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

[Snzkgb]

Right now I'm in search for the best begginer wildlife/bird/sports lens.
I've already bought the 7D just for that, now I'm looking for the best lens for under 1000$ used.
I've read through and watched many and many reviews, some people say and show in the charts that 100-400L is less sharp than 400L/5.6 (like Tony Northrup), some says and shows the opposite, or at least that 100-400L is not less sharp than 400L/5.6 (photozone.de).

I know that a mid sample of 400L/5.6 might be really a tad sharper than, for example, mid sample of 100-400L, and it is lighter than 100-400L. But I'm a novice, I sure will have problems with finding target without zooming capabilities of 100-400L, and this IS do matters too.

300L/4 IS with 1.4 TC is another story, which I like less than two mentioned above because of TC. But it can also be an option.

So, what you'll say?

 

[Ryananthony]

Are you willing to consider third party lenses? I have the Sigma 150-600C. I used it on my 7d, 5d3, and now 1dx with great results on all. AF has been very reliable on this lens for me. It is a little slower in aperture, but only a third of a stop in comparison to the 400mm f5.6L, but you get all the way up to 600mm.

 

[Snzkgb]

Are you willing to consider third party lenses? I have the Sigma 150-600C. I used it on my 7d, 5d3, and now 1dx with great results on all. AF has been very reliable on this lens for me. It is a little slower in aperture, but only a third of a stop in comparison to the 400mm f5.6L, but you get all the way up to 600mm.

No, I prefer to use canon lenses on canon, though I heard some good things about 150-600.

 

[applecider]

First a little clarification, are you shooting with original 7d? The original does not I think support f8 focusing, in case you want to add an extender.

The 400 prime is a good beginning lens especially for learning mid to large birds in flight, it is very hand holdable, and sharper than the mark I 100-400mm on average. The mark ii 100-400 is a very nice lens and if you could find one for your price target I would grab it, with the caveat that you get to try or return it if you get a bad used copy. There are used version ones available for under 1k.

 

[bholliman]

I owned both the 100-400 vI and 400 f/5.6. For birds, I preferred the prime as my copy was sharper. There is a lot of copy variation with the 100-400 I, so you may find a "good" copy that is close to the 400 in sharpness, but your odds are not good. Most people that have a good copy are hanging onto it.

So, my suggestion would be the 400 f/5.6, a really terrific lens for the money. I really didn't miss the ability to zoom much when I had it. The zoom was almost always shot at the long end anyway.

 

[Mikehit]

What sort of sports? If field sports you will probably want flexibility of the zoom when the players approach the touchline. Also, the 100-400 has IS which the 400mm prime does not. If you are stuck on 400mm you may not find yourself using it as much as you thought. However the prime lens is much lighter.

My own view is that sample variation does exist but it is much less than you would guess from viewing the internet makes out - my copy was absolutely fine and remember that people usually post to say ' I have a problem' not 'mine is great'. The 100-400 was a standard tele zoom for many action photographers for a very good reason and that is that it is a damned good lens. Also bear in mind that people have their own views of what constitutes 'sharp' and I have seen many posts where someone's 'this is appalling' is my 'actually that is not bad'.
If you are beginning wildlife photography then I think sample variation in the lens (even accounting for sample variation) will be insignificant to limitations in your technique.

I don't know how it works in Russia, but in UK if you buy a second hand lens from a dealer you get a 3-month or 6-month warranty and you can often have 7 or 14 day trial period and return the lens if you are not happy with it. Sometimes, I will order a lens or camera when the weather looks good, try it out for a few days and return it if I do not want to keep it.

 

[Snzkgb]

First a little clarification, are you shooting with original 7d? The original does not I think support f8 focusing, in case you want to add an extender.

The 400 prime is a good beginning lens especially for learning mid to large birds in flight, it is very hand holdable, and sharper than the mark I 100-400mm on average. The mark ii 100-400 is a very nice lens and if you could find one for your price target I would grab it, with the caveat that you get to try or return it if you get a bad used copy. There are used version ones available for under 1k.

Yes, I have original 7D. As for 100-400 II, I definately won't have money for it.

 

[Snzkgb]

I owned both the 100-400 vI and 400 f/5.6. For birds, I preferred the prime as my copy was sharper. There is a lot of copy variation with the 100-400 I, so you may find a "good" copy that is close to the 400 in sharpness, but your odds are not good. Most people that have a good copy are hanging onto it.

So, my suggestion would be the 400 f/5.6, a really terrific lens for the money. I really didn't miss the ability to zoom much when I had it. The zoom was almost always shot at the long end anyway.

The money question is strong for me. For example, I can buy 100-400L I for just 500$, while 400 f/5.6 are not common used in Moscow, so I could find only couple of them for 800$ for the cheapest one.
Of course I want to save as much money as I can.

 

[SteveM]

If you are shooting birds a 400mm prime is good, but for general wildlife and sport it may be too powerful at times. The lack of stabilisation ruins it for me personally when I want to shoot at 1/100th second due to bad light.
The 100-400 mkl is hit and miss quality wise and some don't like the pump action zoom, which creates a dust pump effect.
For sport and general wildlife you may find 300mm to be adequate, you can get close to much sport, and wildlife is often shot showing the animal in its surroundings.
If the latter is of interest, then consider the 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS, a very highly thought of lens currently retailing in the UK for £1069 after cash back. The cash back expires on the 18th January, tomorrow. A tiny bit over your price, but a very good versatile lens.

 

[candc]

The 400 f/5.6 lens is a good option if your primary use for it is birds in flight. I have seen a lot of good images taken with the 100-400 but there is a lot of copy variation and the "is" is not as good as the more recent options.

Budget wildlife lens = tamron, sigma 150-600

 

[old-pr-pix]

My thoughts re. the 100-400L I: My copy is o.k. sharp, but not outstanding; yet, I think technique is still more critical. When careful I can get sharp results but I don't use the lens frequently enough to be consistent myself. The IS is only good for about two stops and not helpful for moving subjects - it has no value for sports, moving birds, or when using a tripod. Any lens that extends has to pull air in and push air out based on length... the 'dust pump' concerns are overblown unless you are in a very dusty environment (then you need a fixed length lens). Don't plan on zooming out to locate subject than zoom in for shot - the act of zooming usually loses the subject anyway. Instead, learn to locate at the focal length you want to shoot at (usually 400 mm for distant subjects). For me, weight can be a factor. The 100-400 does get heavy - I use a backpack and tripod most of the time.

If you are truly just getting started, consider the 70-300 non-L lenses (either Mk I or Mk II) to learn with and decide if you use the long end enough to justify going to 400mm. Much less investment. If you are hooked you will want both better body and better lens.

 

[BobG]

I had the 100-400 IS I for 7 or 8 years when I started bird/wildlife photography. When I was starting I found it fairly difficult to initially get the target BIF into the field of view at 400mm (on a 40D) and often had to pull back a bit, then zoom in again once I was tracking the bird and it was in focus. The IS helped when tracking as well. I also found that the 100 end was used when taking sea birds as you can generally get much closer to the target.

Given that the second hand price of the 400 prime is nearly twice that of the zoom in your area, I would definitely go for the zoom initially as you will almost certainly want to trade up in a few years.

 

[Don Haines]

I would rate from worst to best:

400F5.6

100-400 version 1

Sigma or Tamron 150-600

100-400 version 2

and then the "big whites"

As soon as you get past the 150-600s, the price starts to skyrocket!

 

[Drum]

My own opinion is that the zoom is the way to go, mainly for target acquisition as some said before a fixed length doesn't give you the flexibility that a beginner may need. I wouldn't discount the Sigma or Tamron 150-600's as they are very capable lenses and offer the 400-600 mm option that neither of the Canon's do. Unless you are saving up for CPS membership they are a real alternative.

 

[Snzkgb]

If you are shooting birds a 400mm prime is good, but for general wildlife and sport it may be too powerful at times. The lack of stabilisation ruins it for me personally when I want to shoot at 1/100th second due to bad light.
The 100-400 mkl is hit and miss quality wise and some don't like the pump action zoom, which creates a dust pump effect.
For sport and general wildlife you may find 300mm to be adequate, you can get close to much sport, and wildlife is often shot showing the animal in its surroundings.
If the latter is of interest, then consider the 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS, a very highly thought of lens currently retailing in the UK for £1069 after cash back. The cash back expires on the 18th January, tomorrow. A tiny bit over your price, but a very good versatile lens.

I have 70-200/2.8 L, so I don't think extra 100mm is worth it with 70-300L zooms.
But extra 200mm definately worth it for me.

I would rate from worst to best:

400F5.6

100-400 version 1

Sigma or Tamron 150-600

100-400 version 2

and then the "big whites"

As soon as you get past the 150-600s, the price starts to skyrocket!

I'm just a mortal one, I don't even dream to buy even 400DO or 500/4, not speaking about anything past 600mm.

My thoughts re. the 100-400L I: My copy is o.k. sharp, but not outstanding; yet, I think technique is still more critical. When careful I can get sharp results but I don't use the lens frequently enough to be consistent myself. The IS is only good for about two stops and not helpful for moving subjects - it has no value for sports, moving birds, or when using a tripod. Any lens that extends has to pull air in and push air out based on length... the 'dust pump' concerns are overblown unless you are in a very dusty environment (then you need a fixed length lens). Don't plan on zooming out to locate subject than zoom in for shot - the act of zooming usually loses the subject anyway. Instead, learn to locate at the focal length you want to shoot at (usually 400 mm for distant subjects). For me, weight can be a factor. The 100-400 does get heavy - I use a backpack and tripod most of the time.

If you are truly just getting started, consider the 70-300 non-L lenses (either Mk I or Mk II) to learn with and decide if you use the long end enough to justify going to 400mm. Much less investment. If you are hooked you will want both better body and better lens.

Yes, weight can be a factor. I have a backpack with all my lenses and both my bodies, but it is a hell-heavy thing. And with another lens it would become even more heavy. But I think I can leave with that.
As for 70-300 non-L, I really don't want to bother buying non-L lenses.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

I used the 100-400 mk1 for shooting sports (mostly rugby union) for many years and I was always delighted with the results. The push pull zoom mechanism on this lens is not as bad as some people say and I never had any problems with it sucking dust into the lens. For fast action sports I found it to be a quicker way of zooming than a traditional twist zoom mechanism.
Recently I upgraded to the 100-400 mk2 and sold my 100-400 mk 1. The mk 2 is slightly better than the mk 1, but given the chance again I don't think I would upgrade and I think you will be very happy with the mk 1.
For fast action sports I would not consider a prime lens unless you can afford one of the really expensive big whites.

 

[Snzkgb]

I used the 100-400 mk1 for shooting sports (mostly rugby union) for many years and I was always delighted with the results. The push pull zoom mechanism on this lens is not as bad as some people say and I never had any problems with it sucking dust into the lens. For fast action sports I found it to be a quicker way of zooming than a traditional twist zoom mechanism.
Recently I upgraded to the 100-400 mk2 and sold my 100-400 mk 1. The mk 2 is slightly better than the mk 1, but given the chance again I don't think I would upgrade and I think you will be very happy with the mk 1.
For fast action sports I would not consider a prime lens unless you can afford one of the really expensive big whites.

Thanks for the answer. Photography is my hobby, so I definately can not afford any big white , nor I would ever be able to

 

[mnclayshooter]

I tend to agree with most of what everyone else has said.

I will chime in with my own experience:

I have the 100-400 Mk I - I must have a pretty decent copy as I don't notice any notable lack of sharpness etc. It was the third lens I bought for my DSLR having taken a big break in interchangeable lens cameras after film became "past tense" for the most part... I owned a 40mm pancake, then a 24-105 in a kit, and then the 100-400 and then of course onto others like the 17-40, 16-35 etc etc. That said... I've lugged that thing into swamps, on my kayak, up mountains, on my back on my bike, on my passenger seat in the SUV across hunting land, in airplanes, etc... It is heavy, but not unbearable, it is flexible as a zoom, it is widely used, probably easy to buy, but is going to get harder and harder to sell as it is a very old model.

I've tried the tamron 150-600. It was just "OK"... my 100-400 was/is more complete as far as sharpness and usable focal length. The new Tamron is on sale right now at a bargain price... I've heard rumor that it is pretty good... at least on par with the original 100-400 and is a newer generation of lens that might have better resale value and will at least have a warranty (if buying a used 100-400).

All of that said.. my next tele lense will be 300 f2.8. But that's an entirely different level of lens from the 100-400.

 

[Mikehit]

I have 70-200/2.8 L, so I don't think extra 100mm is worth it with 70-300L zooms.
But extra 200mm definately worth it for me.

If you can manage that lens then the 100-400 will be no problem weight wise (unless you carrying both in your backpack!).

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.

 

[mnclayshooter]

I think technique is still more critical. When careful I can get sharp results but I don't use the lens frequently enough to be consistent myself. Don't plan on zooming out to locate subject than zoom in for shot - the act of zooming usually loses the subject anyway. Instead, learn to locate at the focal length you want to shoot at (usually 400 mm for distant subjects).

I would say that this probably sums up about 75% of the complaints about any long lens, especially the 100-400 as it is such a widely owned "entry level" long-ish lens.

Set your shutter speed at about 2x the focal length and you'll be in pretty good shape. It will probably limit your night-time photography, but honestly, unless you read a lot of this forum, I don't think night-time photos are what most of us are after.

I don't know this guy, but did a quick google search on "long lens technique" to find a photo of some good starting points... this is pretty good and sums it up well:

http://www.moosepeterson.com/techtips/longlens.html