100-400 or 400 F5.6 or 300 f4 IS

A problem. I only buy Canon L series, quality is paramount. I own a 5D MK1 and a 400D. Ill upgrade the 400 but not the 5D as it rocks. Anyway, i currently do a lot of landscapes, buildings, derolict buildings, old trains and a little Macro. I basically do most things as the mood takes me. My lens line up is:


16-35 MK 2 f2.8


24-105 F4


70-200 f2.8 IS


180 f3.5 Macro


Sigma 50 f2.8.


I now wish to do wildlife but im really stuck on the above lens choice. Checking out the forums i see it as this. The 100-400 zoom has good reach and IS but its a zoom, doesnt quiet have the prime quality and with a converter will be slow and struggling in low light, even on the 5D.


The 300 f4 has IS has prime optics and can be hand held but even with a converter doesnt have the reach of the 400.


400 f5.6 Has the reach, can be hand held has the optical quality but no IS and is a bit slow with a converter so id need good light.


So, as most wildlife shots would be mornings or later in an evening, i need good reach and quality is paramount. Using very high shutter speeds so i will need a fairly wide apeture.


Decisions decisions.


Mick

Mick,





Sounds like an easy decision to me... go with the 400 2.8 IS [;)]





Fred~

The 400 2.8 IS is the best, but the COST!. The 300 f4 IS with 1.4x II on the 5D is 420mm @ f5.6. Still has.autofocus.

I think you've got a pretty good handle on it.


I'd rule out the 300mm f/4. It's too short without the TC, but once you add the TC the image quality goes down to the same level as the zoom, so you might as well buy the zoom. The 300 is only for folks who can use it without the TC (i.e. don't need reach) or can't afford the zoom.


Then it's down to the 400 f/5.6 vs zoom. Which is a choice between I.S. and optical quality. On your 5D1, the difference in image quality is not very big, but on the 400D (and any newer cameras as you upgrade) the difference is more noticeable. The zoom is already at the point of diminishing returns with existing cameras, whereas the 400mm f/5.6 has a lot more life left in it, and it can take additional TC better than the zoom.


The prime is cheaper, but the zoom can cover situations when the wildlife is unexpectedly close.


In some conditions, the zoom will let you shoot 1/60 f/5.6 ISO 1600, whereas the 400mm f/5.6 is going to require 1/500 f/5.6 ISO 6400. In that case the difference in noise is more important than the difference in optical quality.


So all you have to do is choose between IS and image quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickw

I now wish to do wildlife but im really stuck on the above lens choice. Checking out the forums i see it as this. The 100-400 zoom has good reach and IS but its a zoom, doesnt quiet have the prime quality and with a converter will be slow and struggling in low light, even on the 5D.


The 300 f4 has IS has prime optics and can be hand held but even with a converter doesnt have the reach of the 400.


400 f5.6 Has the reach, can be hand held has the optical quality but no IS and is a bit slow with a converter so id need good light.

---

100-400, 1.4x300, and 400 will all AF on a 5D. I'd bet that the 100-400 and 400/5.6 won't AF on a 5D if you're using a 1.4x TC.


300x1.4=420mm, so a 300 with a converter does have the reach of the 400.


I'd guess the 300 is the right choice for you, to have IS and best optics at the same time. Coupled to a 1.4x, it's "better" than a 400/5.6 (it'll be a 420/5.6IS) though you'll have to decide about the optical quality.

I have been pondering this same question for a while also. I know everyone is talking about IQ, but I don't see the difference in the iso crops Bryan has done. I know that the 1.4x extender does degrade the image but by how much? If anyone has these combinations, could you post a picture that has not been postprocessed other than converted to JPEG or forward a link to a site that does. I would be very interested to see. Also, would the IQ of the 300 1.4x combo be that of the 100-400 at 400mm? I don't have the resources to try this out for myself where I am from.


Thanks,


Jayson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayson

...I don't see the difference in the iso crops Bryan has done.

---

That's interesting, becauset he difference is pretty clear to me.Most of the comparisons are with a 1Ds2; newer cameras have even bigger differences. I expect the 1Ds4, when it arrives, will really give the lenses a run for their money.


300+1.4X compared with 400


100-400 compared with 400


100-400 compared with 300+1.4X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayson

I know that the 1.4x extender does degrade the image but by how much?

---

*This* much [gesturing with with hand motions].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayson

Also, would the IQ of the 300 1.4x combo be that of the 100-400 at 400mm?

---

I think the zoom has a slight edge in quality.

If you're in general wildlife, I think the 100-400 is much more versatile. It's longer than the 300 and has IS.

If you take stock in such there have been a lot of talk in near-future replacement of the both the 100-400 and the 400 along the lines of adding weather sealing and IS. Presumably the IQ would improve as well.

Wow, I do see quite a difference. I was looking at them on my POS laptop earlier and just checked them out on my new desktop and the difference is quite noticable. Daniel, thanks for pointing that out.

I have heard rumours of those two being upgraded. Possibly weatherproofing and IS for the 400f5.6 maybe better optics, possibly f4.How on earth such lens can get much better is open to debate. The optics of my current "L"'s is fine for me.


I think i will possibly flip a coin. Its the 100-400 versatility against the 400f5.6 image quality. Ive checked out the ISO charts and the differance seems small. I wont really need IS as ill be shooting birds at higher ISO and shutter speeds so wider apetures are more important. I looked at the other options and the 400 F2.8 and 400DO look excellent buys but expensive. The 500 f4 would be my choice if i had the choice, and he money.


Versatility and stabilisation against image quality.


Mick

The 400 f2.8 IS. As good as it gets in 400mm. If you got the bucks, go for it!