The budget photographer's 400mm dilemma

[icassell]

The 400/5.6 is a wonderful lens. It is lightweight and easy to handhold making lack of IS something less of an issue. I wrestled with the choice between it and the 100-400 v. 1 when I bought it about 5 years ago and have never regretted the choice. It is still my go-to lens for BIF even though I now own the 500/4. Even nicer is the fact that you can get one used for well under half the price of the new 100-400 v. 2.

One of the initial downsides of the 400 was the fact that I couldn't use it with a TC on my 7D and get AF. That problem was solved with the purchase of the 7D Mk II. The AF of the 400 with a 1.4x TC is very good (albeit not as fast as the bare lens).

That said, I've been seriously eyeing the new 100-400. The optics and focus mechanism are supposed to be far improved over the previous model putting it on a near par with the 400 prime. The zoom would be nice as I used to use a Sigma 100-300/4 lens for my zoo lens and have missed the range since I sold it a while back to buy the 70-200/2.8 II.

Given a budget, I would not hesitate to recommend the 400/5.6.

 

[AlanF]

MJ, you're not specific on what you mean by wildlife...

For me, wildlife is birds, and after using 100-400, 400 5.6, 300 L + 1.4xc for years, I bought the aforementioned Tamron 150-600 . It's a no brainer for me because I now get shots I simply could not get before. Especially songbirds, birds in flight, etc. I even get more larger birds because I can stay further away from them.. Sneaking up/stalking a bird usually results in bird taking off.

I'm happy with the sharpness, as long as I stop down one. I hear the Sigma 150-600 C is comparable, the "Sports" is sharper than the Tamron

Now if I were shooting large mammals not too far away, or content to shoot herons and waterfowl, I'd probably go with the 10-400 II.

good luck.

I have used extensively for bird photography the Tamron 150-600mm, the 300mm f/2.8 II and now the 100-400mm II plus extenders on the 5DIII, 7DII and a bit on the 70D. The 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII beats the Tamron at 600mm easily. However, the 100-400mm II on the 7DII, with or without the 1.4xTCIII gives better results than the Tamron on the 5DIII or crop. The Tamron is a very good lens, but the 100-400mm II is even better, and I would stake the 100-400mm II + 1.4xTCIII at 560mm against the Tamron at 600 any day.

 

[quod]

I have the 100-400 I, 100-400 II, and 400/5.6. In order of preference: 100-400 II, 400/5.6, 100-400 I.

If I had to choose one, it would definitely be the 100-400 II. It's image quality is on par with (or nearly on par with) the 400/5.6, but it is more versatile, it takes 1.4x extenders well (haven't tried the 2x), and has image stabilization (about 3 stops IMO). The build quality is also excellent and it is weather-sealed. Both the 100-400 II and 400/5.6 have super fast AF response (the 100-400 I is much slower). The drawback of this lens is that it is the heaviest of the three and the zoom ring is really stiff on my copy. One other issue that I encountered is that I put a polarizer on my UV filter, and then put the hood on. I could not get the hood off in this configuration, and getting the polarizer off was a real chore. The reason the little sliding window is on the hood is because of this exact issue.

My 400/5.6 is as sharp as my 500/4 I, but it's issues are no IS and no weather sealing. I think it might be a hair sharper than the 100-400 II, but you have to pixel peep at 100% to see it. As mentioned the AF is fast. I haven't had much luck with getting good shots with a 1.4x on it, but that said, I have only used this combo with birds in flight, which can be difficult subject matter. It's very light; lighter than the 100-400 I or 100-400 II. The biggest issue is the lack of IS at 400mm; the weight of the lens lends itself to hand-holding, but the lack of image stabilization is a real challenge, even with high shutter speeds.

The 100-400 I pretty much loses in every category. In addition, the push-pull design is not something I am comfortable with.

 

[seamonster]

The 100-400 II is great but I would not call it a "budget" lens at all.

You can get a 7D II AND the tammy 150-600 for the same amount.

 

[derrald]

I've used the 300 f/4L + 1.4x for years for wildlife primarily on a 20D and a 50D. Two years ago I purchased the 500 f/4L II, so it doesn't get much use anymore, but it's still part of my hiking kit.

I originally purchased it because I disliked the design of the 100-400 I lens and the sharpness with the 300+1.4 seemed a tad bit better. I also had the flexibility of having a 300 and a 420 lens.

Love the 300, the 1.4 was excellent, overall I've had great experiences with the combo.

If I had it over to do today with the release of the 100-400 II, I'd go with that. I'm seriously considering purchasing that lens anyway and replacing both my 70-200 f/4L (non-IS) and 300 f/4L IS. It looks like an awesome lens.

 

[Jane]

I have owned the 100-400 (first version) and the 400 f5.6 and was happy with them until I bought the 100-400 Mk II. Wow. This is a great lens and delivers excellent images with the 1.4 x III. I still own and love the 70-300L (take it on all trips when I don't expect wildlife opportunities) but I wan't happy using the Kenko 1.4 on it due to variations in exposure. Never had a Tamron but friends have had them and well they were heavy and one of them packed up after a few months. The 100-400 II is easily hand-holdable, even with the 1.4 extender.

I can't say enough good things about the 100-400 MK II. Just returned from a photo trip in Baja California where just about all the Canon shooters were using this lens, even the pros who could afford much more.

 

[Jane]

Forgot to mention the MFD of the 100-400II is incredible at 3.3'

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Forgot to mention the MFD of the 100-400II is incredible at 3.3'

Is it still sharp at MFD? A lot of long lenses can focus close, but tend to loose a lot of their image quality at MFD.

 

[quod]

Forgot to mention the MFD of the 100-400II is incredible at 3.3'

Is it still sharp at MFD? A lot of long lenses can focus close, but tend to loose a lot of their image quality at MFD.

Yes.

 

[MJ]

Many thanks to every contributor!

Despite major GAS I'll hold off to buy any supertele rightnow. Maybe the Canon gods are gracious enough to offer us a 400 5.6 II IS L or lower them prices for the DO II model!

Let's hope for the best and stay optimistic

 

[Deleted member 91053]

In the meantime a Canon 400 F5.6 L is simply a great lens. You can get one at pretty reasonable used prices and, at up to 3 times it's price, it is hard to beat. The new Canon 100-400 Mk2 is extremely good - possibly better. But it is heavier, more expensive and (slightly) shorter. Against that the 100-400 Mk2 has an excellent minimum focus distance which makes it VERY useful for reptiles and larger insects.
The 400 F5.6 is a slimmer, lighter, simpler lens that just does the job well and won't bankrupt you. It doesn't have a zoom function or IS - great! For wildlife I have yet to find a use for either - admittedly I am a newbie as I have only been doing this for 10 years or so.

 

[NancyP]

400mm f/5.6L no-IS is a lens with a steep learning curve due to the lack of IS and due to the need to get the bird in the frame without the benefit of seeing it at 100mm and then zooming. However, once one gets the hang of it, this prime is just plain fun to use as a bird-in-flight and handheld lens, mostly because of the light weight and superb balance on a consumer-sized SLR (I use it on the 60D, which is a medium size medium weight consumer SLR, but I think a Rebel might balance well too). Yes, I wish it had a closer MFD for butterflies and other large insects. If I am going to hike a while to get to the birds and want a light easy-to-handle lens, this is the one. I haven't been in a huge hurry to get something else, because the next step up is a 500mm or 600mm f/4 lens, which is seriously expensive and seriously heavy.

 

[danski0224]

Yes, I wish it had a closer MFD for butterflies and other large insects.

If you go out with the intent of photographing those, an extension tube does wonders to reduce the MFD.

Of course, you lose infinity focus. In fact, the lens may focus only in a narrow range, like from 6' (instead of 15') but "infinity" is now 12'. It doesn't take much, but adding a longer tube (or more of them) will reduce MFD and make "infinity" even closer.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Just my 2p.
The lack of IS on the 400 F5.6 is a decided advantage. All my IS lenses (was 5, now 3) have the IS turned off so that I can benefit from the improved AF speed and tracking. IS made a lot of sense in film days and the early DSLRs but, to me, is now more of a hazard than a help.
Many may well disagree but my photography has certainly improved since turning it off.

 

[nc0b]

If I was purchasing today, maybe I would go with the new 100-400mm II. However I am quite happy with my 400mm f/5.6 which I purchased new, and my 300mm f/4 which I purchased used. I love the built-in lens hoods on the primes. The focus speed of the 400mm is stunning. I doubt I will replace the primes with the new zoom. I had both Mk III TCs which I used on my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, but once I bought the primes I sold the 2X TC III. Occasionally I use the 1.4X on both the 70-200 f/4 & f/2.8, but it is gathering a lot of dust. Have it with me in Alaska now, but haven't used it yet. Certainly have been using the 400mm f/5.6. I get best results for BIF with my 6D over my 60D with the 400mm.

 

[degos]

Another vote for the 400mm 5.6. Not only much, much cheaper 100-400 Mk II but you're not carrying around all that extra metal and glass for a zoom function that is rarely used in the field.

Also, bear in mind the risk of failure and potential repair costs; there isn't much to break in the 400mm compared to the zoom-beast.

Pick-up a good second-hand one for less than one-third of the price of a Mk II and wait for the rumoured 500mm f-something next year... and then keep the 400mm as your backup.

It took 22 years for a Canon zoom to match the 400mm 5.6 in IQ terms. Imagine the prime they can make with that same technology!

 

[Orangutan]

Just my 2p.
The lack of IS on the 400 F5.6 is a decided advantage.

I'm a newer newbie than you, but I've found IS on my 100-400 MKI to be very useful for handheld shots at 1/400, sometimes 1/250. The extra light from the slower shutter is noticeable on my crop frame sensor. Were it not for IS I doubt I'd be able to shoot slower than 1/800 handheld even under ideal circumstances.

