You may wish to go to the Birds as Art web site. Arthur Morris does a couple
of comparisons and recently has used and commented on the 100 - 400 IS.
Makes a number of statements and provides shots which tend to debunk the
myths around about the softness of the 100 - 400 compared to the 400 F5.6 (I
own the prime and love it, but will buy the zoom shortly). Anyway its all
interesting reading and a couple of shots with the 100 - 400 using a
converter are just mind boggling in their clarity, sharpness etc.
Site is:

http://www.birdsasart.com/ and look at bulletin 192.

regards

Don


"JohnR66" wrote in message
...
"Eric Miller" wrote in message
...
I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is
this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without
quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and
the Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available, but
not in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will come
out with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party will
make a compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone will make
an IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount?

Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally
expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS,
80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results
obtainable with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but
general sharpness of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with
IS/OS their due. I'm starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits
the 400 f/5.6 L offers in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits
of IS/OS for certain applications, like the small bird photography that I
do.

The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the ones
offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

All the tests I've seen with the 100-400 IS, show wide aperture softness
at 400. I have the 300 f/4 IS and Canon 2x. I find it to be great. I
posted some image links in a reply to Steve's question a couple posts
newer in the digital group.
John