Originally Posted by alexniedra
Good points. I would expect that Canon would do the same if it introduced an IS version of the 400mm f/5.6L. The difference in normal price between the 400mm and 100-400mm is $300 ($200 with current rebate), not $500-$650.
Bryan pointed out pretty much the same thing in his review: the 400mm f/5.6L is sharper (somewhat) than the 100-400mm. One minor problem with your link--it compares the 100-400mm on the 1Ds Mk III with the 400mm on the 1Ds Mk II. The Mk III's higher resolution (21.1 MP, vs 16.6 MP for the Mk II) can make any lens look less sharp on a pixel-to-pixel basis, which is what those comparison images are. Change the camera on the 100-400mm to the 1Ds Mk II and the difference at f/5.6 become less. At f/8, the difference is hard to see. (The difference might be even less apparent on my 8MP 30D or the 10MP 40D I hope to get soon.)
Image stabilization on the 100-400mm can result in better sharpness, perhaps even better than the 400mm f/5.6L. The photographer who has to hand-hold the camera can use a smaller aperture and/or lower ISO with IS, which may make up for at least some difference in sharpness and overall quality. Compare the 100-400mm at f/8 to the 400mm at f/5.6 and see if there's a significant difference. The IS can give 1-3 stops improvement, depending upon the situation and the individual photographer.
Of course, small differences in sharpness on a chart may or may not mean much in real life. I can't compare the lenses, as I have only the 100-400mm. Do you have or have used both? About the only way I would know to compare them in realistic situations would be to have both on hand and use them to shoot the same subject, in the same situation and lighting, with the same camera, within a short time (minutes). I don't know if anyone has done that. Comparing images of different subjects, taken at different times, by different people with different cameras, would not be as helpful.
As for weight, by Canon's specs, they are 0.2 lb--3 oz--different. If one has to use a monopod or tripod with the prime vs hand-holding the zoom, that might make up for the weight difference. [A]
If you want the BEST image quality at 400mm, the 400mm f/2.8L IS would be the way to go. It would cost a BIT more, of course, and be a BIT heavier. [] (To save looking it up, the 400mm f/2.8L IS costs $6,800 and weighs nearly 12 lbs.)
The closer minimum focus translates into greater magnification--0.12x vs 0.2x, a factor of 50% difference. Yes, one can use extension tubes, but, to me, it's more convenient to just point the camera, plus an extension tube will "lose" light. (In reality, they cause the image to be larger, so the same light is spread over a larger area.)
The major advantage in image quality for the 400mm f/5.6L, to me, wouldn't be sharpness but less vignetting and distortion than the 100-400mm. On my 1.6x FOVCF 30D, vignetting is not noticeable in most shots, but it's very apparent shooting into a plain blue sky:
I know that it would be worse on a full-frame body.
If the 400mm prime autofocuses faster, that would also be an advantage. I don't know if it does, however.
One minor point: "many photographers" implies some sort of estimate, versus "some photographers." I suspect, though without hard data, that the 100-400mm is more widely-used than the 400mm f/5.6L. I doubt that B&H would tell us how many of each they've sold, but, I can
give a count of the lenses sold on eBay recently. Between 6/11 and 6/25, 42 100-400mm lenses were sold by US sellers, 9 new (mostly by Beach Camera), 33 used. The used lenses sold from $1000 to $1378, average $1226. Every used lens was sold. In the same period, 5 400mm f/5.6L lenses were sold--2 new, 3 used. The used lenses sold for $912-1075, average $989.
Here's a graphic demonstration of why some (not necessarily "many")--e.g., me, might want the versatility of the zoom. All were taken with my 100-400mm and 30D at an outdoor horse show. The jumps were spread out over a very large area and I had to stand off to one side, instead of in the middle, so the distance varied a lot. Horses are fairly large. When jumping, their necks are extended and their hind legs and tail extend behind, making them over 10 ft long. You can't use the same focal length you'd use for shots of individual people playing soccer, football, etc. at the same distance--you'd get only part of the horse. I usually have to use even shorter focal lengths to ensure that I can get space in front of a moving horse, plus it makes following the horse less difficult. I can (and do) crop later to get better framing and effect.
The first three are scaled from full images (no cropping). The first was taken at 400mm and still needs cropping to take out a bit of the background behind the horse, leaving more space in front. (And, yes, I know about the obstruction. There was no where I could stand and get a clear shot of every jump. I put this one up mostly to show that I sometimes need 400mm, maybe more.)
(Note: Edited to finish a sentence and clarify.)
A few minutes later at 105mm. It could stand cropping to the equivalent of maybe 135mm. (I've done that for the rider.) (The horse was bucking. Normally, at that point in a canter stride, the hind feet would be under the horse's body and the head would be coming up.)
Then, a bit more than 4 minutes later, at 120mm. To give an idea of scale, the jump standards holding the poles are about 5 ft high. The horse, from ears to end of tail, is about 12 ft long. One reason that I had the zoom set to that point is that I couldn't be sure that she would take the higher jump--she might have taken the lower jump, about 10 ft closer.
That needs cropping, as well; here it is at about the equivalent of 145mm. I wouldn't want to use a much longer focal length, as that wouldn't allow for context and imperfect tracking.
Here's what would have happened if I had used a 400mm prime lens--it would be a nice shot, IF I could get it. It would be very difficult to follow a horse and frame the shot this accurately. That's why I back off the zoom a bit more than the final shot will require. It's a lot easier to crop out than to add back in.
In the space of about 15 minutes (lots more shots than these; these are among the better and I have permission to post them from the riders), I went back and forth between around 100mm all the way out to 400mm. Before they started jumping, with the riders and horses waiting for the start, I took photos with both my 17-85mm IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS, but, even with my 1.4x extender, the 70-200mm wouldn't have been enough for the jumping. (I could have used my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and 2x extender, but the images would have been worse.)
So, obviously, I'm not one of the "many" for whom some difference in image quality outweighs the versatility of the zoom.
Reply With Quote