I don't mean to dissuade someone from the 400 prime: I've never used it, and I've heard nothing be good about it; however the blanket belittling of IS makes no sense to me.

I've never before heard the assertion that IS slows AF, can you cite a reference?

 

[nc0b]

I was at a glacier between Glennallen and Valdez, AK yesterday. Ran into a gentleman carrying a 100-400mm version I and a FF body. I asked him if he was going to get the new version and he said he was considering going 4/3rds instead for much less weight. Toting around the 400mm f/5.6 and a 6D is really quite light weight considering the image quality you get. I would never change to such a small sensor. I was shooting a bald eagle a bit earlier, and if I had been using either 100-400 zoom, it would have been racked out all the way. At least for wildlife, one usually needs all the reach you can get. I had a 70-200mm f/4 on my 60D, had I needed a shorter focal length. Over all, of the 9 GB of shots so far in AK, I have used the 6D and 24-105mm about 75% of the time. Have barely used the 18mm Zeiss.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Just my 2p.
The lack of IS on the 400 F5.6 is a decided advantage.

I'm a newer newbie than you, but I've found IS on my 100-400 MKI to be very useful for handheld shots at 1/400, sometimes 1/250. The extra light from the slower shutter is noticeable on my crop frame sensor. Were it not for IS I doubt I'd be able to shoot slower than 1/800 handheld even under ideal circumstances.

I don't mean to dissuade someone from the 400 prime: I've never used it, and I've heard nothing be good about it; however the blanket belittling of IS makes no sense to me.

I've never before heard the assertion that IS slows AF, can you cite a reference?

I am afraid the only reference I can "cite" is personal experience!
For quite a while I thought IS was a wonderful feature as it allowed me to take shots at lower ISO and silly low shutter speeds. This is great for subjects that are not moving, or likely to move. The first problem that I noticed was that I was fighting the IS on moving subjects and getting a lot of misses. Secondly I found that the AF on my (then) 300 F4 L IS was rather slow for subjects like Birds in Flight. IS mode 2 was of little help as subjects didn't rarely flew directly left to right or vice versa.
After turning the IS off on the 300 I noticed a marked increase in AF aquisition speed and could now track moving subjects more reliably. Inevitably I started to forget to turn the IS back on for static subjects - but my images didn't suffer unless the shutter speed was getting rather low.
As you may have guessed I primarily shoot wildlife with occasional landscape and architecture thrown in (we have some excellent Castles near where I live).
I tried the same thing on my 600 F4 L IS and noticed the same as with the 300 F4 L IS, though slightly less so as the 600 has a better IS system. Initially when I traded the 600 for the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS I used the IS as it had the (then) latest 4 stop IS. The lens was wonderful but on my (then) 1D4 and 1DX I still wasn't getting the AF performance that I had hoped for. In Jan 2014 I assumed that the IS was again interfering and decided to turn it off on this lens for an extended test. Very quickly I decided to leave it that way!
On my shorter lenses I still used IS but was getting annoyed as I was losing shots when I used a tripod and forgot to turn the IS off. So I tried the same thing with these lenses and my, on tripod, work benefited but I didn't notice any problems with going hand held.
So for the last 17 months I have not used IS on any of my lenses from 16 to 800mm and have yet to have an issue, and have been enjoying the improved AF performance.
If one wants to take low light shots and don't have/don't want to carry a tripod then IS may well be useful. I don't so it is of no use to me. Additionally IS means that there is an extra element in the focal path that that cannot help IQ.
There are many (most?) real and imagined experts who will totally disagree with me, that's fine! For my uses IS is a feature I seek to avoid but, these days, it is difficult to do so! At least my latest purchase (Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2) is IS free!

 

[sleepnever]

I'm now on my second time renting the 100-400 II on my 5D3. I've been looking for a good multi-purpose lens with reach, especially for landscape photography.

I tried out the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III, because I love that lens. Sharp, versatile, etc, even if a little heavy. I shoot stopped down to f/11 or so anyway, but just having the option to take the TC off and have a 2.8 zoomed prime was also a bonus. However, the 2x III killed image quality at the long end and it doesn't fit in my bag (off by a mere 1.5" with the TC on there!!)

Now I'm exploring the 100-400 II option. My 5D3 does pretty dang well in high ISO situations, so setting it to a minimum of f/5.6 doesn't bother me too much and if shooting at 200+ the compression helps the image. It is a little heavy, but it fits in my bag and the IS when I need it is stellar. Indoors at f/5.6, 400mm @ 1/30sec handheld and I have a sharp image. Outdoors on my current trip it has been great too. I wish it was an f/4 prime, but I still think I might go with this instead of the 70-200 + 2x combo above, due to image quality, reach and price. I also saw that with the 1.4x III on there @ 560, it is still pretty dang sharp.