100-400f/4.5L vs 400f/4L

[t5Nitro]

Which of these two lenses would be a better lens for nature photography? I've read reviews saying for the price, the non IS 400f/4L is an outstanding lens "as long as you know how to hand hold a zoom lens" and others have said they like the 300f/3.5 or 4L whichever it is over the 400f/4 for sharpness as well as the 100-400L.

So basically every one of these lenses (including the straight 300L) have great reviews on them. Some people rave the 400 non IS over the other lenses and others say the 300L or the 100-400 is the way to go. Any thoughts or personal experience?

Obviously what I have now would be 70mm as my max zoom. I think it'd be nice to add a long telephoto to the lens collection for outdoor photography.

 

[BlueCorn]

If you're shooting wildlife, i.e. birds in flight, then there's no substitute for speed. That said, it was a no brainer for me. The 400/4 is just to big to lug around. Also, if you look at my F22 picture that should settle the argument that the 100-400 isn't "fast enough."

 

[IPT]

I do a lot of wildlife stuff and find that I don't always have time or the opportunity to setup a tripod. I also like to mtn bike to some of the locations. That being said I would LOVE to have a 400 F4. I know it wouldn't be used often, but I would like to have it for those rare moments I need more range.

So, I bought the 300mmF4 IS lens and I LOVE it. It's tack sharp, has IS, and is pretty fast (I also have the 300mm f2.8 non IS lens and it is a beast so really I don't tote it around much). Add a 1.4 tele and now I still have an excellent 420mm f5.6 lens. Also, in the digital era it is easy to gain one stop of speed by bumping your ISO.

I am just not a fan of the 100-400 but that's me. If I am shooting wildlife I rarelty need anything less than the longest I got so the 100-350mm are a waste to me. I dont own the 100-400 but I would think the 300mm, fixed would have a slight edge on sharpness. I also hate the push pull thing, but then again that's just me.

 

[BlueCorn]

So now that you have two completely opposing opinions does that make it any easier? :lol:

Obviously much of this is personal taste and needs. Have you considered renting both and trying them out? That might be the best way to figure out what's best for you.

 

[Recty]

I've been doing this debate for a couple months now in my head. I started a very similar thread in this forum and got some pretty good responses, yet I still cant decide

A lot of my nature photography is eagles which are actually relatively close to me, like within the range of 5 to 40 yards. A fixed focal length lens like the 300mm F/4, which is what I've been debating on, wouldnt be good at all for the close shots. I can just see myself watching an eagle coming towards me very fast and fumbling around, trying to swap my 300mm for something else with a wider view. 2 seconds later, the eagle is already come and gone and I'm standing there with a lens in one hand, my camera body in the other and have missed a perfect shot.

That's the only thing stopping me with going with a prime instead of a zoom. I really love my little 50mm prime and my 100mm. Both take insanely sharp photos when I dont do something stupid. But the 100-400 gets good reviews as to being very sharp as well... so it's a tossup.

I think for my style, the 100-400 meets my needs better than a fixed focal length will. I expect image quality to suffer only slightly, probably not even noticeably, when compared to a 300mm prime. Most of my shots will be outside in decent light, so I dont mind the F/6.3 requirement at 400mm.

All in all, I just think I'll get a lot more good shots out of the 100-400 simply because I'll be able to take a lot more shots than I could with the 300mm. If every single animal I took pictures of was guaranteed to be 100 yards away or more, I'd get the prime and never look back.

 

[Tremont]

I use the 200 mm f2.8L often (w/ a 1.4x extender when needed), it's incredibly sharp, low cost, lightweight, a great walk around lens (because it's a prime it's probably better to call it a great "run around" lens instead). I think the flexibility of a zoom is probably worth it. No matter how great I think the 200mm prime is, I would probably frame shots much better if it was a zoom.

 

[t5Nitro]

beerguy, what is wrong with the F22 shot? Looks like the lens worked out fine.

 

[Recty]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15705755#post15705755 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro
beerguy, what is wrong with the F22 shot? Looks like the lens worked out fine.

He's saying the shot is so good, it should lay to rest any doubts that the 100-400 isnt fast enough for freezing the action.

 

[IPT]

Recty....you're killing me man. I used the 300mm for the Eagle lady all the time! Great for portraits when they are real close. Then if I wanted to I'd switch to the 70-200 but tons of the shots I took were with the 300mm as they were coming in off the ocean or buildings. (okay, I just looked and a lot of them were with my 70-200 at 200, but plenty are with the 300 like this one).

crop of the same shot

 

[t5Nitro]

That is insanely sharp, but so is Doug's F22 shot.

I'd like to rent the glass but would rather put that money toward the lens, which is why I come here. Both lenses look great for performance. The zoom I thought would be a good feature. The 300 or 400 straight lens I thought would be neat too, but how often do you always shoot at one mm is what I figured.

 

[Recty]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15709171#post15709171 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by IPT
Recty....you're killing me man. I used the 300mm for the Eagle lady all the time! Great for portraits when they are real close. Then if I wanted to I'd switch to the 70-200 but tons of the shots I took were with the 300mm as they were coming in off the ocean or buildings. (okay, I just looked and a lot of them were with my 70-200 at 200, but plenty are with the 300 like this one).

I know, it's a hard decision. The thing is, I shoot in a different setting than you do. Where I'm at, sometimes the eagles fly by 15 feet from me. I dont want to just get a picture of one of their wings, I'd like to be able to capture the whole bird and yet still get a nice zoom on them as it flies away to a tree 100 yards away.

I dont want to miss those nice close shots just because I'm stuck a fixed focal length.

I'm not at all contesting the 300mm is a nice sharp lens that takes great pictures. What I'm contesting is if I would be OK with missing a lot of shots because I cant zoom out I think it would irritate me.

 

[ahuxman58]

I havent been here for quite awhile but read this and wanted to throw my opinion out there . The 100-400 is a good and versatile lens, but its downfall is ..its a very light hungry lens meaning it needs lots of light to perform at its best anything less than sunny days.... clouds grey skies and IQ suffers in my opinion I have had this lens for 3 years or more, does not perform well at all with any extenders. In good light it performs quite well . But in my opinion a prime lens will give you far better image quality and speed for nature nothing less than 400MM.

 

[t5Nitro]

Looks I got the 400 confused. It is an f/5.6 lens. More light is easy with bumping the ISO. I'm not following why it would need a lot of light to do well.

 

[BlueCorn]

Actually, it's both. It's a variable aperture lens. At 100 it's f/4. At 400 it's f/5.6.

 

[t5Nitro]

IPT, that eagle shot is awesome. You made a good point though that 100 - 200 even probably is nothing in wildlife photography. Maybe I'll just go with a 300mm f/4 IS and buy a 1.4x extender with it. Both of those are cheaper than the 100-400 alone and most people will say it would be a sharper lens. I'm assuming I won't need the low end of the 100-400 for wildlife. If I needed something, I have a 24-70 and have a lot of crop capability.

I also want to get that 15mm f/2.8 fisheye now.
Beerguy, that F22 shot is great too, I just don't think for wildlife I'll need the wider part of the lens.

 

[IPT]

T5, as long as you have the wider ranges covered with the other lens I don;t think you will regret that decision. I know I don't and I debated it myself. Even with being able to bump ISO I still like having the F4 at 300mm.

If I am doing wildlife I often have the tele on. 300, even 400mm often seems not enough when doing wildlife!

Recty - I hear you. In that situation you will be limited by that. Just buy a second body then .

 

[Recty]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15720585#post15720585 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by IPT
Recty - I hear you. In that situation you will be limited by that. Just buy a second body then .

You're so helpful

 

[ducklabdad]

I have been trying to make the same decision as you are, except for the money have really been considering the Sigma 150-500 OS as well, that would save me enough to buy the 100 macro.

I am renting several lenses at this time (one at a time) in order to make a better decision on which lense I actually want to drop the money on, and have already decided "for me a zoom is a must".

Check on some of the birding photo sites and the #1 that most say they would carry with them if they were going to just carry one lense to go birding with and the 100 to 400 L seems to always get the nod!!

 

[t5Nitro]

I'm second guessing the 100-400 for another reason. This guy on another forum has a 300mm sigma lens on a 30D body which is what, around 480mm? All the way out and the bear cubs weren't even that close. He said he's tried the TC's and the quality isn't the best. You really do need to fork the $ for the big guns he said. :lol:

So he said a minimum of 400mm and further is probably a good lens for wildlife.

Anther guy suggested getting a crop body camera for the free TC which I already have a 30D sitting on my desk.

If you rent that 400mm f/5.6L prime, let me know how you like it. 400mm or 640mm if I used my 30D body. Reviews say all the lenses are great (100-400m, 300 prime, and 400 prime), but why wouldn't they be. All L glass seems to be top notch with the primes possibly having a slight edge on sharpness? I don't know, I only own 1 L lens.

From reading, doing wildlife, you're going to want a 400 and up anyway which leads me to the prime lenses since people like the sharpness better on them. I'm babbling, let me know if this makes any sense to you. I'm convincing myself the 400 prime would be the way to go.

 

[t5Nitro]

I honestly might just rent a few lenses next summer. I didn't know they were that cheap. I'm now looking at the 200mm f/2.8L prime lens. Supposedly that lens is amazing and costs less than 1,000$. It has no IS, but neither does my 24-70 I guess. I want to rent that lens and try the 400mm f/4-5.6L I think. I want to assume to quality of that 200 f/2.8 is amazing compared to the others. I could be wrong.

LensRentals.com... the 200 f/2.8L anyway is only 45$ (insured) for 7 days.

Pretty cheap, I thought it would've costed more.