• 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)

Epsomsalt

Epsomsalt

Well-known member
My camera is a canon EOS 400D and I have previously mainly been focused (no pun intended) on Landscape - Portrait photography. I have an Ef-S 10-22 which is superb for the Landscape work a standard zoom canon 28-105mm (which I hope to upgrade soon) and a canon 70-200 F2.8 non IS which is great for portraits.

I desperately want to take some good looking pictures of British Birds, particularly Finches. I have read numerous threads on this site and it appears to me that I need a minimum of 400mm to achieve this, and then maybe a TC, to get good results. My question (eventually) is which would you recommend as the best course:

a) sell the 70-200F2.8 zoom and get the 100-400L IS which could also be used for my portrait work... or
b) keep the 70-200 F2.8 (cracking lens) and save up a bit longer and get the 400mm prime.

All comments welcome.
Thanks,:t:
Chris
 
Your question is one which is often asked. I own a 100-400 zoom and whilst I have taken portraits with it I would not describe it as a portrait lens. It is however a very good general purpose walkabout lens having the benefit of IS for lower light shots and more keepers when hand-held. It is sharp and is the one lens I would not be without.

The 400 prime is razor sharp and is a great flight shot lens. The focus is quick and is said to exceed the zoom. From the few times I have tried it out I cannot in all honesty say that I have noticed any difference. The lens is of course lighter so you can probably overcome the inertia quicker to get onto a bird. However, I keep in mind you mainly want to do finches. You will probably use a hide I guess in which case you may benefit from the the shorter minimum focus distance of the 100-400 zoom. I might add that there will be times when you do not need all the 400mm and again the zoom will present you with more opportunities. Others may advise using 300f4.0 + 1.4X converter. In the end only you can make the decision. Any set up will give good results, it just depends entirely on your circumstances.

Please also consider that some of the best bird pics are not always close ups (IMHO)...doing those well takes time and skill. A good eye for a shot and putting a bird in landscape can bring about excellent results.

I would be very reluctant to give up 70-200 zoom. About £70 on a portable hide and a converter might be all you need....it just depends on your circumstances and where you are going to shoot.
 
If your 70-200 f2.8 is Image stabilized (if you preferIS) try it with a 2X EF and see the result of this 140-400 f5.6 before decided to sell it out!
 
The 100-400 vs 400 f5.6 debate comes up on here regularly and people have very different opinions about which is best. The 100-400 has the advantages of IS, closer minimum focusing distance and the versatility of a zoom. The 400 f5.6 is lighter, handles better (in my opinion) and is faster focusing. I've owned both over the last two years but only have the 400 f5.6 now, for me it's the best walkabout wildlife lens available, also an outstanding lens for flight shots. In your situation I'd say keep the 70-200 f2.8 (it's a great lens) and get a 400 f5.6.
 
Hi Chris,

With the lenses that you have I'd suggest keeping the 70-200 and finding the funds for a 400 f5.6 for the following reasons.

with a 400d a few of us have had problems using a 1.4x with the 100-400. It makes the IS very unstable, on some cameras - not all! The 400 f5.6 has no IS and should work fine with a taped 1.4x.

The 400mm has a great reputation and is light enough not to need IS. If I hadn't got a 500mm I'd have bought one by now!

The 70-200 should work well with the 1.4x and will give you a 280mm f4 . My previous 70-200 worked well with a 1.4x but was soft with a 2x.

I'm also using a 100-400, with other lenses, for lifestyle portraiture but its not ideal. I'll be getting a 70-200 again ASAP.

I'm not knocking the 100-400, I like mine a lot, but I think the 400 f5.6 will fit your line up better.

In line with other threads there is one other lens, recently announced, that may be worth considering but only if you're interested Chris.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for your comments, I think I will keep the 70-200 - it is a great lens and I am loath to part with it. I will buy a 1.4X converter now and save up for the 400 prime.... When is Christmas?
Cheers
Chris
 
Would a 2x TC work on the 70-200mm lens, to provide similar performance to the 100-400mm, if you wanted the flexibility of a zoom? Or does it mess up the AF speed, like most TCs do?

Just a thought.
 
I think a 2x converter would work on the 70-200 F2.8 and as it would effectively be a F5.6 with the converter it should also retain AF. From what I have read though there would be much more deterioration in IQ with the 2x compared to the 1.4x - is this true?

Can anyone who has used / used the 70-200 with a 2x comment on IQ please?

Thanks,
Chris
 
No opinion re 100-400 vs 400/5.6 (I own a 100-400 but respect the praise that 400/5.6 owners give the prime), but one firm word of advice: don't sell the 70-200!
 
Epsomsalt said:
I think a 2x converter would work on the 70-200 F2.8 and as it would effectively be a F5.6 with the converter it should also retain AF. From what I have read though there would be much more deterioration in IQ with the 2x compared to the 1.4x - is this true?

Can anyone who has used / used the 70-200 with a 2x comment on IQ please?

Thanks,
Chris
Click to expand...

not very good IQ - best if its the only way to get a record shot.
Rob.
 
Epsomsalt said:
I think a 2x converter would work on the 70-200 F2.8 and as it would effectively be a F5.6 with the converter it should also retain AF. From what I have read though there would be much more deterioration in IQ with the 2x compared to the 1.4x - is this true?

Can anyone who has used / used the 70-200 with a 2x comment on IQ please?

Thanks,
Chris
Click to expand...

Yes, I used a 70-200 (2.8 IS) with a 2x extender and it was no good. Images not sharp, quite disappointing.

I now use the 400/5.6 prime with much better results. Works also well with the 1.4 extender (taped) though AF may be a bit slow. On a 20d.

I just got a 40d and people say that the extender tape trick will not work anymore because AF works in a different way. Same people say also that it matters less because you can crop more. I cannot judge this myself yet. Just FYI.

Louis
 
Where would the Canon 300mm f/4 lens fit in this discussion (or should I start another thread?).

I am in the very early stages of looking at DSLR options, and some people have recommended the 100-400 IS zoom and the while others urge the 300 f/4.

Any thoughts?

Mícheál
 
Mícheál said:
Where would the Canon 300mm f/4 lens fit in this discussion (or should I start another thread?).

I am in the very early stages of looking at DSLR options, and some people have recommended the 100-400 IS zoom and the while others urge the 300 f/4.
Click to expand...

It falls right in the middle, the three similarly priced options are the 100-400, the 400 f5.6 and the 300 f4. All are good, all have pros and cons. The best bet is to try them out and see which suits you. If you dig about in the Canon section you'll find other threads comapring them.
 
Epsomsalt said:
Can anyone who has used / used the 70-200 with a 2x comment on IQ please?

Thanks,
Chris
Click to expand...

This shot was taken with the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS and 2X TC handheld.

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/data/527/Image11.jpg

The image quality isn't all that good and becomes more apparent as the image is enlarged. The 70-200mm is more usable with a 1.4X TC but the image needs stopping down a couple of stops before it equals the performance of the 100-400L wide open.

Another vote here though for keeping the 70-200, it's a cracking fast lens, Teleconverters are really best used behind a quality prime lens.
 
Last edited:
Don't sell the 70-200. I have the IS version and it's by far and away my favourite lens. I'd personally go with the 300 (2.8 if your budget will stretch that far - Sigma do a nice one) and a 1.4x TC.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
14K
colincurry
colincurry
B
Canon EF 400/f5.6 L USM + EOS 7D Mk II combo anyone???
Replies
2
Views
958
BoldenEagle
B
ermine
Canon EF USM L 100-400 Mk1 repair -
Replies
0
Views
774
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