The budget photographer's 400mm dilemma

[NancyP]

I am not going to belittle IS, but I have found that one can do without for birds in flight and for reasonable-light perched birds. For some situations I like to have the monopod and tilt head, which allow one to stake out a nest or a hunting heron without having your arms drop off after 5 minutes. Monopod does a fine job of allowing 1/100 sec shots with the 400 f/5.6L no-IS. I am a fan of this lens and of carrying a monopod on a belt holster. The monopod also doubles as a hiking pole on stream crossings and steep bits where a little balance is convenient. On the other hand, I have seen people shoot from kayaks (in swamps and on creeks and rivers), and there's no question that one wants IS at 400mm, because even if your camera is rock-solid with relation to the kayak/canoe, the whole boat is moving slightly.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Perhaps I am being a little unfair regarding IS, it is just that I find that if the light is so poor that I need IS then I am not going to get the shot that I want anyway. I should note that my camera is pretty good at higher ISOs.
For moving subjects then IS is simply a no no as far as I am concerned.

 

[AlanF]

Have you tried Position 3 IS? The IS doesn't come on until you fully depress so you are tracking and focussing without IS. I use BBF anyway.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Have you tried Position 3 IS? The IS doesn't come on until you fully depress so you are tracking and focussing without IS. I use BBF anyway.

Unfortunately (?) my lenses don't have position 3. My 300 F2.8 IS is a Mk1 and there isn't a Mk2 800mm yet. I see your point about this position as it allows you to focus before you shoot with the IS on so it should give quicker acquisition whilst still using IS for the shot.
One question, as I simply don't know the answer, when you fully depress the shutter release does it take a picture immediately or does it wait for the IS to spool up?

 

[Bernd Stuht]

Back to Budget Reason of this Topic i also look for an Focal Length of about 400mm.

I don´t use above 200 not very often, and Price and Weight are important for me in that Case.

TC2 x Version III reduces Qualtity of the Lens i own too much, so the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS II should be the
the best Way for me, but heavy and about 2K€/$ .

The 400mm 5.6 L Prime would be nice too, but IS on Telephoto ist usefull - and the 400 lacks IS .

An new 400 f5.6 IS ( with affordable Price ) would be nice, the 400 F4 DO isn´t an Option for me, too heavy/expensive.

An also not the Cheap way could be the 300 f2.8 L IS II and the 1.4 V III TC added.
Only my own thoughts - i´ve got Time to think about it ;-) .

Greetings

Bernd

 

[Random Orbits]

Back to Budget Reason of this Topic i also look for an Focal Length of about 400mm.

I don´t use above 200 not very often, and Price and Weight are important for me in that Case.

TC2 x Version III reduces Qualtity of the Lens i own too much, so the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS II should be the
the best Way for me, but heavy and about 2K€/$ .

The 400mm 5.6 L Prime would be nice too, but IS on Telephoto ist usefull - and the 400 lacks IS .

An new 400 f5.6 IS ( with affordable Price ) would be nice, the 400 F4 DO isn´t an Option for me, too heavy/expensive.

An also not the Cheap way could be the 300 f2.8 L IS II and the 1.4 V III TC added.
Only my own thoughts - i´ve got Time to think about it ;-) .

Greetings

Bernd

Did you AFMA with the 2x III attached? The IQ with the 70-200 should be pretty good -- close to the 100-400L (original). The 400 f/5.6 and the new 100-400L II are better, but if you don't go above 200 very often, does it make sense to have a lens you won't use much?

The 100-400L II is heavier, but it handles well. I don't carry the 70-200 and the 100-400 at the same time. If you got the 400L, would you still carry the 70-200?

 

[tron]

Back to Budget Reason of this Topic i also look for an Focal Length of about 400mm.

I don´t use above 200 not very often, and Price and Weight are important for me in that Case.

TC2 x Version III reduces Qualtity of the Lens i own too much, so the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS II should be the
the best Way for me, but heavy and about 2K€/$ .

The 400mm 5.6 L Prime would be nice too, but IS on Telephoto ist usefull - and the 400 lacks IS .

An new 400 f5.6 IS ( with affordable Price ) would be nice, the 400 F4 DO isn´t an Option for me, too heavy/expensive.

An also not the Cheap way could be the 300 f2.8 L IS II and the 1.4 V III TC added.
Only my own thoughts - i´ve got Time to think about it ;-) .

Greetings

Bernd

Did you AFMA with the 2x III attached? The IQ with the 70-200 should be pretty good -- close to the 100-400L (original). The 400 f/5.6 and the new 100-400L II are better, but if you don't go above 200 very often, does it make sense to have a lens you won't use much?

The 100-400L II is heavier, but it handles well. I don't carry the 70-200 and the 100-400 at the same time. If you got the 400L, would you still carry the 70-200?

That is very good question. If there is no need for portrait or low light handheld photography then the 100-400 II is an excellent general purpose telephoto zoom to take with you instead of the other two mentioned lenses...

 

[Emil]

I took the plunge and bought the 400mm 5.6 yesterday. I'll tell you what I think after I get it tomorrow and start testing

 

[nc0b]

I am in Alaska, and have been using the 24-105mm, 70-200mm f/4 IS, and 400mm f/5.6 in that order of percentage shots. Barely used the 18mm Zeiss and haven't use 50mm f2.5 macro since the 24-105 has a modest macro function. The 400 has been absolutely necessary for whales, otters and birds. Lack of IS when using a 6D has not been an issue. Just push the ISO up to keep the shutter speed at 1/1000 or faster. The light weight and lightning fast focus of the 400 5.6 gets the job done for me.

 

[tron]

I am in Alaska, and have been using the 24-105mm, 70-200mm f/4 IS, and 400mm f/5.6 in that order of percentage shots. Barely used the 18mm Zeiss and haven't use 50mm f2.5 macro since the 24-105 has a modest macro function. The 400 has been absolutely necessary for whales, otters and birds. Lack of IS when using a 6D has not been an issue. Just push the ISO up to keep the shutter speed at 1/1000 or faster. The light weight and lightning fast focus of the 400 5.6 gets the job done for me.

It's not whether the 400 5.6 is lighter than the 100-400. It's whether both 70-200mm f/4 IS, and 400mm f/5.6 are lighter than 100-400 which they aren't... Because if you have the new 100-400 you do not need both lenses...

 

[justaCanonuser]

The 400mm f/5.6L I bought after selling the 300 f/4L IS has been an absolute stellar performer and I recommend it highly, however, if my finances ever recover after two kids, I will happily trade it in for the new 100-400mm Mark II. It seems like a remarkable lens with a great zoom range and it has the latest IS. The IS on the 300mm f/4L IS is rated at one stop and it isn't that effective.

I agree. I have both the 300mm/4 (L IS USM) and the 400mm/5.6, and even without TC the 300mm is much more prone for focus hunting than 400mm. If you prefer birding, I'd highly recommend the 400 mm prime. On the other hand, the 300/4 has 1.5m instead of only 3.5m closest distance, so it is a quite good tele macro. I mostly use it for shy insects (dragonflies etc.).

Basically you need to ask yourself what you really need for wildlife. If you shoot bigger objects than birds, too, a zoom is the better choice, for birding I'd always prefer a prime. If you can afford the new 100-400mm II than you should also check the Sigma 150-600mm S (which is on about the same price level) as an alternative option. I shot yesterday side by side with guy birds who had this Sigma on his Nikon D800. I was impressed about the IQ and AF performance of the Sigma - much better than the Tamron 150-600mm (my wife has it).

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I agree. I have both the 300mm/4 (L IS USM) and the 400mm/5.6, and even without TC the 300mm is much more prone for focus hunting than 400mm. If you prefer birding, I'd highly recommend the 400 mm prime. On the other hand, the 300/4 has 1.5m instead of only 3.5m closest distance, so it is a quite good tele macro. I mostly use it for shy insects (dragonflies etc.).
[/quote]

Try turning the IS off on your 300 F4 L IS - mine worked FAR better without it., even more so on anything that moved. The 400 F5.6 would still get the nod in the AF stakes but not by much (after disbling IS on the 300) from the examples that I have used/owned.

 

[tron]

The 400mm f/5.6L I bought after selling the 300 f/4L IS has been an absolute stellar performer and I recommend it highly, however, if my finances ever recover after two kids, I will happily trade it in for the new 100-400mm Mark II. It seems like a remarkable lens with a great zoom range and it has the latest IS. The IS on the 300mm f/4L IS is rated at one stop and it isn't that effective.

I agree. I have both the 300mm/4 (L IS USM) and the 400mm/5.6, and even without TC the 300mm is much more prone for focus hunting than 400mm. If you prefer birding, I'd highly recommend the 400 mm prime. On the other hand, the 300/4 has 1.5m instead of only 3.5m closest distance, so it is a quite good tele macro. I mostly use it for shy insects (dragonflies etc.).

Basically you need to ask yourself what you really need for wildlife. If you shoot bigger objects than birds, too, a zoom is the better choice, for birding I'd always prefer a prime. If you can afford the new 100-400mm II than you should also check the Sigma 150-600mm S (which is on about the same price level) as an alternative option. I shot yesterday side by side with guy birds who had this Sigma on his Nikon D800. I was impressed about the IQ and AF performance of the Sigma - much better than the Tamron 150-600mm (my wife has it).

The Sigma 150-600 S weights as much as Canon 500mm f/4L IS II !!!!!!

 

[Bernd Stuht]

Back to Budget Reason of this Topic i also look for an Focal Length of about 400mm.

I don´t use above 200 not very often, and Price and Weight are important for me in that Case.

TC2 x Version III reduces Qualtity of the Lens i own too much, so the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS II should be the
the best Way for me, but heavy and about 2K€/$ .

The 400mm 5.6 L Prime would be nice too, but IS on Telephoto ist usefull - and the 400 lacks IS .

An new 400 f5.6 IS ( with affordable Price ) would be nice, the 400 F4 DO isn´t an Option for me, too heavy/expensive.

An also not the Cheap way could be the 300 f2.8 L IS II and the 1.4 V III TC added.
Only my own thoughts - i´ve got Time to think about it ;-) .

Greetings

Bernd

Did you AFMA with the 2x III attached? The IQ with the 70-200 should be pretty good -- close to the 100-400L (original). The 400 f/5.6 and the new 100-400L II are better, but if you don't go above 200 very often, does it make sense to have a lens you won't use much?

The 100-400L II is heavier, but it handles well. I don't carry the 70-200 and the 100-400 at the same time. If you got the 400L, would you still carry the 70-200?

I did not tested the 2x III - a Friend of mine have got one - so it will be possible to test it.

You´re right - if i have got this 2 Lenses, one of them will not be used often, but the 70-200 f4 L IS is much lighter while in the Bag.

After i get my 135f2L the 70-200 isn´t used that much anymore - but also beautiful Lens .

Weight, Imagequality - versus Quatity of use...

Sometimes i like the very compressed Look of longer Telephoto´s - Sometimes ???

Greetings Bernd

 

[Hector1970]

I'd recommend the 100-400 II too.
It's a great lens.
I've shot loads with it by now and continue to be impressed.
What I was never impressed by was a 70-200mm with a 2X converter.
Cropping the picture gets better results than using a 2 X converter in my experience.
Focus lags, you miss events with it searching and then disappointing pictures.
The 70-200mm itself is a fantastic lens.

 

[MJ]

...okay okay! Diggin' out that old thread I made up my mind and finally got the 100-400 II.
All in all I'm very happy and can recommend it - especially if you DON'T have the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II since I don't like overlapping lenses in my array...



Prior to this costly purchase I made the following comparison, which maybe helps somebody out there who's on the fence for either one:

Pros of 400 5.6 prime:
-true 400mm; the zoom falls short on the long end
-sharpest 400mm option for <2000$
-Price:~900 USD 2nd hand in great condition; vs ~2000 USD via CPW
-Weight: 1250g/44.1oz (vs 1570g/55.4oz)
-Quality: built-in hood and sturdy metal construction, nothing extends/retracts

Cons of 400 5.6 prime:
-dated, likely no more updates and soon probably no more service
-Long Minimum Focus Distance is 350mm/137.8"
-for static subjects difficult handling without tripod in dim conditions (no IS!)
-lower resale value since more people are likely to buy a newer lens
-no zooming. Duh!


