• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Comparing Canon's 400mm f/5.6L to the 100-400 (1 Viewer)


Well-known member
I did not. Maybe that would help, but I didn't want to mess with a lens that was not mine. Also, playing with the focus manually didn't seem to change much. However, you may be on to something, because that prime did not seem too sharp!


Well-known member
Maybe a bad copy of the prime v a good copy of the zoom? I think the general consensus is that the prime is the sharper of the two lenses, and this is my own experience.


Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Take a look at this page from DPreview and scroll down to where they talk about microadjusting. I know it is a different model camera and lens, but it still shows how much micro adjusting might be needed with a Canon camera.

I do not have any canon products, but my impression was that the change in micro adjusting happens in the camera, not in the lens, so you should not be doing anything to the lens by doing it?



Well-known member
I see. I suppose it would have been a wise choice. Still, I couldn't get much (if any) better results from the few shots I took manual trying to focus the lens.


Super Moderator
Staff member
Very surprised by your test shots, I have shot a number of copies of each of those and have never seen a copy of the prime perform so badly... Don't suppose there was a filter on the prime was there? I also notice that in some of the tests the prime is giving a slower shutter speed than the zoom at the same aperture. Did something change between shooting the lenses?


Well-known member
No filters were used, and the lens hood was extended on the prime each shot. The timestamps on the Av mode shots were Prime at f/5.6 5:41:43, Zoom at f/5.6 5:37:38,
Prime at f/8.0 5:42:48, and Zoom at f/8.0 5:38:42. So the entire sequence was shot in less than 5 minutes, and I judged the lighting to be identical in each case. The tripod was not moved at all, and all were remote shuttered.

As far as microadjusting goes, it is possible that the prime was slightly front-focusing, but in reviewing all of my shots, it doesn't seem like it.

Weekend Birder

Well-known member
There's something not quite up to par with that 400mm prime.

I'd try them in good light at faster shutter speeds just to be sure there was no vibration from the shutter mechanism interfering with the results.

Incidentally, the Canon 600D does not have the microfocus adjustment facility.
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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.

Users who are viewing this thread