Arghh, which 400mm L lens?

[JackyRIATWilson]

A few of you on here may recall that I did post a topic on whether the 100-400mm Canon lens was a great buy, and I got a few comments which greatly helped - then.

Now however, thanks to a few shots from a certain Mr P. Reoch, I am wavering over the topic again. After looking at my RIAT photos, I decided that I should save up to buy a decent L lens for next year. The 100-400mm is still a candidate, but the 400mm f/5.6 L USM is another option. I already shoot with a 70-300mm IS USM, but the pictures are nowhere near as good as I would like them to be. Also, the 150-500mm Sigma lens - is it worth the money? I've never been a fan of Sigma lenses, I personally think the IQ is not as good as the Canon lenses.

The question is this - which one? If anyone has any horror stories or advice, please share them. It will give me an idea of a budget too.

Cheers,

Jack.

[Timc]

I would certainly consider the 400mm F5.6, had this lens now for just over a year and for the money nothing comes close. The AF is super quick and images very sharp.

However, it has it's limitations being non IS at low shutter speeds but that's where practice comes in. Overall highly recommended.

Cheers
Tim

[Ian G]

I have a Sigma 120-400mm. It's far better than the 150-500mm as I've used both. The 150-500mm seemed to spend a lot of time hunting and took ages to finally get something in focus and wasn't particularly sharp at the extremes.

[Agg]

You should remember that your gear will only get you so far, you can get great shots with cheap equipment, as well as crap shots with the most expensive equipment out there. And while I agree with you that 300mm is a bit on the short end for airshows, a longer lens wont automatically make your pictures better.

Having said that, I love my 100-400mm, and I do recommend it, but as I said, the only way to get better is to practice.

[cw318is]

Get yourself down to LCE and have a go with a few lenses, or look on pixel-peeper and see what is achievable with your body/lens combo.

I remember the day I bought my first L after having Sigma and Canon domestic for years - total dissapointment that my photos still looked iffy with it. Several weeks later after some studying as to how to work the camera and even with the cheapest Sigma 24-105mm I had I could get a reasonable(ish) image.

[PeterR]

I can't fault the 400 prime, when shooting at F/8 it's pin sharp and a joy to use. If a little bit on the heavy size!

[Z3roCool]

I have the 400 5.6 Prime and love it. Use it for Motorsport also and get great results. Sometimes wish I had the flexibility of the 100-400 but I have feet so can move around It can get a little hard sometimes when you are 20 metres behind everyone else and trying to get good shot. For Airshows I find that it is very hard to get any shots of formation flying.

I have used a 100-400 also and loved it except I did find that at 400mm it is not quite as sharp as the prime (to be expected) but the IS on the zoom is great for lower light and slow shutter shots.

I ended up going for the Prme simply because it gets me the style of shots I am after. If you are happy with the restrictions and okay getting another lens to cover lower focal length then go for it. If the lens needs to cover other types of shots and the only one you will use then look at the 100-400.

Hopet that helps a little (Typed on my phone so cant check what I have written so apologies if any mistakes.)

[JackyRIATWilson]

Cheers for the advice guys, it is very much appreciated.

I feel the balance is switching to the 400mm prime, but the only feeling is, for the money, I'd be tempted to get the 100-400 as it's a lens I've always had my eye on. I think the only thing for me to do is to try them out at a later date, and see which one I'm more comfortable with.

Reoch, I've seen some Waddington and RIAT shots from you, I'm assuming you are taking the 400 prime to the US?

[ctt2706]

Hi
Just a quick note, I have both the canon 100 to 400mm and the sigma 50 to 500mm, both a cracking bits of kit.

The sigma has great reach, being 50 to 500mm, however when the light drops away so does the quality of the lens, however in good light it is equally as good as the canon.

I do tend to use the canon more often, than the sigma.

The other point there is a strong rumour that canon are replacing the 100 to 400 mm later in the year and are going public with it in the next few weeks, I heard that trying to get canon lens at this time is abit hard due to the london 2012, and there may be loads of cheap lens available afterwards.

all the best
ctt

[DonBonzo]

Jack, which body do you use currently?

I only ask because I've heard that the 100-400L (which I have, and struggle with at times on my 40D) is WAY more responsive when attached to a 7D body......

I'm hoping to hire a 7D for a couple of days in August (Shuttleworth Military Pageant) to test the theory, and if it holds true, then this year's birthday and xmas present to myself will be well and truly sorted

[JackyRIATWilson]

Hi
Just a quick note, I have both the canon 100 to 400mm and the sigma 50 to 500mm, both a cracking bits of kit.

The sigma has great reach, being 50 to 500mm, however when the light drops away so does the quality of the lens, however in good light it is equally as good as the canon.

I do tend to use the canon more often, than the sigma.

The other point there is a strong rumour that canon are replacing the 100 to 400 mm later in the year and are going public with it in the next few weeks, I heard that trying to get canon lens at this time is abit hard due to the london 2012, and there may be loads of cheap lens available afterwards.

all the best
ctt

Oh really? Have to keep an eye out for that one, price tag of about £1800 (and the rest!) expected I think. I found at RIAT I was having to swap a fair bit with the light (sure the rest of you guys were too) so I'm assuming the Canon is the better choice.

Jack, which body do you use currently?

I have a 600D, first DSLR.

[Blackbird]

I'm lucky enough to own both. I tend to use the fixed 400mm only for bird photography. If I had to choose, it would be the zoom every time. Even though the IS packed up years ago I still get good results. I use mine on a 7D and am happy with that combination. Any of my threads of flying shots will have been taken using it. I'd go for the flexibility every time.

HTH

Andy

[Ben Montgomery]

I've never been a fan of Sigma lenses, I personally think the IQ is not as good as the Canon lenses.

I was of a similar opinion to you on this (for super-telephoto lenses at least), until I got hold of the 120-300 F/2.8 OS. Admittedly it comes with a stupidly large pricetag, but does prove that you get what you pay for. I'd be happy to say that the image quality, and quality of the lens, are definitely higher than the 100-400L I was previously using. I've also seen some results straight out of camera from the new-ish Sigma 150-500 OS (Nikon fit) that definitely at least equalled what I'd been getting with the 100-400L.

Strangely, my experience with the 100-400L is the opposite of DonBonzo's - on my 40D it was beautiful, but the 7D exposed the problems in it. The Sigma 300 F/2.8 really brings the best out of the camera, and now I just need to sort my editing out to make the most of it!

Just thought I'd chip in with this as an interesting aside.

Ben

[DonBonzo]

Strangely, my experience with the 100-400L is the opposite of DonBonzo's - on my 40D it was beautiful, but the 7D exposed the problems in it. The Sigma 300 F/2.8 really brings the best out of the camera, and now I just need to sort my editing out to make the most of it!

That's interesting, could you elaborate, because as I said I've not had a chance to use the lens with the 7D body yet, so if there are any shortcomings it'd be worth knowing about them! Was it the lens' ability to successfully track a moving subject?

[agdickie]

I can't fault the 400 prime, when shooting at F/8 it's pin sharp and a joy to use. If a little bit on the heavy size!

Heavy! First time I picked one up I almost threw it away it's so light!

[Harry_Imp]

The 400mm prime is beast!!

[habu21]

100-400 Canon for me..but thats just me!

[Maisie]

I can't fault the 400 prime, when shooting at F/8 it's pin sharp and a joy to use. If a little bit on the heavy size!

Heavy! First time I picked one up I almost threw it away it's so light!

I suppose 1.2kg is fairly heavy if used all the time, Guess it depends on the persons build, 5+kg though for the 400mm f/2.8!

[JackyRIATWilson]

I will have a better idea of the 100-400mm and it's pros and cons tomorrow, when it arrives as a hired lens for the Loop on Tuesday!

[p2philip]

I owned both of the lenses in question and found the image quality differences marginal. The AF was noticably quicker on the prime but that was the only advantage. I now use the 100-400 because being able to zoom comes in handy. If you want a quality improvement from the 100-400 you need a 500 f4 or 400 2,8 or similar.