100-400mm IS or 400mm prime?

413x

413x

413x

Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
33,193
Location
Llaneirwg
looking to get my first long lens in march as im selling my spare car
(not S2!)

usually people say go on what you will use it for with

prime being sharper
No IS on the prime
Prime is about 200 cheaper!

uses will definitely be birds, both static and in flight..probably the reason i want it.

i dont really know what else i will use it for

my current lenses are

10-22mm UWA canon
50mm nifty 50
100mm Macro F2.8 L

so i have nothing between 100mm and infinity

now what makes me consider the 400mm prime is mainly
price and PQ. I dont like non sharp images when it isnt meant to be there..im too fussy for my ability (have some questions about some of my 10-22 shots)

the 100-400mm has IS and is obviously more multi purpose

im slightly towards the 100-400 due to the above but if i do only use it for birds the 100- range will not matter so much but the IS could be useful at 400mm
 
I would normally say prime all the way and when you want reach you normally need as much reach as you can get. I use a 300mm f/4.0 with a 1.4xTC basically glued on for birds, so 420mm and that feels just enough when conditions are good and you get very close. So if you plan to shoot mostly birds then you will be basically always at 400mm, the same goes for most wildlife really except for the really tame things.


IS is not a big deal most of the time for such a lens because you will want it on a decent tripod and 400mm is not quite long enough where you want IS switched on even when mounted on a tripod (and most lenses you have to have IS switched off when tripod mounted). Saying that, birds in flight are often best done hand held and obviously this makes IS more favorable except for the fact that since the bird is moving IS becomes pretty much useless because you still need to maintain a sufficiently fast shutter speed to remove motion.

The biggest benefit of IS when hand held on such a lens is the viewfinder gets stabilized, you wouldn't believe how hard it can be to accurately frame a distant bird through such a lens due to the narrow FoV.

So some other options just to onfuse you is the canon 300mm f/4 IS with 1.4*TC and for. Uh more money the sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 with TC.
 
I'd also pick the 400 prime over the 100-400 anyday. Prime is sharper and has better contrast than the zoom, plus doesn't suffer from dust anywhere near as bad as the big push/pull design of the 100-400. I'd recommend a good monopod with either of the lenses as they can be damn heavy to lug around a woodland or field looking for a nice shot and a monopod also would help stabilise your shot. The 400 prime is also very sharp wide open and even better stopped down, so if sharpness is your thing, I'd definitely go that way. I'm starting to value microcontrast in lenses more than sharpness personally, yet primes nearly always outperform zooms.
 
Thanks guys
The is is probably more of a thing than the extra range

I often use my 100mm macro lens hand held.. In fact nearly always.. And although I never really have IS Off on it in fairly sure it makes a difference. (I actually find it a very very nice lens to get sharp images from as opposed to my uwa 10-22)
The time IS would be beneficial is static bird shots. I'm thinking these will predominate the in flight shots at a guess

I hadnt considered the 300mm
Would that not be slower to AF worth a TC?

A monopod is absolutely a good idea. I am the sort to go and find shots which makes the tripod more impractical

Not having anything longer than 100mm this length is completely new to me

VCamera is 60D Btw

On a general note.. With a 5.6 lens and high shutter speed requirements.. Am I going to have mega issues with light levels? And this only being viable for flight on good light days?
 
Last edited:
For a static bird shot you should be on a tripod so IS is irrelevant. Yes it is a hassle but if you care about image quality then it is paramount. Furthermore, even static birds tend to move a fair bit necessitating a fast shutter speed (the exceptions are hinting birds that will lie motionless, everything else flutters about). IS is nice but not a deal breaker for this kind o work IMO, I would rather get a faster aperture or a better camera sensor.


The 300mm with a TC should focus as fast as the 100-400 which is quite an old lens.

As for aperture, yep it sucks to be at f/5.6 but there is not a huge amount yo can do. The next step up is the sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 so you can be at 420mm f/4.0 which really helps, but you are at several times the cost and weight! Otherwise dream about a 400mm f/2.8 (but realize you need it to be 600mm).
 
The other thing is both lenses are quite old and are likely to be updated soon so worth bearing in mind.
 
I had both lenses, the prime is definatly sharper and lighter, great for birds in flight, I sold the 100-400. I sometimes use the Canon 2x Extender III with the prime to get an 800mm F11 lens, sounds crap but I have had some decent results with that combo.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/colourjam/9600186670/

They are bound to be due for replacement soon, but will cost a bomb if the 200-400 is anything to go by.
 
Sounds like the prime gets the vote
And I didn't actually think about how twitchy birds are even static

I always seem to want to buy near refresh time
At what sort of shutter speed does IS Become irrelevant?

I've seen prime for 777 gbp new
The 300mm f4 is a similar price
 
Last edited:
go for an f/2.8 buy a 1.4 or 1.7 tc or a straight 400mm f/4, buy new or used from good dealer beware ebay scams where they put contact me @ blah blah for buy it now price ( basically ends up with em wanting a bank transfer and you getting sfa ) some guy keeps advertising nikon primes the same way.... allways has a camera for sale aswell.
 
Any 400mm prime will cost a ****** fortune, I used a 300mm F2.8 with a 1.4x on the front (about £5ks worth) and for birds I used a 600mm F4, (which nowadays is like £8ks worth rofl)


There is a 400mm F5.6 which is regarded by some as being the best lens for flight shots, but it's still £1k, doesn't have IS - and I think a 60D might struggle to drive it, in terms of focus.

In short, long-primes all cost thousands and thousands of pounds... if I was just getting started and wanted to do wildlife, I'd go with a 100-400, simply because of the cost, you could go with the 400 5.6, but it's a very old lens.


If money is no object and you want to seriously do birds and other wildlife, get a 500 F4.
 
The 100-400mm is an even older lens, so old it has a push-pull design so age of lens is not a factor here, both a long over due replacement.
 
D.P. said:
The 100-400mm is an even older lens, so old it has a push-pull design so age of lens is not a factor here, both a long over due replacement.
Click to expand...

Nah, the 400mm F5.6 has been out donkeys years, (early 90s I think) the 100-400 is more recent AFAIK.

Either way I think the OP would be covered well with either...

@ OP, there are a number of camera shops which will let you test the lens on your body before you buy, see which one you like best!

(beware, photographing wildlife is one of the most expensive hobbies in existence)......
 
as much as i would like some of the more exotic items i cant justify the cost on a hobby!
I really dont want to go much further than the 400 prime, 300 prime + TC or 100-400

they are really the only choices
most seem to say 400mm prime

i would expect the new versions arent that close?
and
they will be quite a lot more than what is out currently?

the 300mm has IS and could be useful at say a zoo? but would NEED a TC to be useful for birds. So would loose out to 400mm prime
400mm prime has best image quality at 400mm out of the options BUT no IS
100-400mm has IS is more versatile but looses out to 400mm in image quality?

is this a fair overall assessment?
 
Last edited:
al4x said:
as much as i would like some of the more exotic items i cant justify the cost on a hobby!
I really dont want to go much further than the 400 prime, 300 prime + TC or 100-400

they are really the only choices
most seem to say 400mm prime

i would expect the new versions arent that close?
and
they will be quite a lot more than what is out currently?
Click to expand...

The big problem is that all the "big" primes are crazy money after the recession, I paid £2999 brand new, for my 300 F2.8 back in 2008, now the same lens is going for £3300-3500 second hand

There used to be some very useful outfits on Ebay who'd import you the Lens from the US and you'd basically pay for dollar price for it, I did this with my 600mm F4 and saved about £2k, but now most of this has stopped being lucrative..

In all honesty, if you feel you'll use the 100-400 constantly @ 400mm, just go and buy the 400 F5.6 prime, it's much better for flight shots too, the lack of IS sucks, but you won't be disappointed with the IQ.
 
V-Spec said:
Nah, the 400mm F5.6 has been out donkeys years, (early 90s I think) the 100-400 is more recent AFAIK.

Either way I think the OP would be covered well with either...

@ OP, there are a number of camera shops which will let you test the lens on your body before you buy, see which one you like best!

(beware, photographing wildlife is one of the most expensive hobbies in existence)......
Click to expand...


Looks like the 400mm f/5.6 was released in 1993 and the 100-400 in 1998, so both pretty old but the 400mm is getting on a bit. Still, what matter is the optical quality, i just looked at a few comparisons and the prime had it.

I would still consider the 300mm /f4.0 IS with 1.4xTC, gives you IS, and the option for f/4.0 when you can get close enough.
 
i think im am kind of torn between the 300mm prime and 400mm prime

can someone summerize the downsides at 400mm of the 300mm with TC and 400mm prime as is?

i doubt i would go longer (ie TC) on the 400mm due to loosing more stops
 
Bear in mind on a 60D you're using the sweet spot in the middle of the lens image circle, so sharpness won't be a limiting factor on either lens.

If you're really going to limit its use to birding with a tripod, the prime is the only choice. If you feel you might find peripheral photography uses where 100-399mm and IS could be useful, then the prime will hold you back.
 
al4x said:
as much as i would like some of the more exotic items i cant justify the cost on a hobby!
I really dont want to go much further than the 400 prime, 300 prime + TC or 100-400

they are really the only choices
most seem to say 400mm prime

i would expect the new versions arent that close?
and
they will be quite a lot more than what is out currently?

the 300mm has IS and could be useful at say a zoo? but would NEED a TC to be useful for birds. So would loose out to 400mm prime
400mm prime has best image quality at 400mm out of the options BUT no IS
100-400mm has IS is more versatile but looses out to 400mm in image quality?

is this a fair overall assessment?
Click to expand...

That is a fair assessment and yes, the new lenses will be much more expensive.

Nikon's old 80-400 was very similar to the Canon and was recently updated with a fair price hike but exceptional performance. I wouldn't expect any difference with a new Canon, in fact Canon have got into habit of charging significantly more than Nikon for newly released high end lenses.

I would expect any replacements to be well north of 2K GBP upon release and you might be waiting a year or 2 or 3 or.... or it might be announced in the summer.

Because of the price differences you will find the old lenses keep their value. Try to buy second hand and if you do decide you want the new lens upon release you should be able to sell without a much loss (especially if you try to sell the moment the lens is announced). heck,people have been know to make a profit doing that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom