100-400mm IS or 400mm prime?

Andy90 · 28 Feb 2014 at 18:26

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM was introduced in 1993
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-f/5.6L IS USM was introduced in 1998.

As DP states, they're both well overdue for an upgrade - rumour has it that the 100-400 is likely to be upgraded this year. As for the 400mm f/5.6 it is well overdue IS capability.

Both are really nice lenses. The Prime has an optical advantage, whilst the Zoom has focal length flexibility.

I would go with V-Specs advice - go to a good Camera shop and try them out.

Oh by the way, when you said "so i have nothing between 100mm and infinity", I think you meant you have no lenses with a focal length greater than 100mm - a lens with a focal length of infinity would be something marvellous to see

D.P. · 28 Feb 2014 at 18:30

al4x said:
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

Autofocus will be slower with the 300mm + TC. How much slower depends on the lens and camera. I am not too keyed up on this canon combo.

What I notice with my 300+1.4 is that the lens tracks perfectly fine and when close to correct focus snaps to place, but if it is a fair bit out and is much slower or can even get very confused and do a complete back to front pull. At these times I just use the manual override and get close which is dad easy and let the camera carry on.

This is not ideal but the Canon 300mm is newer and should focus better with a TC. I also use a relatively low end and older D90, on my wifes D700 focus is faster and there is less hunting.

Even on my D90 focus is not an issue 97-99% of the time of the time but ultimately a naked prime will focus the fastest. However since the 400mm f/5.6 is much older than the 300mm Is then there may be less difference.

CGrieves · 28 Feb 2014 at 18:32

Also try the image quality comparison tool on the-digital-picture.com

He discusses the relative merits in the reviews of each lens.

For birding I would say native 400mm every time rather than 300mm with TC. A V3 extender will cost you £300 quid, and the 100-400 has arguably better image quality at that point (check the comparison tool, where he pairs the 300mm with a 1.4x and 2x TC). I'd rather save the £300 for a better lens.

D.P. · 28 Feb 2014 at 18:32

CGrieves said:
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.

With the high pixel density of the 60D (and all modern crop cameras) sharpness is very important, especially for birds when you want nice crisp feathers. The 100-400 is quite soft at 400mm wide open.

CGrieves · 28 Feb 2014 at 18:42

D.P. said:
With the high pixel density of the 60D (and all modern crop cameras) sharpness is very important, especially for birds when you want nice crisp feathers. The 100-400 is quite soft at 400mm wide open.

I've only used the 100-400 once, however the comparison is quite clear:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

As you can see, that particular copy is a sharp lens, especially on a 60D where you will be using the center and mid-frame portions. The 400mm is sharper, but neither will limit you.

D.P. · 28 Feb 2014 at 18:57

CGrieves said:
I've only used the 100-400 once, however the comparison is quite clear:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

As you can see, that particular copy is a sharp lens, especially on a 60D where you will be using the center and mid-frame portions. The 400mm is sharper, but neither will limit you.

I wouldn't trust the-digitial-picture.com if my life depended on it, always very suspect results that are not in agreement with other websites that show broadly similar results. Sometimes their charts make sense, sometimes they are comically wrong, especially for longer lenses that are harder to test.
A bit dated but this shows a useful real world comparison:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

CGrieves · 28 Feb 2014 at 20:14

D.P. said:
I wouldn't trust the-digitial-picture.com if my life depended on it, always very suspect results that are not in agreement with other websites that show broadly similar results. Sometimes their charts make sense, sometimes they are comically wrong, especially for longer lenses that are harder to test.
A bit dated but this shows a useful real world comparison:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

To each his own I guess, I regard it as a great resource. I'm not sure what's not to trust about TDP. Bryan Carnathan puts each lens through a consistent and thorough test, and publishes the results. If anything his tests show (by his own admission) that the quality of the copy you get in your hands is more important than all the test methodologies available. Is there something specific you can point to to demonstrate there's something untrustworthy going on?

D.P. · 28 Feb 2014 at 21:24

CGrieves said:
To each his own I guess, I regard it as a great resource. I'm not sure what's not to trust about TDP. Bryan Carnathan puts each lens through a consistent and thorough test, and publishes the results. If anything his tests show (by his own admission) that the quality of the copy you get in your hands is more important than all the test methodologies available. Is there something specific you can point to to demonstrate there's something untrustworthy going on?

Don't have the time to find the links but his methodologies have been discussed and questioned in the past many times. Some of the issues include publishing decentered lens results instead of getting the lens repaired. Other general issues is there is no correction for field curvature on many tests so some lenses look to have poor corners but this is really just a focus issue. I think at one stage he was using out of camera jepgs which is horrible way to test, not sure if that is still the case . Additionally, many of the longer lens tests are completely at odds with other sites and public views that are largely in accordance so it seems he simply doesn't have a suitable support system. There is also a strong tendency to show weaker results for Nikon lenses when multiple other independent reviewers show no such thing.

Whenever I have tried to use the site, and I do from time to time because I like the comparison tool I always find something strange that doesn't make sense and goes against what every other website indicates. I think the last time I was looking at Nikon exotic teles and they just made no sense, soft results for lenses like the 400mm f/2.8 that are renowned for being amongst the sharpest glass on the planet. Not sure if these results have been redone or not.

http://www.lenstip.com/ is much more reliable and detailed.

EDIT: that is not to say all of the comparisons are useless, or the other sites are perfect (lots of the reviews use old 8 or 12MP cameras, this doesn't tell you much about today's 24Mp sensors. It pays to look at multiple review sites as well as real world photos from people that A) you can trust had good technique (which on a tele lens is often rare), and B) did not sharpen the hell out of a web-sized image (so this discounts most images on flickr).

Amp34 · 1 Mar 2014 at 00:33

I would recommend the Sigma 120-300 IS. Used it can be had for £1100-1200 (the "older" IS version, out for a year before the slightly updated - basically weather sealed - version came out last year) it's a big heavy beast so it depends how much lugging around you plan on doing. It's super sharp from wide open at both ends all the way to diffraction and with a 1.4TC it's by far the cheapest way to get to 400 f/4. My copy is still super sharp at f/4 with the TC on and at both ends of the zoom. AF speed has a negligable difference as well (at least in normal useage any difference between TC and no TC is not noticeable - haven't tested to see if there is any big difference). With my 2x TC the IQ does suffer a reasonable amount though, however the images are still useable.

As I said it's a big lens (3kg) but I use it regularly for long lengths of time hand held and have lugged it up and down hills. The IS is also great.

Alternatively the Tamron 150-600 is suppose to be very good too, just released though and there are reports of it having AF problems. It's around £1050. Realistically 400mm is the minimum you'll be wanting for bird photos.

CGrieves · 1 Mar 2014 at 00:45

Decentered lens results, the only instances I'm aware of are well documented in the reviews, and if we're talking about the lens I think we are, he actually tried to get the lens in question replaced several times. He tends to buy retail copies for review unlike most review sites who receive submissions from manufacturers, so I think this is more likely to reflect our retail experience, so from my standpoint the review and comparison stands. And, as you say, if anyone doesn't agree, there are plenty of other review sites (many of which I also use, yes, including Rockwell

)

Field curvature, again, this is referred to in the reviews. I'm fairly sure he doesn't try to hide this.

Reviews showing different results compared to other sites, well I think again that's just reality, no two lenses are the same. There are examples out there of the Canon 100-400L beating the 400L prime in IQ. It's unlikely a retail copy will do that, but it demonstrates that there are performance outliers. I really can't suspect him of falsifying results for some mystery agenda, sorry- I'm just not a conspiracy theorist.

As for Nikon, I have no idea, he is a Canon user and I think his site is regarded primarily as a Canon resource. I don't use Nikon, so I've no use or interest in the data as yet, so I'll have to bow to your judgement on that one.

413x · 1 Mar 2014 at 01:35

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

CGrieves · 1 Mar 2014 at 10:40

It can be that dramatic, and it can not. My point is, you'll be using the copy you get, not the copy you see others use on websites and in reviews.

Here's a case where a birder has both, and the 100-400 is right up there with the prime:

http://birdphotoph.proboards.com/thread/352

This is probably an outlier, but it shows the variation in lenses, and also that the 100-400 is still a quality lens, and generally regarded as very high quality.

The new-ish Tamron 150-600 also gets you decent quality and reach and IS at a similar price point.

Best way is to try them all- ie the copies you will buy. Worth spending a little extra over the counter for that privilege maybe?

413x · 1 Mar 2014 at 11:19

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

Slam62 · 1 Mar 2014 at 11:28

I have the 400 prime and a 70_300L

Tend to fall back on the zoom as its more versatile, the 400 doe take lovely picks when you get it right though and focus is very fast.
I take mostly motor sport and holiday snaps though, the 400 is very good for birds.

Andy90 · 1 Mar 2014 at 11:58

Don't know if anyone else has the Canon 100-400mm - The following are some shots from it. I've added spoiler tags since they're fairly large images - but go and have a look at the original sizes to see how much detail the lens does catch. (BTW Al4x - you don't need to go through lots of 100-400's to get images like the above example that CGrieves posted).

400mm on a 5DMKIII

Swan by Andy2580, on Flickr

Four-spotted Chaser (Libellula quadrimaculata) by Andy2580, on Flickr

(this next one was shot in very very poor light and then processed)

Red-billed Leiothrix (Leiothrix lutea) by Andy2580, on Flickr

Preening Penguin (Spheniscus humboldti) by Andy2580, on Flickr

500mm on Canon 50D (crop sensor)

Wreck 1 by Andy2580, on Flickr

Tiger by Andy2580, on Flickr

Jaguar by Andy2580, on Flickr

Robin by Andy2580, on Flickr

One thing I think you should be aware of is the trap that I think everyone falls into with long lenses. You think wow I'll be able to get really close up shots of birds miles away - erm no.

A lot of shots of birds on long lenses are actually taken from Hides or from behind camouflage netting. Food is often provided nearby along with convenient branches for them to perch on. If the bird is nearer then the detail captured by any lens will be greater. If its a longer focal length then it will fill more of the frame. These lenses are good but they're not miracle workers.

As for a the 100-400 being a 'dust pump' I haven't noticed the sensors on my old 50D or my current 5DMKIII being particularly dirty.

One thing has gone wrong with the lens, when it was around 18 month old. The IS unit failed, which caused the image to 'bounce' in the viewfinder when you half pressed the shutter to acquire focus lock. This cost me £140 with Canon to sort out, but it came with a further 6 month warranty as a result It is a rare enough problem but be aware that the more bells and whistles (such as IS) then the more there is to go wrong

Best advice - go and try out the lenses or rent them for a few days and see which one suits you.

Amp34 · 1 Mar 2014 at 13:33

al4x said:
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

The Sigma is not that bad, size wise it's not that much bigger than the primes you're looking at, just twice the weight. For comparison it's almost exactly the same size as a standard 2L drinks bottle. However it is definitely in the next category up, with the 300 - 400 f/2.8 primes (to be expected as it needs the same amount of glass). It's a lens you use when you're shooting wildlife and you want the "best" shot, more suited for shooting from the side of a safari vehicle or sat for hours with it on a tripod waiting for the opportunity than wandering around wondering what to shoot.

On the other hand it's fine to carry around, I do it a fair bit, however when I'm not planning on shooting wildlife mostly then I usually take my 70-300 out instead.

It's interesting taking it to the zoo though... You get some funny looks, especially when it has it's lens hood on!

As a comparison against the 300 f/4 prime I think the Sigma bests it in almost every way. I loved my Canon 300 f/4 but the Sigma is in another league, it's just a lot heavier. I think it's also sharper, but then both are plenty sharp enough. What I would say (again) though is for small creatures 300mm is the bare minimum you need. I spent ages umming and arring over the 300 f/4 or the 400 f/5.6 and chose the 300 for the versatility of it (two focal lengths with a TC). It was great for the bigger animals but anything small it was difficult to get anything great. I currently have the 1.4TC almost exclusively stuck on the Sigma when not shooting big "game" and the versatility of the 120-300mm focal lengths rather than 300mm is great. I've got lots of shots I wouldn't have been able to get without that versatility, which is one of the reasons many go for the 100-400, even though it isn't as sharp at the long end. That's why I also think the 150-600 may be a great lens if it's as sharp as people make out.

*Disclaimer* I used the 300 f/4 (non IS, but widely regarded as just as having almost identical optical characteristics to the IS version, and arguably sharper) when I had a 400D and now use the Sigma on a Nikon D7000 so different systems but reasonably comparable.

EDIT: Two sets with photos from both the 300 f/4 and the 120-300 - There is probably a large difference in ability between the shots though! I had the 300 f/4 3-4 years ago...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildaboutlife/sets/72157641696330055/ - 300 f/4
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildaboutlife/sets/72157641697967603/ - 120-300 f/2.8

413x · 1 Mar 2014 at 18:25

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!

413x · 2 Mar 2014 at 15:27

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?

D.P. · 2 Mar 2014 at 23:07

al4x said:
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?

It is popular with motor oft because zoom lenses are handy for motorsports while most wildlife photography, especially birds, you are pushed to the limits and it is mostly about length. 300mm is not long enough for most wildlife situations but with a TC it is. The main advantage is aperture, you will get a 420mm f/4.0 but you will also get a usable 600mm f/5.6 vs the 400mm f/5.6.

The downside is cost and weight. This is very much a tripod lens, too heavy for hand held for long periods.

King Damager · 2 Mar 2014 at 23:43

al4x said:
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!

I can't talk about the Sigma, as I have never owned one.

I can however confirm what Andy says about the 100-400 and the shots it produces. I get similar shots with mine on a 6D.

If you want to get birds. The easiest way is definitely with a feeder, but even then it can be hard to get as close as you'd like, I'd probably be setting up a feeder and a remote trigger and watch from further back and just hit the trigger when required.

kd