Quote Originally Posted by Sheiky
So in my opinion I stay with the big advantage of the zoom vs the prime for these types of photography.

Quote Originally Posted by bburns223
Hah! I was thinking the exact opposite. Oh well, that's basically a matter of personal preference.

From what I've seen in my shooting thus far, primes are ideal when you are going out to shoot one type of subject. If I'm going to take close-up portraits of my daughter, I grab my EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. If I'm going to shoot flowers, I put myEF 100mm f/2.8<span>LMacro IS USM on the camera and I'm good to go. If my goal was to shoot birds, I'd go with your (Brendan's)suggestion of the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM as the best lens for that purpose in my current budget. But, when I just 'go out to shoot whatever' I find the flexibility of a zoom lens to be necessary. It's true that by adding the 300mm f/4L to my 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS and 200mm f/2.8L, I'd have a set of primes covering 3/4 of the range of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, and with much faster apertures - but I'd have to carry all three lenses and swap them frequently. In walking around with my 200mm f/2.8, I've felt the need to go both longer and shorter to get the desired composition, in situations where geography or time prevented me from using my feet for that purpose.


However, a little bit of doubt remains since I've never had a lens as slow as f/5.6. Then again, a 400mm f/2.8 is way outside my price range, and comparing the 100-400mm @ 400mm f/5.6 with the 400mm f/5.6 prime, having IS is a worthwhile trade for a bit of sharpness.


So, will the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM be my next lens? Very likely. But it's entirely possible that I'll end up also owning the 300mm f/4L (and the 135mm f/2L, and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and the 35mm f/1.4L, and the...well, you get the idea!).