Difference in lenses

[E.B. West]

Is there THAT much difference in the sharpness of the 400 5.6 L and the 100-400 5.6 L at 400mm?

[Jonathan]

popcorn;

[Kevin]

E.B., I haven't done a direct comparison but generally speaking, the prime will typically be sharper than the zoom. From what I've read, most people with the 100-400 claim it's soft at the 400 end. But who knows what that really means.

Here's a link you might be interested in: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/teletest

Jonathan, you're funny! ;)

[Rudi]

Is there THAT much difference in the sharpness of the 400 5.6 L and the 100-400 5.6 L at 400mm?

Not really. I have the 100-400L and a friend of mine has the 400/5.6. My 100-400L is sharp right through the range. When viewing photos side-by-side at 100% in Photoshop, you will see a slight resolution advantage to the 400/5.6. I don't think I would notice if not viewed side-by-side. I also know that I would lose that advantage when hand-holding the 400/5.6 prime, because of the lack of IS.

I bought the 100-400L because I wanted to shoot the local water birds and wildlife, mostly hand-held. That is why I chose it. I like the additional versatility of the zoom, and use it for daytime sports as well, as well as some landscape, etc. If you are sure you will be happy to shoot on a tripod most of the time, and are happy to be "stuck" (bad choice of words, I know) at 400mm, the 400/5.6 might be the one for you.

HTH :)

[gluwater]

Not really. I have the 100-400L and a friend of mine has the 400/5.6. My 100-400L is sharp right through the range. When viewing photos side-by-side at 100% in Photoshop, you will see a slight resolution advantage to the 400/5.6. I don't think I would notice if not viewed side-by-side. I also know that I would lose that advantage when hand-holding the 400/5.6 prime, because of the lack of IS.

I bought the 100-400L because I wanted to shoot the local water birds and wildlife, mostly hand-held. That is why I chose it. I like the additional versatility of the zoom, and use it for daytime sports as well, as well as some landscape, etc. If you are sure you will be happy to shoot on a tripod most of the time, and are happy to be "stuck" (bad choice of words, I know) at 400mm, the 400/5.6 might be the one for you.

HTH :)
Were those shots you compared with the 400 and 100-400 both shot wide open? My 400 f/5.6 is really sharp wide open and usually the only time I stop it down is with a TC on it or because I need the extra DOF.

[imageswest]

One thing to consider is that there is a lot of sample variation among the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L lenses. I've owned a few that couldn't begin to resolve an image at the 400mm setting, and others that were quite good. However, even if you have a good copy of the 100-400, the 400mm f5.6L prime will deliver better performance, especially if you are shooting at f5.6

[Rudi]

Were those shots you compared with the 400 and 100-400 both shot wide open? My 400 f/5.6 is really sharp wide open and usually the only time I stop it down is with a TC on it or because I need the extra DOF.

Yeah. I shoot my 100-400L wide open most of the time. Mine is a fairly new sample though, bought it nearly a year ago now, but much later than some who reported having problems with theirs (some of those were several years old).

To be fair, almost every time someone complained online about their 100-400L being soft, after they posted their samples, it became apparent that their focusing and/or long lens technique were to blame rather than the lens. Of course, there are some lenses that will be below par (with any lens, whatever the focal length), but I think that the 100-400L is greatly underrated. (Assuming they are all like mine).

[Peter]

I have a 400/5.6 and can say it has a unbelievable fast AF especially flight shots. Pictures are usually tack sharp. Won't part with mine.:D :D

[Peter]

Here is a shot of a Kestrel 400/5.6 lens @http://www.pbase.com/decor/image/64409005/original.jpg 1/500 sec. f10 :D

[Kevin]

Yowch! I think I cut my eyeball!

[gluwater]

Was it sitting on your lap? :eek:

[Peter]

Was it sitting on your lap? :eek:

Of course you already know that a 400 prime can't focus that close:D :D

[E.B. West]

Well, I'm still a month or so away from getting one but I'm leaning towards the 100-400 for it's versatility and the IS. I'd like to find a camera store to compare the 2 but, for now, I'm near Gainesville, FL and there aren't any good stores that I've found.

[Roger]

A few links.

Reviews on the 400mm prime.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=42&sort=4&cat=2&page=1
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_400_56/index.htm
http://lensplay.com/lenses/lens_data.php?lensID=31

Reviews on the 100-400 zoom.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=19&sort=7&cat=27&page=1
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm
http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/100-400.html
http://lensplay.com/lenses/lens_data.php?lensID=65

Hope that helps.

[mdephoto]

Well, I'm still a month or so away from getting one but I'm leaning towards the 100-400 for it's versatility and the IS. I'd like to find a camera store to compare the 2 but, for now, I'm near Gainesville, FL and there aren't any good stores that I've found.

E.B., I think you would have to define a pretty structured test to determine which one was best and it would really depend on the type of shooting you do. Right now I own both of them and they each have their own strengths -- if you are looking for versatility and IS then obviously the 100-400 wins, if you are looking for a super quick focus acquisition then (at least to me) the 400 5.6 wins (and if you are shooting BIF then that matters -- for scenics, not so much). In terms of quality and sharpness I have excellent images from both -- and I have garbage from both also :(

And, in the interest of complete honesty here -- I must own up to the fact that I am seriously considering replacing my 400 5.6 as I find that I really need IS for my handheld BIF shots anymore as I am just not as steady as I once was for any reasonable shutter speed (and am looking at a 300 2.8 IS and am going to need every $ to help make this one work). Thus I will keep my 100-400 due to is aforementioned versatility and then I will also probably spend many nights crying over the loss of a very excellent piece of work in the 400 5.6 :crying: Darn, I want to be rich!!!

[E.B. West]

Being rich! That's the answer. OK, I'll be back when I get there:)

Thanks for all the input and the links. When I get rich, I'll let you know what I get.

[MichiganMan]

I don't have either one, and probably never will. But one site that I like to read every now and then, doesn't say one way or the other, but seems like he wants to lean towards the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM Lens with 1.4 extender...?

He says the 400 is great, as is the 100-400, but if you have the 70-200 (especially in IS form), then the 100-400 loses some of its versatility. The 300 has a smaller aperture than the 400, and has IS.

In the end, I think the image quality is there, you just arent' gonna see it unless you're a techno pixel peeper, so it boils down to more like prime vs zoom. A 300 f/4L IS with extender would be more welcome to me than a 400 f/5.6L however. Your mileage may vary....

Here is the review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Here is the home page of reviews:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/