Prime 'L' kicks the optical quality butt of zoom everyday. It is what I am finding with my 500 f/4.0L but it is something that I was taught at an early age. Zooms compromise sharpness of focus to obtain range of focal length. It is what they do, end-of-story. An 'L' zoom is sometimes better than an inexpensive prime but even that is not a given.
Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
im just curious about opinions. how it compares to 100-400 L at 400 mm? sharpness? etc...
www.pbase.com/zylen look at daniella's bird zooms, she shoots with that lens a lot, troy in fact, i met her last week at the palo alto baylands, and she got some great shots with the lens
im just curious about opinions. how it compares to 100-400 L at 400 mm? sharpness? etc...
The 400/5.6 is supposed to be a very nice lens. I have heard mixed reviews of the 100-400, from "great" to "average". It does have image stabilization, however.
Do you need fine detail (get the prime), or do you need IS or the flexibility of a zoom?
I have to agree with everything that's been posted here. If you can handle being limited to one focal length, the 400 F5.6L is one sweet lens. If you would feel more comfortable with a zoom, then the 100-400mm or Bigma, would be worth considering. As posters have mentioned, the 400mm L, at 400mm's, will kick the butt of any zoom. The problem with that is, you have to zoom out with your feet. Sometimes, that's not practical or doable.
thanx everybody for their replies!!! here is mi sitch... when i look at the photos i post with the 100-400 L almost all of them are at 400 mm. im thinking " why dont i get a 1.4 converter to go with my 70-200 f2.8 and get the 400 L." it just seems to me im not using the 100-300 part of the 100-400 L isnt that a waste????
thanx everybody for their replies!!! here is mi sitch... when i look at the photos i post with the 100-400 L almost all of them are at 400 mm. im thinking " why dont i get a 1.4 converter to go with my 70-200 f2.8 and get the 400 L." it just seems to me im not using the 100-300 part of the 100-400 L isnt that a waste????
thanx everybody for their replies!!! here is mi sitch... when i look at the photos i post with the 100-400 L almost all of them are at 400 mm. im thinking " why dont i get a 1.4 converter to go with my 70-200 f2.8 and get the 400 L." it just seems to me im not using the 100-300 part of the 100-400 L isnt that a waste????
troy
The 100-400L IS was one of my most used lenses until I bought the 70-200 2.8L. Now I have sold it, bought the 1.4x, and bought the 500 f/4L IS. The 400 f/5.6L would have been the choice except for a *very* nice night of poker and the sale of the 85 f/1.2 and the 100-400L.
Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
The 100-400L IS was one of my most used lenses until I bought the 70-200 2.8L. Now I have sold it, bought the 1.4x, and bought the 500 f/4L IS. The 400 f/5.6L would have been the choice except for a *very* nice night of poker and the sale of the 85 f/1.2 and the 100-400L.
here's a gallery of 400mm f/5.6 pics by daniella taken last week at the baylands.
I just looked through that gallery Andy, and her images are exquisite. And Very sharp. And the really neat thing is, after looking at almost all of them, I did not find ONE that was not shot at f5.6 - In other words, they were all captured with the lens shot wide open, and were this sharp. That speaks very, very good for this lens, and for Daniela's technique.
I just looked through that gallery Andy, and her images are exquisite. And Very sharp. And the really neat thing is, after looking at almost all of them, I did not find ONE that was not shot at f5.6 - In other words, they were all captured with the lens shot wide open, and were this sharp. That speaks very, very good for this lens, and for Daniela's technique.
You're gonna love it Windoze!!!
I have done a lot of reading re the 400 f5.6 also & one reviewer said that it shot the same at f/11 as it did at f/5.6 which was in his words...the sign of a well put together lens.
At the time I had the 70-200/2.8, I recently traded it up to the IS version. I still think the 400 is my sharpest lens! I love that it will AF with my 1.4x on it!
Ive wrestled with the idea long enough! I ordered it!
Troy, you will love it. I don't have the steadiest hand in the world but happened to get my hands on one, borrowed from a friend of mine. After half a dozen shots, I decided that I was going to buy it. When I told my friend, he offered me his for $825 and it's mine now.
Troy, you will love it. I don't have the steadiest hand in the world but happened to get my hands on one, borrowed from a friend of mine. After half a dozen shots, I decided that I was going to buy it. When I told my friend, he offered me his for $825 and it's mine now.
I can't wait to see the pictures you'll take with this lens Troy.
With all these wonderful reviews and stunning pictures from the 400mm f/5.6L, I have to ask, is the 400mm f/2.8L IS really worth the extra $5500? I know it will be better but will it really be $5500 better? Does anyone have one or know a gallery taken by one. Not like I would ever have that kind of money but I'm just curious.
Nick
P.S. Troy if this ever goes up for sale at T & A Photo I get first dibs
13 pounds of lens. I think that puppy is more used on a tripod or monopod for sports. And yes, for 2.8 and IS, it's worth the extra money. Unfortunately it's more extra than I can afford. Plus I'd rather have the 500/f4 first.
Olga: your bird pics with the 400 mm are superb. I currently own a 70-200mm 2.8L and love it, but even with the 1.4 TC I can't get the reach I want. Hence, I, too, am looking at the Canon 400mm. Have you tried it with the 1.4 TC? I presume that would increase the f/stop up one, if it will even take it.
Troy, you will love it. I don't have the steadiest hand in the world but happened to get my hands on one, borrowed from a friend of mine. After half a dozen shots, I decided that I was going to buy it. When I told my friend, he offered me his for $825 and it's mine now.
Olga: your bird pics with the 400 mm are superb. I currently own a 70-200mm 2.8L and love it, but even with the 1.4 TC I can't get the reach I want. Hence, I, too, am looking at the Canon 400mm. Have you tried it with the 1.4 TC? I presume that would increase the f/stop up one, if it will even take it.
Troy, you will love it. I don't have the steadiest hand in the world but happened to get my hands on one, borrowed from a friend of mine. After half a dozen shots, I decided that I was going to buy it. When I told my friend, he offered me his for $825 and it's mine now.
I take the majority of my bird shots with the 400/5.6. Probably averaging 400 shots a week with it over the last 3 months. Its a pretty nice lens.
Bob
Phoenix, AZ
Canon Bodies
Canon and Zeiss Lenses
Comments
This is a very favourable review.
Shay.
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
www.pbase.com/zylen look at daniella's bird zooms, she shoots with that lens a lot, troy
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
The 400/5.6 is supposed to be a very nice lens. I have heard mixed reviews of the 100-400, from "great" to "average". It does have image stabilization, however.
Do you need fine detail (get the prime), or do you need IS or the flexibility of a zoom?
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
No comparison.
Cincinnati Smug Leader
I have to agree with everything that's been posted here. If you can handle being limited to one focal length, the 400 F5.6L is one sweet lens. If you would feel more comfortable with a zoom, then the 100-400mm or Bigma, would be worth considering. As posters have mentioned, the 400mm L, at 400mm's, will kick the butt of any zoom. The problem with that is, you have to zoom out with your feet. Sometimes, that's not practical or doable.
Good luck,
Steve
troy
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
thanx for the help..
troy
But what do i tell my wife??
I could lie??
or I could beg for forgiveness??
Maybe Ill just do what I always do when i want something...
here's a gallery of 400mm f/5.6 pics by daniella taken last week at the baylands.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
those pix from Daniella are gorgeous!
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
congrats. you'll love it. now you can sell the 100-400 here on dgrin!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I just looked through that gallery Andy, and her images are exquisite. And Very sharp. And the really neat thing is, after looking at almost all of them, I did not find ONE that was not shot at f5.6 - In other words, they were all captured with the lens shot wide open, and were this sharp. That speaks very, very good for this lens, and for Daniela's technique.
You're gonna love it Windoze!!!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I cant wait!!!
troy
Here are some samples with 100% crops:
http://yiayia.smugmug.com/gallery/453738
Olga
troy
With all these wonderful reviews and stunning pictures from the 400mm f/5.6L, I have to ask, is the 400mm f/2.8L IS really worth the extra $5500? I know it will be better but will it really be $5500 better? Does anyone have one or know a gallery taken by one. Not like I would ever have that kind of money but I'm just curious.
Nick
P.S. Troy if this ever goes up for sale at T & A Photo I get first dibs
SmugMug Technical Account Manager
Travel = good. Woo, shooting!
nickwphoto
Phoenix, AZ
Canon Bodies
Canon and Zeiss Lenses