Canon 400 F5.6 is WAY sharper than the 100-400!!!

kdog · January 17, 2007

At least that's the common refrain you hear. So I finally broke down and purchased the 400 prime in hopes that it would be a step-up over my 100-400 for wildlife photography.

It arrived, and I've been putting it through its paces. I've done a lot of testing now, both on wildlife (ok, the neighbors dog), and targets, hand-held as well as tripod mounted. The results are very consistent and I now feel I have a good handle on just how much better the 400 prime is over the 100-400 zoom.

Here's a representative comparison. Both shots are hand-held in this test and the lens is wide open at ISO100 F5.6, 1/1600s. Unsharpened, autolevels. 100% crops (the target was 87' away.)

100-400L IS is on the left, the 400 F5.6 is on the right (Try making your browser wider if they're not side-by-side.)
IMG_0659_100-400_5.6.jpg

I could post many more comparison photos at different F stops. However, there isn't much point as the results all almost exactly the same as shown above. That's true even stopped down.

If the 400 prime was MUCH better, I'd still keep the 100-400 for its wide-range zoom, plus Image Stabilization. But the 400 isn't MUCH better. It's a little better.

So, the question is, do I keep the 400 or send it back?

I'd love to hear opinions.
Thanks,
-joel

LiquidAir · January 17, 2007

I borrowed a 100-400 for a while and I found it was sharp enough for my needs but I didn't like the bokeh. A lot of my wildlife shooting has grass in the background and the 100-400 turned out of focus grass into an ugly wormy mess.

I don't have a lens in my collection longer than 300mm. I am still trying to decide which way I will jump when I do get one. It is possible given the current options that I will end up with a 100-400 and live with ugly backgrounds, but I am kind of hoping Canon will come out with some other option while I dither.

kdog · January 17, 2007

I've noticed the same thing on "busy" backgrounds that are close to the focal plane. I'm not sure the 400mm is any better in that regard, although I haven't tested it yet.

Regards
-joel

Duckys54 · January 17, 2007

I'd say get the 100-400 and get a 2X converter.

mercphoto · January 17, 2007

Duckys54 wrote:

I'd say get the 100-400 and get a 2X converter.

It will work with a 100-400 but you have two problems. One, it becomes an f/11 lens. Not even a 1-Series will autofocus at f/11. Two, at f/11 your depth of field will become too large for most shooting situations such as wildlife and sports.

LiquidAir · January 17, 2007

kdog wrote:

I've noticed the same thing on "busy" backgrounds that are close to the focal plane. I'm not sure the 400mm is any better in that regard, although I haven't tested it yet.

Regards
-joel

That is one of the areas where primes are almost always better than zooms.

mercphoto · January 17, 2007

LiquidAir wrote:

That is one of the areas where primes are almost always better than zooms.

Why? Fewer optical elements? And this thread is re-igniting my desire for the 400/5.6.

ChrisBlaze · January 18, 2007

I was always told that primes will always be sharper than zooms!

LiquidAir · January 18, 2007

mercphoto wrote:

Why? Fewer optical elements? And this thread is re-igniting my desire for the 400/5.6.

One of the primary factors affecting bokeh is how the spherical are corrected. Overcorrection usually results in rough backgrounds. Undercorrection gives smoother backgrounds.

In zoom lenses the correction is usually a compromise over range of focal lengths. If you test a zoom you will find that some focal lengths will have quite nice bokeh and others will be horrible. When I was testing the 100-400 I found the bokeh to be awful at 400mm and indeed most of the telephoto zooms I have tested are at their worst at the long end. All the L series prime lenses I have used have been specifically engineered to have good bokeh particularly when shot wide open.

kdog · January 18, 2007

LiquidAir wrote:

When I was testing the 100-400 I found the bokeh to be awful at 400mm...

Awful at 400mm?

Doesn't look so bad.

BigAl · January 19, 2007

LiquidAir wrote:

In zoom lenses the correction is usually a compromise over range of focal lengths. If you test a zoom you will find that some focal lengths will have quite nice bokeh and others will be horrible. When I was testing the 100-400 I found the bokeh to be awful at 400mm and indeed most of the telephoto zooms I have tested are at their worst at the long end.

Bigma @ 500mm. Horrible?

gus · January 19, 2007

kdog wrote:

So, the question is, do I keep the 400 or send it back?

I'd love to hear opinions.
Thanks,
-joel

How did you find focus speed for birds flying etc ? The one thing that always amazes me is how bloody fast the 400 prime locks on.

Khaos · January 19, 2007

A lens is so much more than what pixel peeping tries to state it is. Each lens has more to it that when it is used right it shines above others in it's class. I feel the only zoom that comes close to primes in it's range is the 70-200 2.8 IS L.

Color saturation in the 400 is amazing. It's on par with the 35 L.

The bokeh is fantastic withthis lens.

It's light and fantastic for BIF shots.

I can go on and on, but it's best you get out there and use this lens.

Here's what I've had fun using it on:

It can be used for any type of shot. Look at the beautiful bokeh.

kdog · January 19, 2007

BigAl wrote:

Bigma @ 500mm. Horrible?

Ah, my eyes!!

Just kidding, looks great.

-joel

kdog · January 19, 2007

gus wrote:

How did you find focus speed for birds flying etc ? The one thing that always amazes me is how bloody fast the 400 prime locks on.

Yup, it's faster. No question. And that's a huge factor in catching birds in flight, or any other kind of action. I've recently become aware that the 100-400 focuses faster with IS off, and it finally dawned on my thick skull that that's the reason that so many have found the 100-400 worked better for BIFs with IS off. So I need to play around with that as well. It's not easy to objectively measure AF speed.

I finally broke down and bought a Kenko Pro DG TC1.4 as well. After dutifully taping pins, I was amazed at how well it worked on the 100-400 -- perfectly. I also own the Canon TC1.4, and it's simply awful with the 100-400 taped as well. The Kenko works ok with the 400, although not as well as the 100-400 it seems. It oscillates while hunting for focus about a third of the time on the 400 which is a bit frustrating.

-joel

kdog · January 19, 2007

Khaos wrote:

A lens is so much more than what pixel peeping tries to state it is. Each lens has more to it that when it is used right it shines above others in it's class. I feel the only zoom that comes close to primes in it's range is the 70-200 2.8 IS L.

Color saturation in the 400 is amazing. It's on par with the 35 L.

The bokeh is fantastic withthis lens.

It's light and fantastic for BIF shots.

I can go on and on, but it's best you get out there and use this lens.

Here's what I've had fun using it on: ...

Nice shots Keith. The 400 is a bit contrastier and appears to have better saturation in some circumstances. One of my motivations on trying the lens is because of the great shots that you, Gus, Ric, Thusie and so many others are achieving. On the other hand, I'm learning that I have a very good copy of the 100-400 and the differences between it and the 400 are very subtle. I'm still testing.

Cheers,
-joel

Thusie · January 20, 2007

Since my name has been mentioned I'll wade in:D I love my 400, it along with the 35L are my cold dead hands lenses. I also really, really like primes.

While there has been many this and thats about the IQ and QC of the 100-400 I have also seen some fantastic shots with it, it is certainly more versatile than the 400 with it being a zoom. That said it is out in the field where I think the 400 shines, it is fast, it is great at threading the needle, picking though branches to get 'that shot'. Great color and detail and bokeh, I won't quite class it with the 35L but they are vastly different beasties.

However what I love most about that lens is it has taught me a lot. I have had to think more about how a shot is framed, where I need to be to get what I want. When I get my end right the 400 has never failed me, ever, but getting my part right has been the best part.

I also think there is much more to a lens than shooting funky walls and such (no offence there folks) it is how it suits in real life in the field. Does it fit your shooting style and that is something no one can answer but you.

If you can swing it keep both

And a bit more..Yea on a roll here. While it goes w/o saying the 400 locks on fast, to me what makes it shine is the ability to lock on what you want it to lock on fast, though junk, and in low light. Do I have sharper shots than these with the 400, sure.

Had to pick through a bunch of junk (clutter in the shot),shutter 1/250

This was shot from a car, stopped but in idle. They are about 250 yards out, dusk, and actually beyond what I could see well, shutter 1/80 and I was trusting the 400.

Quite a bit of twigs cloned out, but the 400 cherry picked perfectly

jdryan3 · January 20, 2007

Thusie wrote:

While it goes w/o saying the 400 locks on fast, to me what makes it shine is the ability to lock on what you want it to lock on fast, though junk, and in low light. Do I have sharper shots than these with the 400, sure.

Had to pick though a bunch of junk,,shutter 1/250

This was shot from a car, stopped but in idle. They are about 250 yards out, dusk, and actually beyond what I could see well, shutter 1/80 and I was trusting the 400.

Thusie-
Great, sharp images. It seems like they could see you however.

Thusie · January 20, 2007

I'm sure they could see the Jeep:D But looking through (spelled that right this time) the 20D's viewfinder at dusk, with the 400 on the other end doesn't give the human a real good view. That shot is quite a crop.

Canon 400 F5.6 is WAY sharper than the 100-400!!!

Comments