Canon 400mm f5.6 L vs 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L
Discussion
Morning all,
I am currently flogging off stuff on Ebay and otherwise pooling cash for one of the above. It will take me a while to accumulate sufficient funds, but in the meantime, I'm puzzling over which one to get.
There's not a great deal between them in price, and I was a little surprised to discover that the zoom isn't much heavier either.
Obviously, the zoom has in its favour the flexibility of being a zoom!
It's also got the same maximum aperture at 400mm, and has IS, so presumably gives me the equivalent of around f2 from a handholding perspective?
Set against this, the image quality of the prime really would have to be significantly better than the zoom to make it worthwhile. Does anyone have both to be able to confirm if this is the case?
If I went for the zoom, I'd probably sell my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 to help towards the cost, which is something further in favour of the zoom.
In terms of what I'd like to shoot with it, a combination of wildlife (where I'd imagine in many cases I'd be getting as close as I can with 400mm and then cropping) and rugby, in which case 400mm is often too long, so that doesn't really help much either!
All thoughts welcome, as well as alternatives worth considering.
I am currently flogging off stuff on Ebay and otherwise pooling cash for one of the above. It will take me a while to accumulate sufficient funds, but in the meantime, I'm puzzling over which one to get.
There's not a great deal between them in price, and I was a little surprised to discover that the zoom isn't much heavier either.
Obviously, the zoom has in its favour the flexibility of being a zoom!
It's also got the same maximum aperture at 400mm, and has IS, so presumably gives me the equivalent of around f2 from a handholding perspective?Set against this, the image quality of the prime really would have to be significantly better than the zoom to make it worthwhile. Does anyone have both to be able to confirm if this is the case?
If I went for the zoom, I'd probably sell my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 to help towards the cost, which is something further in favour of the zoom.
In terms of what I'd like to shoot with it, a combination of wildlife (where I'd imagine in many cases I'd be getting as close as I can with 400mm and then cropping) and rugby, in which case 400mm is often too long, so that doesn't really help much either!
All thoughts welcome, as well as alternatives worth considering.
I borrowed a 100-400L for a month and then bought a 400/5.6L
For me I was always shooting at 400 (wildlife, birds) I have a 70-200 also.
Also most stuff I shoot IS is irrelevant , needing faster shutter speeds than it would help out with.
For sport(panning) motorsport, airshows , landscapes etc the 100-400 is a superior tool.
In NZ the prime is 2/3rds the price of the zoom.
Both are nice and sharp in the centre , the prime is sharper off centre and the bokeh is better (but that may be due to the zooms IS system working). The prime is noticably lighter and does focus faster.
The prime also has a horrid 3.5m minimum focus distance!
The zooms IS system is old and decrepit, needing 1-2 seconds to settle to get the best out of it (2 stops) and if you snap shoot IMO it negatively impacts IQ, I found for that I had better luck with it switched off.
So basically neither are bad, the zoom is more flexible but not ultimately the best in all cases..
For me I was always shooting at 400 (wildlife, birds) I have a 70-200 also.
Also most stuff I shoot IS is irrelevant , needing faster shutter speeds than it would help out with.
For sport(panning) motorsport, airshows , landscapes etc the 100-400 is a superior tool.
In NZ the prime is 2/3rds the price of the zoom.
Both are nice and sharp in the centre , the prime is sharper off centre and the bokeh is better (but that may be due to the zooms IS system working). The prime is noticably lighter and does focus faster.
The prime also has a horrid 3.5m minimum focus distance!
The zooms IS system is old and decrepit, needing 1-2 seconds to settle to get the best out of it (2 stops) and if you snap shoot IMO it negatively impacts IQ, I found for that I had better luck with it switched off.
So basically neither are bad, the zoom is more flexible but not ultimately the best in all cases..
RobDickinson said:
You can tell I'm processing multiple hdr stitches here lol...
Your comments on the IS on the zoom have pulled me back from that a bit. I'm not convinced a 1-stop IS would be enough to compensate for the narrower aperture. I'll be using it on a Canon 7D, so happy with the ISO up to about 800, but wouldn't want to push it any higher than that.
The flipside of the 7D, of course, is that crop sensor, which would give me an equivalent 112-480mm with the 70-300L zoom, and that appears to have a much newer IS system. Have you tried this one at all?
RobDickinson said:
Only in a shop. Solid and compact. IQ is supposed to be great.
Been tempted to shop the 70-200 for one.
It's only a tenner more than the 400mm prime, as opposed to £140 more for the 100-400, so definitely a tempting thought, even if it does lose 100mm.Been tempted to shop the 70-200 for one.
There's also to 70-300 DO at the same price! I really don't understand where Canon are pitching their DO lenses?
RobDickinson said:
DO means (a)expensive and (b)compact.
Unless you want the size saving there just not worth it.
The 400/4 is interesting but its very low contrast at f4. And a zillion peso's too.
I think I'd have to sell my family's organs on Ebay for that! It's over £5k in the UK. Unless you want the size saving there just not worth it.
The 400/4 is interesting but its very low contrast at f4. And a zillion peso's too.
Looking more like the 70-300L at the moment, I think. Time to take the family out now, so thanks for the help.
I've got a 100-400 for motorsport, airshows etc (and the occasional landscape). It is a much underrated piece of kit IMO.
Yes, the IS isn't up to the standard of the modern systems but for the money it has good IQ, great focal range, isn't too heavy or bulky. Against it are the older IS system, some struggle with the push pull zoom (although I rapidly got used to it), lack of weather sealing (although plenty of people make covers for it).
Yes, the IS isn't up to the standard of the modern systems but for the money it has good IQ, great focal range, isn't too heavy or bulky. Against it are the older IS system, some struggle with the push pull zoom (although I rapidly got used to it), lack of weather sealing (although plenty of people make covers for it).
If you're interested in Wildlife then forget about 70-300mm, it's not long enough.
The choice is simple, if you are going to use it at 400mm then the prime is going to be better but if you think you might need/like the flexibility of the zoom (which by the sounds of your op you do) then the 100-400mm is the one.
Another option is the one I went for... 300mm f4L IS and a 1.4ex extender (which gives 420mm f5.6) although I'm considering selling mine in favour of a 100-400mm!
The choice is simple, if you are going to use it at 400mm then the prime is going to be better but if you think you might need/like the flexibility of the zoom (which by the sounds of your op you do) then the 100-400mm is the one.
Another option is the one I went for... 300mm f4L IS and a 1.4ex extender (which gives 420mm f5.6) although I'm considering selling mine in favour of a 100-400mm!
Kermit power said:
I'll be using it on a Canon 7D, so happy with the ISO up to about 800, but wouldn't want to push it any higher than that.
Wrong. You need to use the full ISO range which means learning to understand exposure correctly and the corresponding use of high ISO which will push up noise. Read up on noise reduction techniques and expect to use your 7D up to at least ISO 3200 knowing that you can reduce the noise to acceptable levels in pp. The ISO on the 7D goes up to 12800 for good reason! Lenses with a max aperture of f/5.6 such as you're looking at require good light to give their best. This is something we don't have the luxury of in the UK most of the time so if you're going to own one you need to know how to use it in low light. Take the following low light example, 7D, 400mm f/5.6 lens at f/7.1, 1/320 sec, ISO 3200:
GT with 7D by 2slo7, on Flickr
That's just my poor effort. Others using this equipt at these settings may do much better, but you get the idea
DibblyDobbler said:
I've nothing really to contribute to this but am interested as I need something longer at some point.
At the risk of throwing further confusion into it what about the 70-200 f2.8 + a x2 teleconverter ? That's often mentioned in these discussions
I did have the Sigma version of this combo, but sold the TC as I just couldn't get enough light into it (although that was on a 450D), but it definitely had an impact on IQ too. At the risk of throwing further confusion into it what about the 70-200 f2.8 + a x2 teleconverter ? That's often mentioned in these discussions
2slo said:
Wrong. You need to use the full ISO range which means learning to understand exposure correctly and the corresponding use of high ISO which will push up noise. Read up on noise reduction techniques and expect to use your 7D up to at least ISO 3200 knowing that you can reduce the noise to acceptable levels in pp.
What are you using in PP to get decent results? I don't get anywhere near that with Elements 8, but I'm otherwise happy with it, so wouldn't want to spend a fortune on software. Kermit power said:
2slo said:
Wrong. You need to use the full ISO range which means learning to understand exposure correctly and the corresponding use of high ISO which will push up noise. Read up on noise reduction techniques and expect to use your 7D up to at least ISO 3200 knowing that you can reduce the noise to acceptable levels in pp.
What are you using in PP to get decent results? I don't get anywhere near that with Elements 8, but I'm otherwise happy with it, so wouldn't want to spend a fortune on software. Kermit power said:
2slo said:
Wrong. You need to use the full ISO range which means learning to understand exposure correctly and the corresponding use of high ISO which will push up noise. Read up on noise reduction techniques and expect to use your 7D up to at least ISO 3200 knowing that you can reduce the noise to acceptable levels in pp.
What are you using in PP to get decent results? I don't get anywhere near that with Elements 8, but I'm otherwise happy with it, so wouldn't want to spend a fortune on software. One of the side costs of the hobby is keeping reasonably up to date with those advances through upgrades as they are released - or maybe alternate releases. In some cases the requirements of newer cameras force this change since only the new software versions have the full capacity (or any capacity) to process the new standard of output files. (I'm talking RAW here mostly but some of the NR advances are likely to apply to jpg processing as well.)
I hired a 7D for aleof events and found the results slightly mixed. It could produce some astonishing shots with huge detail at ridiculous crop levels. Or not. This with a mix of lenses. Left me a bit baffled at the time but I came to a number of conclusions about the required technique to get the best from it and in terms of the bit that relates to the amount of light available and optimal exposure settings I totally agree with 2slo.
There is far more latitude for pp when tending to over exposure than there is with any level of underexposure although you can get away stuff in the lower mid tones at a push. Detail recovery from under exposed dark areas is certainly possible but not usually pretty especially if cropping significantly whcih will bring attentions to the limitations.
Kermit power said:
It's only a tenner more than the 400mm prime, as opposed to £140 more for the 100-400, so definitely a tempting thought, even if it does lose 100mm.
There's also to 70-300 DO at the same price! I really don't understand where Canon are pitching their DO lenses?
I have a 70-300 DO, albeit it is old and had been very well used before I got it.There's also to 70-300 DO at the same price! I really don't understand where Canon are pitching their DO lenses?
As Rob says they are expensive (but not so expensive on eBay when pre-owned and, I would guess, hadly used) and compact (which is useful when travelling) but not light which is less useful when travelling).
It's an interesting lens that has a nice look to its output, especially in certain light conditions, and can perform very well indeed. However it's not one of the hotshot lenses for a moving target. Usable, certainly, but not really a first order choice at the price point.
Having said that my main usage with it has been attached to a Canon 400D and I am reminded that I have been meaning to compare that with the results on a 1D3 and 600D.
When I used it with the 7D I made the mistake of comparing it with the output from a 70-200 f2.8 IS II . Of course that was unfair but it also showed me that the poor old DO had developed an intermittent focus issue, mainly at the long end, which was not helping its cause at all. It improved greatly after a service but simply does not have the responsiveness of the 70-200 (with or without a 2x extender fitted to the 70-200).
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff