]

There's a bit more (actually a LOT more) to this in that Canon produce three 400 mm prime lenses: the 400mm f/5.6, the 400mm f/4 and the elite 400 mm f/2.8. The f/2.8 is the fastest of the bunch and costs around £5,250 which is more than six times the cost of the f/5.6.

Serious glass costs serious money and the f/2.8 (a very fast telephoto lens) is a superb lens which works with both 1.4x and 2.0x TC's.

The 100-400 zoom is a very popular and very good lens which will work reasonably well with a 1.4x TC, especially in good light. It would be a good choice with your girlfriend's XTi/400D and can be bought for about £1,000 if you look around.

Colin

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by Colin Key

There's a bit more (actually a LOT more) to this in that Canon produce three 400 mm prime lenses: the 400mm f/5.6, the 400mm f/4 and the elite 400 mm f/2.8. The f/2.8 is the fastest of the bunch and costs around £5,250 which is more than six times the cost of the f/5.6.

Serious glass costs serious money and the f/2.8 (a very fast telephoto lens) is a superb lens which works with both 1.4x and 2.0x TC's.

The 100-400 zoom is a very popular and very good lens which will work reasonably well with a 1.4x TC, especially in good light. It would be a good choice with your girlfriend's XTi/400D and can be bought for about £1,000 if you look around.

Colin

Colin, are you saying that the 400mm f5.6 is poor quality compared to the 100-400 zoom? ( clearly the 400mm f5.6 is not in the same league as the f2.8 but the same can be said of the 100-400).

[Malcolm Stewart]

Originally Posted by Roy C

Colin, are you saying that the 400mm f5.6 is poor quality compared to the 100-400 zoom? ( clearly the 400mm f5.6 is not in the same league as the f2.8 but the same can be said of the 100-400).

Most reports I've seen are that the EF 400 f5.6L is better than the zoom, but obviously limited to just one focal length. I've not used either. (The pair are frequently compared in the Canon SLR lens forum pages over at dpreview.com with lots of mouthwatering examples.)

[canonshooter4life]

and hopefully at this years PMA canon will reveal a canon 400 f5.6 L IS :)

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Malcolm,

where are these "most reports" that say the prime is better then the zoom?

(I know you're not "taking a position" here - but you raise an interesting point, hence this).

True, Daniella and Gene ("Hawkman") on DPR will shout anybody down who dares disagree with their opinion of the prime, but Art Morris knows a thing or two about image quality, and he has stopped using his prime in favour of the zoom, because its versatility gives him shots the prime can't, without any of the supposed IQ trade-off. He says:

Originally Posted by Art Morris

Confession #1: Though I still consider it the best lens in the world for photographing birds in flight (see FAQs on web site for details), I no longer carry my beloved "toy lens" - the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L - on my shoulder as my auxiliary intermediate telephoto.

It has been replaced by the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L Image Stabilizer zoom lens. I have been using the 1-4 more and more every day and - contrary to some reports from other users - have been making razor sharp images at all focal lengths with wide open to moderately stopped down apertures.

In addition, I have it used it wide open, handheld with the 1.4X tele-converter with excellent results (with static subjects) at 560mm.

For bird photography, the versatility of this lens is unmatched; I find myself making images that I would never even have thought of before - especially of groups of birds in their surroundings.

And though it is heavier than the 400 f/5.6L, it is also a superb flight lens.

At Bosque Del Apache NWR late this fall, I used the 1-4 on a tripod before sunrise for "bird-scapes" and then again almost exclusively for the spectacular blast-offs.

I only wish that the zoom were a bit smoother.

I am even considering selling one of my 400 f/5.6s; I never ever thought that I'd say that when the 1-4 first came out.....

Both the zoom and prime can give excellent real world image quality, and "better" in the eye of the beholder anyway - as I'm sure you'd agree.

There are as many people who consider the zoom to be better than the prime, because possible, theoretical, maybe-there-maybe-not sharpness benefits attributed to the prime are trivial to non-existent in any test I've seen between the two (maybe the prime is better wide open, but there's bugger all in it), but the zoom with its IS and shorter focussing will do a lot more, and it's usually the user that makes the biggest difference.

A quick look in the gallery here will show up any number of pictures from the zoom which are sharper than pictures from the prime.

You'll see people explain this by saying "ah, but that's because the prime doesn't have IS" - which is as much of an admission as you need that the zoom, as a package, can indeed produce sharper images in real world situations than the prime can.

Of course, some people might have a sub-standard version of a given lens, but my own suspicion is that when you see iffy shots taken with the zoom, it's because users think that IS is a miracle cure and have therefore done nothing to develop a decent hand-holding technique, assuming that the lens will do all the hard work: it won't.

Users of the prime don't have any such expectations, and so probably try harder!

[canonshooter4life]

Well with any luck the canon will bring out a 400L at PMA with IS then the IS issue between the two lenses wont be the issue...

[Mandozilla]

When is PMA happening?
(I'm myself burning my head between the 100-400 or the 400/5.6 and that announcement would make me decide towards the prime)

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by Keith Reeder

A quick look in the gallery here will show up any number of pictures from the zoom which are sharper than pictures from the prime.

and vice versa. of course Keith. I have seen both good and bad shots from both lens but that does not prove a thing. Many bird shots are heavily cropped but you are hardly ever told this - a shot of a bird from 50 yards and then heavily cropped will never compare to a full frame shot from 15 yards.
The only people that are qualified to give a meaningful opinion are those that have both lenses and even they are divided.
I look upon bird photography as a challenge which is why I prefer a non IS lens

Cheers
Roy

[alexf]

I've used both and kept the 400mm 5.6 prime. For handheld use its lighter and easier to track birds, autofocus is slightly faster and its also sharper when used with 1.4x extender but you will lose auto focus unless the pins on the 1.4x are taped.

I also have 70-200 2.8 IS which I thought would enable me to use more (compared to 400mm) as its range is shorter, I don't, I cant leave the 400mm at home, its far too good. Look at all the reviews you can and you will find that the prime is always sharper, theres les glass so its obviouse. You don't need IS, its light enough and fast enough without it. Bear in mind that both lenses need decent light or the autofocus will hunt etc

[alexf]

I doubt canon will change either the 400 or 100-400 anytime soon, they are both selling very well for the price.

[alexf]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tten-400.shtml

this should help

[Malcolm Stewart]

Originally Posted by Keith Reeder

Hi Malcolm,

where are these "most reports" that say the prime is better then the zoom?

(I know you're not "taking a position" here - but you raise an interesting point, hence this).

Well, I was inviting people to do their own searches! And I do appreciate Art Morris's technique for many (most, probably) of his images. There's also some I would never dare publish.

When I checked my emails just before retiring early this morning, I found that some guy, Korean?, has listed a raft of expected new Canon lenses to be unveiled at PMA. Including an EF400 f4 IS L - no DO I assume, rumours, rumours...

[Colin Key]

Originally Posted by Roy C

Colin, are you saying that the 400mm f5.6 is poor quality compared to the 100-400 zoom? ( clearly the 400mm f5.6 is not in the same league as the f2.8 but the same can be said of the 100-400).

No, not at all Roy, I was just elaborating on IanF's reply to birdman000 which seemed to suggest that there was only one Canon 400 mm prime lens (I had, coincidently, just been looking at specs and prices of 400 mm lenses).

It sounded to me that the OP, who was posting on behalf of his girlfriend, would be best suited with the 100-400 zoom + 1.4x TC on an XTi.

I have no experience with any 400mm prime lens, YET!

Colin

[pe'rigin]

I agree with Keith on this, it's more to do with technique than the lens. If you can get close to the subject, then those zooms are very handy. I use both types, the large Nikon prime and smaller stabilised zoom lenses. The latter does give a flexibility that the prime cannot match. The weight of the prime can be a major handicap.
What I find is that I am more deliberate with prime, almost going back to the technique of using film, where you’re determined not to waste a single shot, because of the cost of film. Concentrating on exposure, ect.
What is important will be the cost implication, and it goes without saying that you will buy one sort and then find yourself in a situation, cursing the fact that you could do with more length.

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by pe'rigin

The weight of the prime can be a major handicap.

How come - The prime is lighter!

[Colin Key]

Originally Posted by Roy C

How come - The prime is lighter!

This is sort of where I came in - how can we just refer to "the" prime when there are three of them. The 400mm f/2.8 is almost four times as heavy as the 100-400 mm zoom.

Pedant, I know!!


Colin

[Adey Baker]

Originally Posted by Colin Key

This is sort of where I came in - how can we just refer to "the" prime when there are three of them. The 400mm f/2.8 is almost four times as heavy as the 100-400 mm zoom.

Pedant, I know!!


Colin

The clue is in the original post - 'zoom lens seems a little more expensive' and 'besides IS.' Birdman000 is obviously referring to the F5.6 version - I wish I had a pound for every time someone has pondered the dilemma of choosing between these two optics, then I could afford to go out and get the F2.8 model

[Colin Key]

Originally Posted by Adey Baker

The clue is in the original post - 'zoom lens seems a little more expensive' and 'besides IS.' Birdman000 is obviously referring to the F5.6 version - I wish I had a pound for every time someone has pondered the dilemma of choosing between these two optics, then I could afford to go out and get the F2.8 model

Have you see that Warehouse Express have just knocked £201 off the price of the 400 f/2.8 (now down to £4,998). Since I already have the 500mm f/4 I am even more tempted by the 300mm f/2.8 (now £2,999) to use as a "walk around" (or should that be "struggle") lens with a 1.4x and/or 20x TC.

Totally irrelevant, I know!!


Colin

[JohnZ]

I can`t contain myself any longer !
It is all there written down in the first sentence that Keith has quoted from Art Morris. "Though I still consider it the best lens in the world for photographing birds in flight" etc. He is talking about the Canon 400mm f5.6. If Art Morris thinks this then who am I to argue ?
Hello Alex how are you ? Long time no hear from you. Being nosey I had a quick look in your gallery and the shot of the Jay is very nice indeed. Still to get a half decent one myself.

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by Colin Key

This is sort of where I came in - how can we just refer to "the" prime when there are three of them. The 400mm f/2.8 is almost four times as heavy as the 100-400 mm zoom.

Pedant, I know!!


Colin

We are comparing the 400mm f5.6 with the 100-400 zoom. It is obvious that the original poster forgot to say f5.6 he is saying 'zoom lens seems a little more expensive and has IS'

[Adey Baker]

Originally Posted by Colin Key

Have you see that Warehouse Express have just knocked £201 off the price of the 400 f/2.8 (now down to £4,998). Since I already have the 500mm f/4 I am even more tempted by the 300mm f/2.8 (now £2,999) to use as a "walk around" (or should that be "struggle") lens with a 1.4x and/or 20x TC.

Totally irrelevant, I know!!


Colin

It's a general Canon price reduction on a few lenses - as well as the 300 and 400 F2.8 models, the 500mm F4 and the 400 F4 DO are reduced.

Not quite sure what that means - have they reduced production costs or are they clearing the shelves for more DO optics in which case they may have decided to do away with the 400mm F4.

There's all sorts of scenarios - to be honest (and I've made a similar comment on another thread somewhere), I don't think there's a big demand for the very largest lenses to be superceded by DO models just to make them more compact as they'll still have to quite sizeable lenses anyway. New buyers would be interested but with the reduction in price of, say, the 500mm F4 lens recently, what would be the trade-in price against a new DO model at about £5000+ for an existing owner - just to give you something you've already got anyway! There would have to be other new worthwhile features as well to make it viable.

[canonshooter4life]

Originally Posted by alexf

I doubt canon will change either the 400 or 100-400 anytime soon, they are both selling very well for the price.

Well considering it is the only Telephoto prime without IS I think it needs an upgrade...

[postcardcv]

Originally Posted by canonshooter4life

Well considering it is the only Telephoto prime without IS I think it needs an upgrade...

But I think that's one of the big advantages of it - it is a small, lightweight, relatively cheap L telephoto, this combination makes it very popular. Surely the addition of IS would significantly up both the weight and price.