400 5.6 + 70-300 vs. 100-400II?

[Cory]

I'm ramping up my "running" event photography and the perfect lens will be a 400 5.6.
I know it's controversial to say, but I find its rendering "better" than any zoom; even though the best zooms are very good and very versatile.
With that, I can see how a 70-300 will be very useful at times which points to the smaller zoom/400 prime combo.
Does that combo make sense, at least sort of, or is it a thought to slightly compromise and just make life easier with the 100-400II?
THANKS.

 

[AlanF]

It does seem somewhat cumbersome to go around with both a 70-300mm zoom and and the physically long 400/5.6 when the 100-400mm II will cover both - and I would dispute that the 100/5.6 is better than the zoom at 400mm. The TDP's copy of the 100-400mm II outperforms both its copies of the 70-300mm L from 100-300mm.

 

[JPAZ]

FWIW, my 100-400ii is one of the sharpest in my arsenal. I don't have a 400/5.6 for comparison, but the utility of the zoom is worth it

 

[NancyP]

I would have to say that the 400 f/5.6L and the 100-400 LIS vII have indistinguishable image quality at 400mm. I own both. 400 f/5.6L does not have image stabilization, so it is less versatile - a great bird-in-flight lens, but one is obliged to use shutter speed of 1/500 or faster for any reliably sharp hand held shots. So, not great for hand held shots where light is low and subject isn't moving. This isn't a limitation if you have the camera on tripod. The 100-400 vII can be hand held at 400mm at 1/125 with reasonable success, if your technique is good. The weight difference is noticeable but manageable. So - the question is, what else are you going to be using the lenses for? What do you have currently in the 70-200 or 70-300 range? Have you considered a 70-200 f/2.8?

 

[JBSF]

I would have to say that the 400 f/5.6L and the 100-400 LIS vII have indistinguishable image quality at 400mm. I own both. 400 f/5.6L does not have image stabilization, so it is less versatile - a great bird-in-flight lens, but one is obliged to use shutter speed of 1/500 or faster for any reliably sharp hand held shots. So, not great for hand held shots where light is low and subject isn't moving. This isn't a limitation if you have the camera on tripod. The 100-400 vII can be hand held at 400mm at 1/125 with reasonable success, if your technique is good. The weight difference is noticeable but manageable. So - the question is, what else are you going to be using the lenses for? What do you have currently in the 70-200 or 70-300 range? Have you considered a 70-200 f/2.8?

+1 on all points. MFD on 100-400 is also better than either of the other lenses.

 

[AlanF]

I would have to say that the 400 f/5.6L and the 100-400 LIS vII have indistinguishable image quality at 400mm. I own both. 400 f/5.6L does not have image stabilization, so it is less versatile - a great bird-in-flight lens, but one is obliged to use shutter speed of 1/500 or faster for any reliably sharp hand held shots. So, not great for hand held shots where light is low and subject isn't moving. This isn't a limitation if you have the camera on tripod. The 100-400 vII can be hand held at 400mm at 1/125 with reasonable success, if your technique is good. The weight difference is noticeable but manageable. So - the question is, what else are you going to be using the lenses for? What do you have currently in the 70-200 or 70-300 range? Have you considered a 70-200 f/2.8?

NancyP is a great fan of the 400/5.6 and so you should take her comments here very seriously.

 

[Cory]

No matter where I go, the 100-400II is recommended.
I guess it makes sense to have my wide and long ends covered by zooms and then I can address my "primes" addiction in the standard range.
On occasion, too, there's parades, other events, etc.
100-400II it is.
Not sure if this site saves me money or costs me money. Probably saves.
Thanks.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm ramping up my "running" event photography and the perfect lens will be a 400 5.6.

Photographing running events usually involves being in a fixed position as runners approach you. I don't understand how a prime lens is 'perfect' or even desirable in that situation.

 

[Cory]

I'm ramping up my "running" event photography and the perfect lens will be a 400 5.6.

Photographing running events usually involves being in a fixed position as runners approach you. I don't understand how a prime lens is 'perfect' or even desirable in that situation.

I've made it work and do appreciate the better image quality offered from primes, but maybe it's time to move on and embrace the benefits of zoom lenses. It might be a whole new world.

 

[Talys]

I think that the clear winner is the 100-400LII. It's just a super versatile lens with that beautiful, short, MFD, and very crisp 400mm.

IMO, the only way I would go to a telephoto prime is for f/4. But that's a whole other ball of wax; if you wanted to use that at a running event, I'd think you'd want a second body with a 70-200/2.8 for when action gets closer. Like the pro sports thing where the long telephoto is on a tripod, and 70-200 is handheld.

I would take the 70-300 out of the running (pardon the pun). The L was a fine lens in its time, but the performance now is just inferior to the 100-400LII in pretty much every way.

 

[stevelee]

FWIW, my 100-400ii is one of the sharpest in my arsenal. I don't have a 400/5.6 for comparison, but the utility of the zoom is worth it

My 100-400II came Thursday. The few pictures I have made with it are amazingly sharp, and I haven’t even tried it on a tripod. I haven’t tried it on the low end, but since I have a 100 macro and a 24-105 zoom, there seems no point in dealing with the weight to get the same focal length, so I expect my usage to range in the 200-400 area. Autofocus and IS are amazing, too. I took a picture or the almost-full moon Friday night at 400. If there is any CA, it had certainly been removed by ACR by the time it opened it. CA is pretty obvious on the edges of the moon if it is present.

 

[Hector1970]

I'm a long time user now of the 100-400 II and its a great lens.
I do a huge amount of sports photography with it and its very sharp.
Focusing is fast and accurate.
I think Canon did a great job with it.

 

[monkey44]

I'm a long time user now of the 100-400 II and its a great lens.
I do a huge amount of sports photography with it and its very sharp.
Focusing is fast and accurate.
I think Canon did a great job with it.

I agree totally here. I too have been shooting sports, and also wildlife, for a lot of years ... 100/400 II is extremely sharp and versatile. Hard to beat it for weight and comfort in the fields ... it's so good, it almost knows what you want before you know you want it --- In twenty + years, I've never owned a prime lens ...

 

[Orangutan]

I'm a long time user now of the 100-400 II and its a great lens.
I do a huge amount of sports photography with it and its very sharp.
Focusing is fast and accurate.
I think Canon did a great job with it.

I agree totally here. I too have been shooting sports, and also wildlife, for a lot of years ... 100/400 II is extremely sharp and versatile. Hard to beat it for weight and comfort in the fields ... it's so good, it almost knows what you want before you know you want it --- In twenty + years, I've never owned a prime lens ...

Which body do you use it on?

 

[mpphoto]

Here's another vote for the 100-400 Mk II. I own it and the 70-300 L, using them for planespotting and wildlife photography. The 100-400 has better image quality than the 70-300. The only time I choose the 70-300 over the 100-400 now is when I need to keep size and weight down.

I also have the 300mm f/4L IS. I keep that lens because I just love the color in the photos I take with it. The downside is its lack of versatility as a prime. Sometimes 300mm is simply too long, especially on a crop body.

The 100-400 Mk II is so good that I just don't see any benefit to having the 400mm f/5.6. I have bad GAS, but even I couldn't justify picking up the 400 prime because I couldn't think of a reason I would prefer to use it over the 100-400.

 

[monkey44]

I'm a long time user now of the 100-400 II and its a great lens.
I do a huge amount of sports photography with it and its very sharp.
Focusing is fast and accurate.
I think Canon did a great job with it.

I agree totally here. I too have been shooting sports, and also wildlife, for a lot of years ... 100/400 II is extremely sharp and versatile. Hard to beat it for weight and comfort in the fields ... it's so good, it almost knows what you want before you know you want it --- In twenty + years, I've never owned a prime lens ...

Which body do you use it on?

I used the 100/400 v1 for film/slides first, and also on a 30D and a 7D, excellent lens ... then went to the 100/400 v2 when it released ... which I use on a 5DM3, along with a 70/200 f4 IS ... I also shot with the 7D2, but did not like it at all with the 100/400 v2, so sold it, and bought another 5DM3. So, my field set up is now 5DM3 w/100/400 v2 and 5DM3 w/70/200 f4 IS ... I once did a one month field trip in the western Rockies and shot entirely with the 5DM3 and 100/400 v2. I just never needed another lens - altho I did shoot a few sunsets and scenics with the 16/35 f4 IS ...

 

[AbsN]

I've had the 70-300L and upgraded to the 100-400ii last year. The image quality of the 100-400ii is exceptional. The 70-300L image quality is very good but absolutely lags behind in image quality the 100-400ii on my 5dsr.

However I have found myself wishing I still had the 70-300L on multiple occasions simply because it is much lighter and considerably more compact. As a travel lens the 70-300L is superb and still has very good image quality. You can't go too far wrong with either really in my opinion.

 

[Cory]

Thanks again. As much as I like primes the 100-400II is on the wish list (along with an 85 prime).
For "running" I'd be good with the 400mm prime, but for other things the zoom would be really good to have.

8)

 

[Hector1970]

Good choice I think. You'll enjoy the 100-400mm II.
It has a very short focusing distance too - I think 1M.
It's good for things coming at you getting closer and closer.

 

[AJ]

Have you considered a 70-200 f/2.8?

I'm with Nancy. 70-200/2.8 IS is the lens you want for your needs. You can always buy a teleconverter if you need more reach, but I doubt that will be the case.