100-400L IS I vs 400L/5.6 for beginner wildlife/birds/sports

[arbitrage]

After moving on from my first DSLR the Rebel XTi, I got the 7D and 100-400. I think the 100-400 would be the best lens for you. The 400 prime's advantage comes in shooting BIF with a high enough shutter speed to negate the benefits of IS. Otherwise the zoom is the best for everything else IMHO. My copy of the 100-400 was very sharp at 400 and compared well to my new version two copy. The version two showed its advantage with the 1.4TC attached and other areas like IS but not in centre sharpness at 400.

If you can get used 100-400 for $500 vs $800 for the prime I'd go with the zoom everyday of the week

 

[neuroanatomist]

Highly recommend the 100-400 (MkI) lens, pairs wonderfully with the 7D. The 400/5.6 is a great lens for BIF (birds in flight) where the high shutter speeds obviate IS. But for perched birds where you can use a slower shutter, the IS is a great benefit (especially with an APS-C sensor where high ISO is more noisy). The shorter minimum focus distance if the 100-400 can also be a big advantage, and for me, the fact that it collapses to a shorter length is a major plus. The IQ of the 100-400 is very good, the only potential downside is a somewhat 'nervous' bokeh with complex backgrounds (e.g. a bird in a thicket).

Before switching to a 1D X + 600/4 II, I used the 7D + 100-400L combo for birds and wildlife, and I was quite pleased with the results.

"Red-Winged Blackbird's Landing"

EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/1600 s, f/6.3, ISO 1600

"Yellow Warbler"

EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 125

"Bird's Eye View"

EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 160

"Mockingbird's Glare"

EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 200

"Riverbank Roughhousing"

EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/500 s, f/6.3, ISO 500

 

[FEBS]

Have you thought about buying the 2x MkIII converter for the 70-200? That will give you about the same focal length as the 100-400 at the same aperture. Art Morris (one of the top bird photographers) uses that combo a fair bit when he is travelling light.

Really ??

The 70-200 II is almost the same weight as the 100-400 II. So the weight of the extender is on top of that. Also the 70-200II with 2xIII extender is not that good. Image quality is much better of the 100-400II. So, the only gap is 70-100 then but that seems no problem to me. When I want to travel light I take my 5Diii, the 16-35f4 and the 100-400II. If possible I add the 24-105.

A bird photographer that wants to travel light should only look to the 100-400II, and if f8 is working for the body, a 1.4xIII extender perhaps. But a 70-200 for bird photography with a 2x extender is not the right choice. THe 1.4xIII extender will give decent result from the otherhand. After I bought the 100-400II, my 70-200 stays on the shelf, hardly ever used since that moment, unless low-light conditions or portrait.

For sports the 70-200II has the advantage of the f2.8 to stop the action.

For OP his question concerning 100-400I or 400/5.6. Hard to give the right direction. The missing IS on the 400/5.6 is not the big issue. You need higher shutterspeed for 400mm, and that's for both lenses. For wildlife and birds, the 400/5.6 would be great, for sports however, the distance to the action (indoor) might give you the need to go for the 100-400. Outside, you can zoom by your feet . The 100-400I has a lot of sharpness variations between the existing copies. If you don't want sports in the inside, for which is the 7D not the most appropriate, I would recommend the 400/5.6 unless you can really test the 100-400 zoom and see if that copy is really sharp.

Francois

 

[neuroanatomist]

Have you thought about buying the 2x MkIII converter for the 70-200? That will give you about the same focal length as the 100-400 at the same aperture. Art Morris (one of the top bird photographers) uses that combo a fair bit when he is travelling light.

Really ??

The 70-200 II is almost the same weight as the 100-400 II. So the weight of the extender is on top of that. Also the 70-200II with 2xIII extender is not that good. Image quality is much better of the 100-400II.

I think the point is that the 2xIII is lighter than the 100-400, i.e. take 70-200/2.8 and 2x instead of 70-200/2.8 and 100-400. My travel zoom is usually a compromise (70-300L), but on trips when I was taking the 70-200 II, I would toss in the 2x 'just in case' whereas I would not take both the 70-200 and the 100-400.

The IQ of the 70-200/2.8L IS II with the 2x is practically the same as the original 100-400 (yes, the 100-400 II is better, but also much more expensive if you already have the 70-200). The real trade off is that the 70-200+2x is longer and more cumbersome, but OTOH the combo is weather sealed whereas the original 100-400 is not. Here's a shot with the 7D + 70-200 and 2x (MkII verison, the MkIII is slightly better, optically), for comparison to the above.

"Eastern Towhee"

EOS 7D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 400mm, 1/160 s, f/5.6, ISO 3200

 

[Ryananthony]

Have you thought about buying the 2x MkIII converter for the 70-200? That will give you about the same focal length as the 100-400 at the same aperture. Art Morris (one of the top bird photographers) uses that combo a fair bit when he is travelling light.

For OP his question concerning 100-400I or 400/5.6. Hard to give the right direction. The missing IS on the 400/5.6 is not the big issue. You need higher shutterspeed for 400mm, and that's for both lenses. For wildlife and birds, the 400/5.6 would be great, for sports however, the distance to the action (indoor) might give you the need to go for the 100-400. Outside, you can zoom by your feet . The 100-400I has a lot of sharpness variations between the existing copies. If you don't want sports in the inside, for which is the 7D not the most appropriate, I would recommend the 400/5.6 unless you can really test the 100-400 zoom and see if that copy is really sharp.

Francois

Unless its birds in flight, I am almost always using IS. This photo was taken at 1/20 at 600mm which there is no way I could have done with out.

To OP. What ever option you decide, personally, I would make sure it has IS.

 

[FEBS]

I think the point is that the 2xIII is lighter than the 100-400, i.e. take 70-200/2.8 and 2x instead of 70-200/2.8 and 100-400. My travel zoom is usually a compromise (70-300L), but on trips when I was taking the 70-200 II, I would toss in the 2x 'just in case' whereas I would not take both the 70-200 and the 100-400.

Neuro,

Of course, if you compare the 70-200 and 100-400 against the 70-200 and 2xIII extender. Then the last has for sure a weight advantage. I understood however as travelling light as taking one lens in that case, and then I would definitely go for the 100-400 seen as a birder/wildlife. I would not propose the 70-200 + 2x combo to a wildlife/birder as a starter. There the 100-400 or the 400/5.6 seems a better choice. A you know, you always want more mm after some time. If you don't focus specifically on wildlife/birds, then the 70-200 + 2x would be a better choice, but this thread is about a wildlife/birds/sports beginner.

Francois

Nice photo of that combo anyway

 

[yavuz]

1.100-400 L İS II
2:400 L 5.6
3:Tamron 150-600 G II
4:100-400 L I

 

[Mikehit]

I think the point is that the 2xIII is lighter than the 100-400, i.e. take 70-200/2.8 and 2x instead of 70-200/2.8 and 100-400. My travel zoom is usually a compromise (70-300L), but on trips when I was taking the 70-200 II, I would toss in the 2x 'just in case' whereas I would not take both the 70-200 and the 100-400.

Neuro,

Of course, if you compare the 70-200 and 100-400 against the 70-200 and 2xIII extender. Then the last has for sure a weight advantage. I understood however as travelling light as taking one lens in that case, and then I would definitely go for the 100-400 seen as a birder/wildlife. I would not propose the 70-200 + 2x combo to a wildlife/birder as a starter. There the 100-400 or the 400/5.6 seems a better choice. A you know, you always want more mm after some time. If you don't focus specifically on wildlife/birds, then the 70-200 + 2x would be a better choice, but this thread is about a wildlife/birds/sports beginner.

Francois

Nice photo of that combo anyway

My point when suggesting the 70-200 f2.8 + TC was merely that that combo is good enough to be used by a very experienced bird photographer. Is it the best choice? No. It is flexible? Yes.
Given that the OP has clearly said they cannot afford the 100-400 mkII I was offering an alternative to the MkI. And given that the OP already has the 70-200 f2.8 and is short of cash, why would adding the 2xTC not be a good place for a beginner in that he can see how much he uses it and at what focal lengths - and if the 70-200 is permanently at 200 with the 2x tc then it is clear that the prime may be the better option.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Neuro,

Of course, if you compare the 70-200 and 100-400 against the 70-200 and 2xIII extender. Then the last has for sure a weight advantage. I understood however as travelling light as taking one lens in that case, and then I would definitely go for the 100-400 seen as a birder/wildlife. I would not propose the 70-200 + 2x combo to a wildlife/birder as a starter. There the 100-400 or the 400/5.6 seems a better choice. A you know, you always want more mm after some time. If you don't focus specifically on wildlife/birds, then the 70-200 + 2x would be a better choice, but this thread is about a wildlife/birds/sports beginner.

Regarding traveling light, if you're shooting mostly at dawn/dusk (generally the best light), and you have the fieldcraft to get close to your subjects, the 70-200/2.8 II may, indeed, be a better choice as the single lens to take – two stops of light can make a huge difference in low light.

The 70-200 II can make a great birding lens...sometimes even in one's own yard, which is where I spotted this red tail.

"Dinner Time"

EOS 1D X, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 200mm, 1/60 s, f/2.8, ISO 125

Still, I did not propose the 70-200+2x combo, but rather was responding to your claim that, "...the 70-200II with 2xIII extender is not that good." In fact, it's a very good combination for some situations (including situations encountered by Art Morris, and I'd say he knows a fair bit about photographing birds...).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Another relevant point (which I didn't bring up before) is that the OP mentions not just birds and wildlife, but also sports. Assuming we're not talking professional sports (where the action is lit for television, i.e. it's reasonably bright), an f/5.6 lens can be a real challenge in that setting. With youth sports (evenings outdoors with poor light, or indoors but still with poor light), I would not use an f/5.6 lens. Even at f/2.8 - f/4 (for a bit more DoF), I'm generally in the ISO 3200 - 12800 range, which is ok on FF but would be too noisy (for me) on the 7D.

Finally, another point regarding the 70-200 + 2x...the OP indicates having the 70-200/2.8. If that means either the non-IS version or the MkI version with IS, neither take a 2x TC nearly as well as the 70-200/2.8L IS II. So in that case, I'd be reluctant to go that route.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've owned two 100-400mm MK I lenses and a 400mm f/5.6. For me, the zoom won hands down. The 400 is very long and difficult to put in a ordinary camera bag, you need to use a minimum of 1/800 shutter speed, and 1/2000 works best. This coupled with the original 7D, which struggles at ISO 800, means the combo is great for bright daylight shooting, but if it gets overcast, or in early evening, forget it.
The IS of the zoom helps with slower shutter speeds for stationary objects, but if the subject is moving, then either lens needs bright light.

As to variability, its true that early lenses had a lot of variability, by the time I bought mine about 7 years ago, that issue was resolved. So check the date code and skip a older lens.

Here is one with my 100-400mm L original version at 400mm.

 

[SteveM]

To date, I haven't paid full price for any of the L series lenses I own. I sit back for 6 months, 9 months, and wait for the cash back.....essentially I am saving up slowly as well.
It may be I have lost interest in that lens after 6 months thus saving me from an impetuous purchase.
The 100-400 mkll, as well as it being a very good lens, focuses (on some cameras) at f8. This makes it compatible with a 1.4 converter which it takes extremely well. This way you are slowly building a very solid and capable system that will last for a lot of years (and have good resale value should you need it). Somewhere down the line you buy the 7D mkll and you have f8 focussing. If you buy the 1.4 at a much later date to add to this, you have a seriously powerful lens and a very professional setup. Buying the 100-400 mkl, that will never be an option for you if you wish to retain AF and a Canon extender.
In 6 months you may even find a second hand version of the mkll.
My point is, unless you really need it now, maybe sit back and save up.
Clearly, I know nothing about your finances, it may be saving up isn't an option. In that case the old 100-400 is the wise choice in my opinion - test one first, the push pull zoom isn't for everyone.

 

[Snzkgb]

To date, I haven't paid full price for any of the L series lenses I own. I sit back for 6 months, 9 months, and wait for the cash back.....essentially I am saving up slowly as well.
It may be I have lost interest in that lens after 6 months thus saving me from an impetuous purchase.
The 100-400 mkll, as well as it being a very good lens, focuses (on some cameras) at f8. This makes it compatible with a 1.4 converter which it takes extremely well. This way you are slowly building a very solid and capable system that will last for a lot of years (and have good resale value should you need it). Somewhere down the line you buy the 7D mkll and you have f8 focussing. If you buy the 1.4 at a much later date to add to this, you have a seriously powerful lens and a very professional setup. Buying the 100-400 mkl, that will never be an option for you if you wish to retain AF and a Canon extender.
In 6 months you may even find a second hand version of the mkll.
My point is, unless you really need it now, maybe sit back and save up.
Clearly, I know nothing about your finances, it may be saving up isn't an option. In that case the old 100-400 is the wise choice in my opinion - test one first, the push pull zoom isn't for everyone.

My finances are quite low, and I need the lens as soon as possible. Extender for f/5.6 lenses is not an option anyway, because my bodies cannot AF with f/8.

 

[JBSF]

I've owned two 100-400mm MK I lenses and a 400mm f/5.6. For me, the zoom won hands down. The 400 is very long and difficult to put in a ordinary camera bag, you need to use a minimum of 1/800 shutter speed, and 1/2000 works best. This coupled with the original 7D, which struggles at ISO 800, means the combo is great for bright daylight shooting, but if it gets overcast, or in early evening, forget it.
The IS of the zoom helps with slower shutter speeds for stationary objects, but if the subject is moving, then either lens needs bright light.

As to variability, its true that early lenses had a lot of variability, by the time I bought mine about 7 years ago, that issue was resolved. So check the date code and skip a older lens.

Here is one with my 100-400mm L original version at 400mm.

I concur with every word of this. I use 7D and 7D mark II, and I now have the 100-400 mark II. I know several people who get great photos with the 400 f:5.6, but it doesn't work for me, because I'm not steady enough. Looking at your (the OP's) signature, you are already using lenses without IS, so it may work for you. But if I were starting again and on the same budget, I would get a late production 100-400 mark I instead of the 400 f:5.6. Just to complicate things, you might also consider the great 70-300 L IS, though it does not have as much reach and cannot take a Canon TC.

 

[SteveM]

Slightly off piste, To get a higher usable ISO out of the 7D try using DxO prime for its noise reduction. I was playing with this a couple of days ago, ACR noise reduction was giving me a usable 3200 ISO, DxO prime gave me 6400.... It is extremely good. The Nikon magazine (you can probably Google your way to it as well) are offering a free copy of version 9 currently (this will process the 7D, check if you need Lightroom though).
Version 11 is more flexible, you'll need the 25% voucher they offer on the £160 purchase price though.
This is b........good software, I borrowed a Nikon D7200 and shot some very usable photos of my daughter at 12,800 ISO....after processing in Prime - they wouldn't stand up to much sharpening so you need a good lens to start with, but they would still print very nicely at A3.
Another reason to stick with the best L series glass.
Give the free version a try, it really is like an injection of life into the camera....no, I do't work for DxO.

 

[Snzkgb]

Slightly off piste, To get a higher usable ISO out of the 7D try using DxO prime for its noise reduction. I was playing with this a couple of days ago, ACR noise reduction was giving me a usable 3200 ISO, DxO prime gave me 6400.... It is extremely good. The Nikon magazine (you can probably Google your way to it as well) are offering a free copy of version 9 currently (this will process the 7D, check if you need Lightroom though).
Version 11 is more flexible, you'll need the 25% voucher they offer on the £160 purchase price though.
This is b........good software, I borrowed a Nikon D7200 and shot some very usable photos of my daughter at 12,800 ISO....after processing in Prime - they wouldn't stand up to much sharpening so you need a good lens to start with, but they would still print very nicely at A3.
Another reason to stick with the best L series glass.
Give the free version a try, it really is like an injection of life into the camera....no, I do't work for DxO.

I'm using lightroom and I'm quite happy with noise reduction of that tool.

 

[arbitrage]

In regard to the 70-200 with 2xTCIII, I did use this along side the 200-400 on a trip to Borneo back in 2014. I found the IQ to be very similar to the 100-400. However the AF takes a big hit and u less you leave the limiter on the outer range it is actually unusable when full range is selected.

However it is a versatile combo because sometimes you can get closer and use it with 1.4TC or with the bare lens, gaining a stop of light each time.

But the above only applies to the newest ISII version.

 

[neonlight]

I've had a 600D and 100-400 I for about four years, and am pleased with the results. I too debated whether to go for the 400 f/5.6 or 100-400 and while the 400 (at the time) appeared to be better, the IS appealed to me though it is only about 2 stops practically. I've used the 100-400 with both the 1.4x and 2x. Focussing is the biggest issue with 2x as it is twice as sensitive, and no AF. One reason I like the 100-400 is that it squashes down for carrying, and I must be among the few who prefer the push-pull action to twist. Having the ability to zoom certainly is more flexible but most of the time I've used the lens at 400mm.
Any TC makes the lens a sunny day only one.

 

[neonlight]

...and the cormorant perched on a tall tree, taken with 100-400I and 2x III.

 

[Snzkgb]

In regard to the 70-200 with 2xTCIII, I did use this along side the 200-400 on a trip to Borneo back in 2014. I found the IQ to be very similar to the 100-400. However the AF takes a big hit and u less you leave the limiter on the outer range it is actually unusable when full range is selected.

However it is a versatile combo because sometimes you can get closer and use it with 1.4TC or with the bare lens, gaining a stop of light each time.

But the above only applies to the newest ISII version.

Unfortunately I only have 70-200L f/2.8 first version, with no IS.