-
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.
Which one - Canon Prime 400mm F5.6 or canon 100 - 400 IS L (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Epsomsalt
- Start date
GYRob
Well-known member
THEY can be difficult regardless of the gear you have but that combo can get BIF shots fine i think a prime such as the 400f5.6 will get more keepers as the af is faster .
Rob.
websurfer
Well-known member
a.dancy
Registered User
The 100-400 is just fine for birds in flight. As far as I am concerned it will latch/focus onto a bird quickly enough. As with any long lens I imagine the factor which determines capture is your ability to sight the bird in the lens and track it. For me speed of focus is just not an issue. If the bird is pale and the sky is pale too and the bird is a dot in a landscape you may have problems as you would with any lens.
IanF
Moderator
I've both lenses. For birds in flight I prefer the 400mm f5,6 as it's lighter weight, narrower and more comfortable to hold and I find the autofocus noticably faster to pick up a small moving bird like a Swift or Swallow.
For larger and more distant birds such as Herons, Gannets and Fulmars the 100-400mm is as easy to use as the lens and you have more time to react.
For larger and more distant birds such as Herons, Gannets and Fulmars the 100-400mm is as easy to use as the lens and you have more time to react.
paul goode
Well-known member
"I just got my 100-400" says it all really. :-C
I'm sure that there are better lenses for flight shots but the zoom is perfectly capable of taking images which should satisfy most people, if they spend a little bit of time learning to use the lens. Can't vouch for a 40D but I've used it for loads of flight shots with a 20D & 1D mkIII and been quite happy with the results and I can't see why a 40D would be any different.
websurfer
Well-known member
Because some persons have experienced this body to behave strange with at TC on and have had focus problemes. Then mayby the 40D could also behave strangely when we are talking BIF shots, as one of the persons in this thread simply gave up to have this combo (40D and EF 100-400) work for BIF shots. I just wanted to find out by asking experienced people in here.
Last edited:
paul goode
Well-known member
Sorry, I didn't notice the mention of a tc in this post.
The problems with tc's and 40D are very well documented with 100-400 and 400 f5.6 lenses. At the end of the day the 40D isn't designed to AF with a f5.6 lens and tc. Using taped pins and non-reporting tcs are all ways to try to get around what Canon designed.
There have been posts of people having AF issues but everyone I know with the camera has got on fine with it after getting used to an AF system which works somewhat differently to a 20/30D, or in a couple of instances the camera had a manufacturing fault which was sorted by exchanging the camera.
Last edited:
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Websurfer...
There is no problem whatsoever with the 40D and 100-400mm for BIFs - plenty of examples have been posted on here.
But I notice you're doing your selective reading thing again, and only "seeing" the negative comments..!
It is well documented that the AF in the 40D is less "forgiving" than say, the 30D's: but that just means the photographer has to work a bit harder until they're used to the 40D.
Once you get there though, the 40D is better than the 30D, with the 100-400mm on it - I find myself taking more BIF shots now than I ever did when the 30D was my primary camera.
It's not the 40D's fault that among its owners are lazy photographers who want an easy fix and who aren't prepared to do their part to get the best out of it.
The FredMiranda pelicans indicate either a faulty camera (it happens); or bad technique.
I'm sure its the latter. Photographing pelicans in flight should be easy - it's a big, pretty slow bird - but those shots were taken with a shutter speed of 1/400.
It is absolutely basic to use a shutter speed higher than 1/400 for flight shots with a 400mm lens.
I'm no BIF guy, and yet...
The eider was just a "grab shot" that I had - literally - a second to take: the bird was a long way off, and travelling at about 40mph against a "busy" background.
I doubt any other camera/400mm lens combo would have have achieved noticeably better results in the circumstances.
Is it a perfect BIF combo? Nope. But it does a very good job anyway.
There is no problem whatsoever with the 40D and 100-400mm for BIFs - plenty of examples have been posted on here.
But I notice you're doing your selective reading thing again, and only "seeing" the negative comments..!
It is well documented that the AF in the 40D is less "forgiving" than say, the 30D's: but that just means the photographer has to work a bit harder until they're used to the 40D.
Once you get there though, the 40D is better than the 30D, with the 100-400mm on it - I find myself taking more BIF shots now than I ever did when the 30D was my primary camera.
It's not the 40D's fault that among its owners are lazy photographers who want an easy fix and who aren't prepared to do their part to get the best out of it.
The FredMiranda pelicans indicate either a faulty camera (it happens); or bad technique.
I'm sure its the latter. Photographing pelicans in flight should be easy - it's a big, pretty slow bird - but those shots were taken with a shutter speed of 1/400.
It is absolutely basic to use a shutter speed higher than 1/400 for flight shots with a 400mm lens.
I'm no BIF guy, and yet...
The eider was just a "grab shot" that I had - literally - a second to take: the bird was a long way off, and travelling at about 40mph against a "busy" background.
I doubt any other camera/400mm lens combo would have have achieved noticeably better results in the circumstances.
Is it a perfect BIF combo? Nope. But it does a very good job anyway.
Attachments
Last edited:
websurfer
Well-known member
There is no problem whatsoever with the 40D and 100-400mm for BIFs - plenty of examples have been posted on here.
But I notice you're doing your selective reading thing again, and only "seeing" the negative comments..!
Before buying a lens - I am always doing "my homework" very carefully. I try to find out everything mentioned about a lens. Finally I am trying the lenses, if I have this posibility, and then I make my decision.
Naturally critical user experiences have to be examined, because for me, it´s a lot of money, when you have house, wife and kids, I would blame myselft if the lens would not live up to my expectations after so long time of consideration. So I am taking my time, doing it my way, but on the other hand, I have therefore always been aware of what to expect, no regrets, no surprises, I always know what I am getting.
The reason why I find it especially difficult to buy a wildlife lens, which meets my needs, is due to the fact, that it doesn´t exist.
To be honest, I would really like to se an upgrade of the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L with IS or an upgrade of the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. But if nothing happens in the near future, I think, I´ll have to make a decision.
If you find my asking in this forum in order to get help among experinced users really annoying, especially when I focus on some few negative aspects of the EF 100-400, then it certainly is your problem, not mine. You don´t have to answer my questions.
Last edited:
666taz
Phill Wain
I have a 100-400mm and am very pleased with it i can take BIFs and also ive taken dragonfly's in flight and thats with a 20D.My Friend has a 400mm 5.6 i have to say it is slightly sharper than mine but not that much,also colour has slightly better contrast,he has a couple of issues with it because of the long minimum focus,and if a big bird gets too close and your in a hide you can't go back wards to get in frame if a small bird comes close it just wont focus close enough.He has a non reporting 1.4 converter he uses on his lenses but it wont work with the 400mm with his 40D but it works with his 20D and other lenses but not the 400mm he has.His converter works with my 100-400mm on my 20D and doesn't give to bad results,i have a 2x converter but it gives terrible results on the 100-400mm.I looked at both lenses before deciding on the 100-400mm as it gives me more options and its sharp.I find IS is a problem with some people as they forget it takes a fraction of a second for it to stabilize before you shoot and some people tend to shoot straight off so get bad results then blame the lens.When i got this lens i have got to say i tried to push it too hard by trying to use really slow shutter speeds that it just cannot do unless you are really steady to start with.I find the biggest boon with this lens is i can use it for closeups on dragonfly's and other large insects because of its low minimum focus.I don't usually get involved with the 100-400mm v 400mm argument as both lenses are great in their own right for different jobs.My recommendation would be go try them both and see which you find you are most comfortable with.Hope you find this of help and not too long-winded
Vectis Birder
Itchy feet
Sorry to disturb this thread from its nice rest, but I thought it better than starting a new one!
I am after a good long lens for use with my Canon 20D I bought second hand last week and I'm torn between the 100-400 and the 400mm f/5.6. Maybe I will be better sticking with the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM zoom I bought along with the camera and buying a 400? I want the lens purely for birding.
I am after a good long lens for use with my Canon 20D I bought second hand last week and I'm torn between the 100-400 and the 400mm f/5.6. Maybe I will be better sticking with the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM zoom I bought along with the camera and buying a 400? I want the lens purely for birding.
Last edited:
vkalia
Robin stroker
With birds, you'll be shooting both lenses at 400mm most of the time.
If you want birds in flight and will be shooting in enough light, the 400/5.6 is more useful, mainly because of its faster AF. The 100-400 does let you get away with handholding in lower light.
The 400/5.6 is a little bit sharper but that shouldnt be a priority - the above should.
Vandit
If you want birds in flight and will be shooting in enough light, the 400/5.6 is more useful, mainly because of its faster AF. The 100-400 does let you get away with handholding in lower light.
The 400/5.6 is a little bit sharper but that shouldnt be a priority - the above should.
Vandit
IanF
Moderator
I own both lenses and I still say the 400mm f5,6 is better choice if you're after a lens mainly to be used for bird photos. Lighter weight, narrower body, faster AF and sharper when used wide open all of which are useful for bird photos espeically for birds in flight.
Having said that I love the 100-400mm as well. It takes just as sharp photos and the zoom range is really useful as is the IS. It can be used for birds in flight as well but the prime is easier to use.
In your circumstances already having the 100-300 which covers the shorter range and you want a lens for birding then to me the 400mm f5,6 is the obvious choice.
Having said that I love the 100-400mm as well. It takes just as sharp photos and the zoom range is really useful as is the IS. It can be used for birds in flight as well but the prime is easier to use.
In your circumstances already having the 100-300 which covers the shorter range and you want a lens for birding then to me the 400mm f5,6 is the obvious choice.
kevindurose
Well-known member
The majority of people I have spoken too who have used both reakon the 400 5.6 is far sharper. Check this link out for evidence and serious consideration for stopping down and upping your ISO especially if you have the zoom:
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/39166442
kev
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/39166442
kev
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Kevin,
Romy Ocon is one of the best bird photographers in the world, and one who will happily tell you that his 100-400mm is as sharp as his 400mm prime...
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/100_400is
Romy Ocon is one of the best bird photographers in the world, and one who will happily tell you that his 100-400mm is as sharp as his 400mm prime...
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/100_400is
To which I'll add that these days (based on the general level of satisfaction that owners of the the zoom now seem to indicate, and my own experience) that you're much more likely to get a good 'un than a bad 'un if you buy a new lens...Romy said:
kevindurose
Well-known member
Romy's next paragraph is:
I'm very impressed with the performance of my new 100-400, even with a 1.4x TC (560 mm, wide open). I guess I'm falling in love with this lens again. This gallery contains test shots from the super-zoom. Contrary to my initial belief (and common internet forum wisdom), the 100-400 L IS can be very sharp at 400 mm wide open if one is lucky to get a rare, excellent copy.
Kev
I'm very impressed with the performance of my new 100-400, even with a 1.4x TC (560 mm, wide open). I guess I'm falling in love with this lens again. This gallery contains test shots from the super-zoom. Contrary to my initial belief (and common internet forum wisdom), the 100-400 L IS can be very sharp at 400 mm wide open if one is lucky to get a rare, excellent copy.
Kev
Nikon Kid
Love them Sula Bassana
Its your fault IanF I went out and bought the 400 f5.6 it came to-day.
Its much heavier than my 70-300, I took the mount off thats made it tad lighter.
Out next week to test it and me on Brempton Cliffs, I pray for good light.
I am impressed with how quiet it is in AF, I know I am a silly boy I have some
Kenko 1.4 converter on its way, I wont use them yet till I have got a lot of practice in.
BTW, 450d + 400mm f5.6 or 40d + 400mm f5.6 just for sharpness any difference
If they upgraded the 40d that would be the 50d ? maybe I would trade in.
Its much heavier than my 70-300, I took the mount off thats made it tad lighter.
Out next week to test it and me on Brempton Cliffs, I pray for good light.
I am impressed with how quiet it is in AF, I know I am a silly boy I have some
Kenko 1.4 converter on its way, I wont use them yet till I have got a lot of practice in.
BTW, 450d + 400mm f5.6 or 40d + 400mm f5.6 just for sharpness any difference
If they upgraded the 40d that would be the 50d ? maybe I would trade in.
Ian Latham
Well-known member
If you were out birding and had both lenses to hand......and were suddenly faced with a snarling, rabid Rottweiler that was obviously going to tear you limb from limb! :eek!:.....which lens would you pick up to fight it with?? The 400mm 5.6 will just tickle it and annoy it further! :C......but the 100-400mm will knock the blighters head off, and then take some GREAT pictures of birds afterwards :t:.
This, and all the other relevant and good advice given on this thread, should certainly help to aid the choice of lens pertaining to the original enquiry by Websurfer. :king:
This, and all the other relevant and good advice given on this thread, should certainly help to aid the choice of lens pertaining to the original enquiry by Websurfer. :king:
Vectis Birder
Itchy feet
Thanks everyone. I think that I'll be going for the 400mm. I wasn't going to get one for a while but as I have had to take out a bank loan for something totally unrelated and will have some spare I'll be getting one in the next couple of weeks, hopefully.
Ian, I'd be more worried about chavs and allied halfwits and I guess a 400mm might see them off, if not the Rottweiler!
Cheers
Ian, I'd be more worried about chavs and allied halfwits and I guess a 400mm might see them off, if not the Rottweiler!
Cheers
Last edited:
