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
 
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:
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:
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:
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
 
that link posted by DP was quite dramatic really. surely it is not that different typically?
if it was i could not live with that at all
i can instantly see it in the other link too, i dont therefore think the 100-400mm is for me

im swinging to the 400mm prime but still have hand held IS concerns. I know i should use a tripod but like with my macro i often find myself hand holding

looking like 300mm vs 400mm prime


that sigma looks mighty heavy, im not sure if it is practical wandering around + camera + tripod
 
Last edited:
maybe..but it is more than just a little bit extra. And i expect the 100-400mm example there..you may have to go through many many lenses to find that?

also, im probably not the best for conducting a controlled test with my limited experience
 
i have been reading about that sigma, does seem to get favourable,reviews with the main issue the weight.

yes i have read about the distances i should expect, i know bird behaviour and how difficult they can be to get that close (grew up in countryside)

these are some great shots guys but i am considering that sigma now

ANdy, if i could get a 100-400mm producing what you have just shown i would be happy!
 
been looking more at that sigma, but most seems to be more of a motorsport lens than a wildlife?
probably due to more static positioning?
 
we dont get thaqt many interesting ones in the garden, starlings, jackdaws and thats about it. nice birds but not like finches, blue **** etc.

more i think about it it is going to be a handheld jobby most of the time, i cant see any other way really. I cant think where i can set up a tripod and wait really.

ill cross the sigma off if it just seems too heavy?

the 400mm prime with IS would be perfect for what i want. I think with all the handheld i am concerned with no IS
 
think its going to have to be a used or grey import 400mm f5.6

i am concerned as to if the IS absence will make a difference.. i like my pictures from my 100mm macro more than my 10-22mm ..there are more keepers due to lack of sharpness in some UWA ones. im no sure if it is an IS thing or not.

the lack of IS and F5.6 only makes it harder to use a faster shutter for compensation
 
CGrieves said:
IS is only really of any use while handholding- most lenses disable IS if they detect a lack of movement while mounted on tripod. And if you're birding from a static location, there's no reason not to use a tripod?

If you're going to handhold, IS is almost a no-brainer in my view.
Click to expand...

This is my concern. It's probably going to be mostly handheld I expect

The same was said when I was getting my macro lens.. You should use a tripod
Almost all my macro pics are hand held
 
thanks for all the info, i think ill try the 400mm first and see if i am happy with it. If not then i guess i can always sell it on. If i get it second hand it probably wont loose anything. If i am not happy, that will be the issue. I will be a bit stuffed for options around that price range!

i havent seen many places where i can see using a tripod. Monopod is a much more likely option. I do know bird behaviour quite well (having raised jackdaws, birds of prey, quail and waterfowl) so know there fidgety nature. Maybe my idea of being able to go find birds for photography is misguided? Its what i would do to just find birds without a cam

there definitely isnt an ideal lens at this price especially for the often murky english weather. Its very much a shame the 100-400mm isnt better as zoo day trips and the like are few and far between.
 
Last edited:
Looked again at the sigma above.
Has got good reviews I must say.
Is aperture and IS does look good. The price is quite high and as discussed.. The weight too

I would feel quite cheeky trying out a shops lenses and not buying. The Canon 400 prime is very very different in price vs the net. Much more so than the sigma
The 300mm canon prime is also still a temptation except for the reduction in usefulness When using TC.. Trying to think of the 300mm length would be useful anywhere
 
im seriously considering the sigma 120-300mm :/

but for that price i would expect zoo/sports and wildlife..could you hand hold it at a zoo or is it too heavy for that?

i suppose if i find it isnt quite wildlife capable i could always get something 400mm+ later?

If anything would BIF be the main problem? i dont expect bstatic birds would cause much of a problem?

I like the 2.8 and IS.
 
Last edited:
so if you disregard money the sigma would be the choice lens out of the ones listed (the 120-300mm f2.8)?
 
Second hand prices seem good.

I was also thinking it might be useful for such things as dragon flies where I have to get a little too close with the 100mm
I'm guessing it might be quite appropriate for touring cars and the like?
 
I'll give it a go if I go this route

The 100mm macro L I have does work really well with tubes a TC would be interesting and much lighter!
(Tbh its just an amazing lens)

I doubt I will get the TC quite yet. If I get the sigma it's already over budget. You *******s :p
 
looks like i have my choice!

i think the IS, F stop sharpness and zoom range are too many plus points to pass up
doesnt seem to be so held back by a TC at 400 from reviews
Newer lens
only weight seems downside which, i guess , comes with F2.8

100-400 had zoom and IS
400 had weight and sharpness
300mm had the F stop and IS but lost to 400 prime at 400
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom