canon 100-400, or the 400?

[Shutterbug]

Current lens, Tamron 17-40 2.8, 70-20 F4L, 50mm1.8, Rockynon Fish eye.

After trying to figure out if I wanted to get a super wide lens or a telephoto lens as my next lens decided I wanted the telephoto for birding, wildlife and car sports.

Now I am racking my brain on which L lens to get. I have read so many threads on so many sites I am on info overload.

The 100-400 has more usefulness do it its zoom range.

The 400 is about $300 less currently, and 'reputed' to be sharper than the 100-400.

I have used the 100-400 in the past, I didnt really care for the push pull zooming and the pics seemed soft, but then again it was a rented lens.

They both have an instant rebate until Feb 4th.

I might as well get input from you all here as well

 

[LordAthens]

I'm not a Canon shooter, but I have handled the 100-400mm. While the push-pull can be awkward to get used to, once you do it is very fast to zoom, this comes in very handy for birding.

Generally, zooms aren't as sharp as primes, but you're giving up a LOT of versatility by going with a 400mm prime, it has very limited uses and is very expensive for being so limited. I can't say I noticed the copy of the 100-400mm that I used as being very soft. The IS on the 100-400mm is reason enough alone in my book.


.
.
.

Out of curiosity, I googled about the two and came across this;

http://birdphotoph.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=review&action=display&thread=352

"My first 100-400 L IS (mfd year 2002) was soft at 400 mm wide open, and became decent only when stopped down to about f/7.1-f/8. Then I stumbled upon an excellent copy of the zoom (mfd year 2005) over a year ago. I promptly sold my first copy. This second copy of the zoom matches the sharpness of my 400 5.6L at full zoom wide open (see following lens test)."

So, either he got a bad copy the first time around, or the newer built copies are just simply better. Regardless, if you can, buy in person and check it yourself. There are a ton of 100% crops on in that thread and not a single one of them would have made me upset owning that glass.

My 2c.

 

[Shutterbug]

IOut of curiosity, I googled about the two and came across this;.

Yeah thats one of the first ones I read too.

Problem is I would probably buying online and that could mean alot of sending back trying to get a good one.

I agree the versatility of the zoom, the IS wouldnt really come into play with moving objects like birds in flight.

The 400 has a faster AF though and that would be important for BIF.

I guess I need to figure out too if the versatility of the zoom is worth an extra 300...hmmmm

 

[LordAthens]

Your profile says your in NE Ohio, any reason you aren't buying from Dodd Camera? I've been to a few of their stores and they seem to have a good selection, though I didn't see how their prices were. I've purchased a few things from them, but nothing high end. Alternately, if you're willing to travel a bit, I was thoroughly pleased with the service I received at Midwest Photo Exchange in Columbus. I'm not sure just how NE you are, but it's ~2 hours from Cleveland. They price matched B&H on a few things for me (I was in town for a tradeshow and got caught in a bind) so that was great. You would still have to pay sales tax, but that ~$90 might be worth it to know you're walking out of the store with a great copy and not having to deal with shipping it back and forth.

I'm not sure I fully agree with you on the IS not having an effect on BIF. On my Nikons with VR (IS\OS, whatever term you like), I definitely see a difference with VR and without VR when it comes to panning shots. Of course, BIF are usually shot during the day when you have the luxury of being able to stop down a bit and still have a plenty quick enough shutter to freeze the frame.

You won't get any argument out of me on the AF being faster. I've never used the 400mm, but one would assume the prime's AF is going to be faster. I didn't notice the 100-400mm as being slow, but I also wasn't shooting BIF with it either.

 

[Shutterbug]

After doing more researching I think I will be going with the 100-400.
One of the other things I like to go to are air shows. From what I have read, the 100-400 would give me for flexibility in capturing flight formations and such.

As far as Dodd is concerned maybe its just the one I went into but they just didnt seem all that helpful or all that pleasant. Maybe I should try a different store, though maybe I will have to clear to Cleveland to actually check out this particular lens.

I know B&H has a pretty good return policy though.

 

[giantstu]

I shoot alot of airshows, also RC aircraft for the publications and had a 100-400, but to be honest i was never satisfied with the lens.

It lacked sharpness, AF wasnt brilliant and after trying a friends Sigma 120-400 i would buy the Sigma as the 100-400 doesnt justify the extra £500.

I sold mine as i had the 300 ,400 (which replaced the 100-400) and 70-200 2.8 IS with the 1.4x and 2x TC i just never used it as it wasnt sharp enough.

Maybe i had a bad copy, dont rule out the Sigma 120-400 without looking.!

 

[Shutterbug]

I actually did look at the sigma 150-500 but my experience with sigma has not been good. Back in the slr days I had a sigma that I had to have repaired several times which would take a month. Then a couple years ago selecting a wide angle lens I was going to get the sigma but every copy they had of it had back focusing issues.

 

[Shutterbug]

I ended up with the 100-400L. So far I am enjoying it

 

[LordAthens]

That's great to hear!

I'm assuming you got a new copy and not an older used model? From what I had read about the lens, the new copies seem to be ok, the older models were very hit and miss on sharpness.

Here's to hoping the copy you got was sharp!

 

[Shutterbug]

yeah its a new copy. I have 10 days to try it out but weather and shooting possibilities have not been the greatest when I have had the time.

 

[bob100]

I ended up with the 100-400L. So far I am enjoying it

the 100-400 is a good choice for wildlife and outside sports