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Pros of 100-400 II:
-newly designed and manufactured
-MFD is 980mm/38.4"
-great IS, Tripod not (always) necessary for static subjects
-zoom range of effective 100-380mm focal range (actual zoom range since Canon was a bit sneaky)
-higher resale value (newer lens)

Cons of 100-400 II:
-rubber gasket at base but the retracting part still worries me
-if you're used to most of Canon's zooms (70-200...) the reverse position of zoom and focus ring can be annoying
-heavy
-newly designed hood with access window for filters, but it actually annoys me (don't use filters with a lens that's so slow already)
-the paint on the metal foot chips easier than the 70-200 2.8 II
-if not set to a specific aperture 5.6 and smaller the variable aperture sometimes can be confusing when shooting manually

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Common weakness: 400mm @ 5.6 but we all know that


cheers

 

[scyrene]

I am not going to belittle IS, but I have found that one can do without for birds in flight and for reasonable-light perched birds. For some situations I like to have the monopod and tilt head, which allow one to stake out a nest or a hunting heron without having your arms drop off after 5 minutes. Monopod does a fine job of allowing 1/100 sec shots with the 400 f/5.6L no-IS. I am a fan of this lens and of carrying a monopod on a belt holster. The monopod also doubles as a hiking pole on stream crossings and steep bits where a little balance is convenient. On the other hand, I have seen people shoot from kayaks (in swamps and on creeks and rivers), and there's no question that one wants IS at 400mm, because even if your camera is rock-solid with relation to the kayak/canoe, the whole boat is moving slightly.

Perhaps I am being a little unfair regarding IS, it is just that I find that if the light is so poor that I need IS then I am not going to get the shot that I want anyway. I should note that my camera is pretty good at higher ISOs.
For moving subjects then IS is simply a no no as far as I am concerned.

I have IS switched on all the time with my 500L, except on the rare occasions I'm using it on a tripod for astro work. It helps counteract body movement no matter how much light/whatever the subject matter, and offers no downside in my experience. I still have to keep the shutter speed up above 1/250-320 minimum for non-flying birds, but that's still below the traditional 1/focal length (especially when an extender is attached). Incidentally, it also stabilises the image in the viewfinder, which can help a lot when tracking/keeping a subject in the frame.

 

[tomscott]

For all of you reading this thread you might find my thread interesting. Im in the same dilemma owning the 70-300mm L the 70-200mm L MKII and a 2x and wanted to try the Tamron 150-600mm

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27574.0

I have plenty of images of moving and still subjects, sharpness, 100% crops. Ive decided to send it back and buy the 100-400mm. The lens is great quality and rivals the canon lenses at 400mm, but past 400mm the AF is poor for anything that moves although the IQ is good at 600 for still subjects imo.

Might be worth a look as for everything but BIF its a fantastic budget alternative and I have found its well built and has good weather sealing for the price point, It also has a 5 year warranty.

The thread also discusses the 100-400mm + 7DMKII, 400DO, 300mm F2.8 MKII, extenders etc.

 

[MJ]

Thank you, everybody contributing to this (and similar - such as the one of tomscott's) post!

 

[Random Orbits]

For all of you reading this thread you might find my thread interesting. Im in the same dilemma owning the 70-300mm L the 70-200mm L MKII and a 2x and wanted to try the Tamron 150-600mm

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27574.0

I have plenty of images of moving and still subjects, sharpness, 100% crops. Ive decided to send it back and buy the 100-400mm. The lens is great quality and rivals the canon lenses at 400mm, but past 400mm the AF is poor for anything that moves although the IQ is good at 600 for still subjects imo.

Might be worth a look as for everything but BIF its a fantastic budget alternative and I have found its well built and has good weather sealing for the price point, It also has a 5 year warranty.

The thread also discusses the 100-400mm + 7DMKII, 400DO, 300mm F2.8 MKII, extenders etc.

With the 100-400 II, I find that the 70-300 doesn't get much use. If you need a larger aperture, then the 70-200 II is the choice, but if you need reach, then the 100-400 II is the choice. The 70-300's advantages are size and weight, but I often find myself opting for the 100-400 II instead.