Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM v/s Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM

jneal

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009USW3/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2SA8WT8UAZ7LD&colid=528C4YD6NP7A
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00007GQLS/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1B6N8U0GL1WF1&colid=528C4YD6NP7A

Price aside I'd like to hear pros and cons of one versus the other.

at first glance the zoom seems to take the cake but is it really the dust pump everyone seems to say?

a stop faster, IS, zoom

For wildlife I was thinking either would do well in front of a TC.

Any other opinions are appreciated!

TIA

Foochar

jneal wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009USW3/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2SA8WT8UAZ7LD&colid=528C4YD6NP7A
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00007GQLS/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1B6N8U0GL1WF1&colid=528C4YD6NP7A

Price aside I'd like to hear pros and cons of one versus the other.

at first glance the zoom seems to take the cake but is it really the dust pump everyone seems to say?

a stop faster, IS, zoom

For wildlife I was thinking either would do well in front of a TC.

Any other opinions are appreciated!

TIA

Michael Reichmann of Luminous-Landscape did a comparison of these two lenses and in his case he found that the 400 f/5.6 is substantially sharper than the 100-400 at 400mm. His write up on this is at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml.

jneal

Foochar wrote:

Michael Reichmann of Luminous-Landscape did a comparison of these two lenses and in his case he found that the 400 f/5.6 is substantially sharper than the 100-400 at 400mm. His write up on this is at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml.

Precisely the kind of thing I was looking for, Thanks.

claudermilk

Also check the photozone tests. In those they came surprisingly close, but the prime does take a TC better in general.

I have not used the 400/5.6L, but have tested the 100-400 and personally didn't care for the push-pull zoom, the locking ring, or the positioning of the AF/MG & IS switches (kept hitting & moving them inadvertently). Between the two, I think I'd be more likely to go with the prime.

In my own search for which of these wildlife & zoo lenses, I'm currently thinking real hard about the 300/4L, IS or not, plus a couple of 1.4x TCs (for a proto-zoom of 300mm, 420mm, and 588mm steps).

kdog

Foochar wrote:

Michael Reichmann of Luminous-Landscape did a comparison of these two lenses and in his case he found that the 400 f/5.6 is substantially sharper than the 100-400 at 400mm. His write up on this is at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml.

Sorry, but that article is deeply flawed and has been refuted many times. Note that he's got a postscript at the end addressing the flak he took for this article. He claims the lens he used was not flawed, but he doesn't explain how he knows this. The lens he used is simply broken.

I have both lenses and I've compared them extensively. I've compared my results with other well-known nature photographers -- the legendary Hawkman who sometimes participates in this forum is one, LiquidStone is another -- and the two lenses are MUCH closer in capabilities than what Michael Reichmann shows. The bottom line is that at 400mm, the only time you're going to notice much of a difference between those two lenses is either wide open at F5.6, or possibly at F6.3. And we're talking subtle differences here that you pretty much need to pixel-peep to see. There is nothing as dramatic as Reichmann shows. By the time you get to F8, there little perceptible difference.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I can tell you that these are two completely different lenses that serve two completely different purposes. The most obvious difference of course is that the 100-400 is a zoom. If you need the range, then obviously the 400 simply won't do. The image quality of this lens at the the shorter focal lengths is true L quality -- tack sharp. It gives great portraits, and takes super high-def panos. The IS on this lens is superb. You can get usable shots hand-held at 1/50th of a second that would be a blurred mess with the 400 prime. It's also more compact. I can fit a body with the 100-400 attached in any of my camera bags, whereas the 400 is generally too long for that unless you have a bag that you can reconfigure for it.

I consider the 400 F5.6 to be a speciality lens. You would use this when you want the very best quality wide-open at 400mm. If your goal is to shoot small or distant wildlife on sunny days, this is your lens. Without good light, you'll want to use it on a tripod, because that focal length is very unforgiving of vibrations, and there is no IS. The 400 focuses a little faster than the 100-400 with IS enabled, but with IS turned off, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the differenace.

In summary, I would think long and hard about what kind of shots you want to get. If I was only going to keep one of these lenses, it would be the 100-400 hands-down.

Regards,
-joel

mercphoto

jneal wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009USW3/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2SA8WT8UAZ7LD&colid=528C4YD6NP7A
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00007GQLS/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1B6N8U0GL1WF1&colid=528C4YD6NP7A

a stop faster, IS, zoom

Hang on, not quite a stop faster. Its only a stop faster at the wide-end, but the 400mm prime doesn't go to 100mm . At the 400mm range they are both 5.6 lenses.

One thing the prime will have going for it is it will be smaller, lighter.

kdog

mercphoto wrote:

One thing the prime will have going for it is it will be smaller, lighter.

Actually, the 100-400 is just about 3" shorter than the prime when collapsed.

-joel

jneal

I shoot local wildlife on the river around here, but the biggest reason, as I think about it, is I like to shoot motor sports of all kinds. Bikes, NASCAR, NHRA/IHRA, SCCA etc... and find that my 70-300 seems to just come short of the shot I want since I have no credentials to run with the big dogs and get closer.

Reading Michael Reichmann's article (with much respect), I feel that there must be something else going on. If the results he gives are typical of the differences then I would think Canon would strip it of it's "L" status. I'm suspicious of those results by themselves. I havent found any other comparison sites though. I've only found single reviews and none of those bad for either lens.


Note also as a newbie I tend to spend money on glass a LOT more capable than I am but with time I can grow into.

thanks for the opinions.

rpcrowe

An inexpensive alternate to the Canon 400mm f/5.6L
Now don't get me wrong! I love the Canon 400mm f/4L lens and would not thing of parting with it. The image quality is superb and the auto-focus is mind boggling in its speed and accuracy. However, as good as it is in all respects, this is an expensive lens and just may not fit into the budget of every photographer who wants a 400mm lens.

Enter the Tokina 400mm f/5.6 ATX. I have both of these 400mm lenses and although, the Tokina doesn't "quite" equal the Canon in overall quality, it is a very respectable lens. This lens should not be confused with the prior Tokina 400mm f/5.6 SP (non-ATX) model which is decidedly inferior to the ATX.

The ATX can produce very sharp imagery, especially when stopped down a stop to f/8. It is quite decent at 5.6 but, really starts to shine at f/8. The autofocus is not as fast or as sure as the f/5.6L. I can follow hydroplanes coming toward the camera at 150+ mph using the f/5.6L. That would be somewhat difficult with the Tokina. I would also want to use the f/5.6L rather than the Tokina for following flying birds. However, when mounted on a sturdy tripod and shot at f/8 or smaller - the results from the Tokina will astonish even the most snobbish "L" user.

The ATX has two small advantages over the f/5.6L and one giant advantage. The ATX can focus closer than the f/5.6L (ATX 8.5 feet and f/5.6L 11.5 feet) and the ATX is a bit lighter in weight than the f/5.6L (ATX 2.18 pounds and f/5.6L 2.8 pounds). The giant advantage of the ATX over the f/5.6 is cost. I got mine used in mint condition for less than $125.00 including shipping from an eBay seller.

Another advantage for Nikon users is that the Tokina ATX comes in a Nikon mount. In fact Moose Peterson used it for Shore Bird Photography: http://www.moosepeterson.com/POM/1998.html

By the way, Tokina discontinued the 400mm f/4.6L Tokina and replaced it with a zoom. It was not in production for an extended length of time and there are limited numbers of these lenses floating around. Some of the smear of the inefficient Tokina 400mm f/5.6 SD lens has also spattered the ATX and photographers sometimes get them confused.

Am I recommending that you buy a Tokina 400mm f/5.6 ATX instead of the Canon 400mm f/5.6L? Certainly not! If you can afford the Canon you will love it - I do! However, if you cannot afford the great Canon 400mm f/5.6L; the Tokina could be a very viable substitute. Instead of dreaming about a 400mm lens or trying to put a 2x adapter on another lens, get a Tokina for $100-$150 if you can find one. Then if you get to the position that you can afford the Canon and still want it, I am sure you will be able to get all your Tokina purchase price back selling it on eBay.

By the way, it comes with a retractable lens hood like the f/5.6L, a very nice case and a tripod ring.

lowbone

I have both of these lenses. The 400mm f5.6 is an excellent lens, very sharp and very quick to focus. The 100-400 is also an excellent lens. I think if you are going to own one lens in this category it should be the 100-400. When I am shooting birds in flight and the light is good the 400 f 5.6 works great but when I am hiking through the woods and the light is not the best the 100-400 is the winner because of its focal length versatility and its IS.
Also, the 400 f5.6 has a minimum focus distance of about 12 feet. There are allot of things that happen closer then 12 feet. I sent my 100-400 back to Canon for calibration and I now have a hard time telling any difference on sharpness between the two. Also, If you are shooting in bright light and getting high shutter speeds, turning the IS off produces focusing speed about as fast as the 400 5.6. I have had my 100-400 for three years and there is no dust inside.

Shizam

What!? I also have access to both lenses and lots of other prime/zoom overlap. The 400 f5.6 is flat out obviously sharper and faster focusing wide open vs the 100-400, no contest. I'll go ahead and extend that to all prime vs zoom in the Canon (or any) lineup. If you don't see a difference (mounted on a tripod/at least @ 1/500s/preferably MLU) then you got a bad copy of a prime or a magical zoom. If you're handholding both at 1/250 or even on a tripod at 1/125-250 then you're just leveling the playing field.

The difference btw the two, for me, is if I want the best possible images of something at 400mm (within my ability to capture them obviously), walk out the door with the 400/5.6. If I don't mind compromising image quality for versatility then the 100-400 but its a substantial loss AFAIC, it'd have to be in a sandstorm or something.

Sam

kdog wrote:

Sorry, but that article is deeply flawed and has been refuted many times. Note that he's got a postscript at the end addressing the flak he took for this article. He claims the lens he used was not flawed, but he doesn't explain how he knows this. The lens he used is simply broken.

I have both lenses and I've compared them extensively. I've compared my results with other well-known nature photographers -- the legendary Hawkman who sometimes participates in this forum is one, LiquidStone is another -- and the two lenses are MUCH closer in capabilities than what Michael Reichmann shows. The bottom line is that at 400mm, the only time you're going to notice much of a difference between those two lenses is either wide open at F5.6, or possibly at F6.3. And we're talking subtle differences here that you pretty much need to pixel-peep to see. There is nothing as dramatic as Reichmann shows. By the time you get to F8, there little perceptible difference.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I can tell you that these are two completely different lenses that serve two completely different purposes. The most obvious difference of course is that the 100-400 is a zoom. If you need the range, then obviously the 400 simply won't do. The image quality of this lens at the the shorter focal lengths is true L quality -- tack sharp. It gives great portraits, and takes super high-def panos. The IS on this lens is superb. You can get usable shots hand-held at 1/50th of a second that would be a blurred mess with the 400 prime. It's also more compact. I can fit a body with the 100-400 attached in any of my camera bags, whereas the 400 is generally too long for that unless you have a bag that you can reconfigure for it.

I consider the 400 F5.6 to be a speciality lens. You would use this when you want the very best quality wide-open at 400mm. If your goal is to shoot small or distant wildlife on sunny days, this is your lens. Without good light, you'll want to use it on a tripod, because that focal length is very unforgiving of vibrations, and there is no IS. The 400 focuses a little faster than the 100-400 with IS enabled, but with IS turned off, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the differenace.

In summary, I would think long and hard about what kind of shots you want to get. If I was only going to keep one of these lenses, it would be the 100-400 hands-down.

Regards,
-joel

kdog

Shizam wrote:

What!? I also have access to both lenses and lots of other prime/zoom overlap. The 400 f5.6 is flat out obviously sharper and faster focusing wide open vs the 100-400, no contest.

Don't get so excited. I said the 400mm is better wide open at F5.6, or at F6.3. However, the difference is not nearly as dramatic is Reichmann would have you believe.

See for yourself. Here are images from the two lenses at F5.6.

100-400 @ F5.6


400 prime @ F5.6


Ok, fine. The 400 wins. But is that "flat-out", "no contest" as you say? That's a judgement call.

Now see what happens when they're stopped down to F8.

100-400 @ F8


400 prime @ F8


See any difference? I rest my case.

So what about in real life? Is the 100-400 usable wide open?

100-400 @ F5.6, 1/60s. That's right -- 1/60s. Try THAT hand-held with the 400 F5.6.



Now if you don't like my tests or my results, feel free to post your own. However, like I said, this exact test was repeated by far better photographers than myself and our findings were virtually identical.

And concerning focus speed, I also said this.

kdog wrote:

The 400 focuses a little faster than the 100-400 with IS enabled, but with IS turned off, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the differenace.

And I stand behind that.

Regards,
-joel

claudermilk

Oh fine, go muddy the waters again.

Manfr3d

One question, how does the 100-400mm/4-5.6 L IS compare to the
400mm/5.6 L when used with 1.4x extender?

Ric Grupe

kdog wrote:

Sorry, but that article is deeply flawed and has been refuted many times. Note that he's got a postscript at the end addressing the flak he took for this article. He claims the lens he used was not flawed, but he doesn't explain how he knows this. The lens he used is simply broken.

MR is a landscape photog...period.

He has not the skills for nature photograhy IMO. Since he has no real experience in this area, I would not take his advice.

Manfr3d

Ric Grupe wrote:

MR is a landscape photog...period.

He has not the skills for nature photograhy IMO. Since he has no real experience in this area, I would not take his advice.

For him photography is about taking pictures and not about
discussing lens variation. He can only comment on what he has.

So if a lens performs bad in his review it's not because of him,
it's because of the lens. Somewhere I read that his review is
flawed. Nonsense the review was technicaly sound and correct.

And of course people who made different observations than him
will object and shout "it cannot be true" .. but on top of that they
start to discriminate him for the outcome of his review. Why do
you get so emotional about it?

You need to ask yourself if you are a fanboy, a guy who
discusses technical details all day or are you a photographer?
It's interesting that nobody who contradicts the MR review states
which camera he used to obtain his own results. I'm not saying their
results are false, but its evident that none of these guys made a technical
correct review themselves. Yet they are throwing out big words and claims.

Last but not least I'd like to point you to The digital picture website
where you can see another review that shows that the
prime is sharper, more contrasty and has less vignetting
on a full format 16.7MP Camera (the one MR used for his review)
especialy in the edges. Use mouse over the image to see the
differences:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=9&FLI=4&API=0

The lenses are very similar no questions asked, but the prime
is still the prime. And there are good reasons to go for either
lens. And if you are an APS-C Camera owner the zoom is pretty
much indistinguishable from the prime.

claudermilk

Good points, there. Here's a question: who reads only one review and takes that as gospel? Personally I look at all the reviews I can find and take the sum of all that as a guide; if one comes up with wildly different results I'll assume something was up & ignore it.

Of course the best review you can get is your own--rent the lens & try it yourself. No arguing the results there.

ziggy53

claudermilk wrote:

Good points, there. Here's a question: who reads only one review and takes that as gospel? Personally I look at all the reviews I can find and take the sum of all that as a guide; if one comes up with wildly different results I'll assume something was up & ignore it.

Of course the best review you can get is your own--rent the lens & try it yourself. No arguing the results there.

I agree with all of these points.

Ric Grupe

Manfr3d wrote:

Why do
you get so emotional about it?

I'm not...at all. Merely making an observation.

If MR was commenting on a landscape composition...I'd pay attention.

Lens review? Nah.

kdog

claudermilk wrote:

Of course the best review you can get is your own--rent the lens & try it yourself. No arguing the results there.

No argument here, and that's exactly what I did. I actually purchased a new 400 solely for the purpose of testing it against my 100-400. My intention was to return the 400 if it didn't exceed the capability of my 100-400. Well it did, but only by the small margin that I've demonstrated in my previous post.

I would invite the other participants in this thread with strong opinions of the relative merits of the two lenses to do the same, and share their results. That would be more productive than baseless opinions, chest-thumping and calling people "fanboys" who disagree with them.

-joel

Manfr3d

kdog wrote:

I would invite the other participants in this thread with strong opinions of the relative merits of the two lenses to do the same, and share their results. That would be more productive than baseless opinions, chest-thumping and calling people "fanboys" who disagree with them.

Prove me wrong but people who favour fighting over lenses over going out
shooting pics with them should really consider if they aren't only fanboys.

ziggy53

OK folks, this is getting out of hand. Please keep it on topic about the relative merits of the two lenses in question.

kdog

Manfr3d wrote:

Prove me wrong but people who favour fighting over lenses over going out
shooting pics with them should really consider if they aren't only fanboys.

Bear in mind that I've posted hundreds of pictures in the nature forum using both lenses.

Manfr3d

ziggy53 wrote:

OK folks, this is getting out of hand. Please keep it on topic about the relative merits of the two lenses in question.

Actually you are right. So I say sorry from my side.

LiquidAir

I have been on the fence about these two lenses for some time. I borrowed the 100-400 for a week and had somewhat mixed feelings about it. These are my conclusions about it:

On the plus side:

1. On my 5D (which has low pixel density) it is sharp enough. Could it be sharper? Sure, but is sharp enough that I wouldn't hesitate to use it.

2. As 400mm lenses go, it is compact and relatively easy to carry in a mid sized camera bag.

3. IS is nearly a must for a 400/5.6. Hand holding a 400mm lens without IS is fiendishly difficult and frustrating.

4. It is a nice complement to the 24-105 I already own.

On the minus side:

1. The bokeh on the 100-400 leaves a lot to be desired. Out of focus backgrounds look wormy and specular highlights take on that tell tale donut shape.

2. I have read many reports that the push pull design of the 100-400 gets out of alignment easily. My guess is that alignment issues are the primary cause of reports of poor sharpenss in the lens.

3. I prefer twist zooms. They seem faster and more accurate.

4. Given that I already have a 70-300IS in my kit, I would be buying mostly for use 400mm so in principle I feel I would be better served by a prime.

I have been holding off buying a 400mm for some time now with the hope taht Canon will release either an updated 100-400 or an 400 IS prime. If I needed a 400mm lens right now, I'd get over my lens snobishness and buy the 100-400 because, depsite the lower image quality, I know the 100-400 would see more use.

kdog

LiquidAir wrote:

2. I have read many reports that the push pull design of the 100-400 gets out of alignment easily. My guess is that alignment issues are the primary cause of reports of poor sharpenss in the lens.

Haven't heard that one before. Got any references to any of these reports?

-joel

LiquidAir

kdog wrote:

Haven't heard that one before. Got any references to any of these reports?

-joel

I'll have to chase that down again. It was actually in reference to rental lenses which presmaubly see a lot of hard use. I am guessing that what happens is people point the camera down without locking the zoom and the front element slams against the stop. Let that happen enough times and you'll be sending it in for service.

If its your own lens and you baby it you probably won't have any problems. The copy I used was just fine, but I borrowed it from a friend who bought it new and takes good care of his gear.

Ric Grupe

LiquidAir wrote:

I have been holding off buying a 400mm for some time now with the hope taht Canon will release either an updated 100-400 or an 400 IS prime. If I needed a 400mm lens right now, I'd get over my lens snobishness and buy the 100-400 because, depsite the lower image quality, I know the 100-400 would see more use.

How about the 400L IS f/2.8....or the 400 DO IS?

I have the latter and handhold with the tc at 560mm all the time.:D

LiquidAir

Ric Grupe wrote:

How about the 400L IS f/2.8....or the 400 DO IS?

I have the latter and handhold with the tc at 560mm all the time.:D

The DO IS has the same bokeh problem as the 100-400 but otherwise would be a great choice if I could get past a minor $5000 issue. That said, if I were considering a $4000+ lens, I think I would get the 300/2.8 IS and use it with the 1.4TC when I want to get out to 400mm. As for the 400/2.8, its too large for any of the shooting I do so even if price wasn't an issue I wouldn't get one.

Seefutlung

Get the Bigma (Sigma 50-500) ... less money than the Pumper, greater range, no IS, equal IQ. I've used both and settled on the Bigma. I like IS .... I wish all my lenses had IS, but IS is an expensive feature I would use just some of the time ... extended range of both ends is a feature I use all the time.

Gary

Manfr3d

Mind stating which camera you used?