100 to 400 IS L series v 400 L series

Guys/Gals

I have the 400 L series 5.6 Lens for birding and love it. However, other
opportunities lay ahead whereby I could see myself hoping to photograph
other larger wildlife. With this in mind I was thinking of the 100 to 400
zoom IS L series. The crux of the matter is that I love the quality of the
prime and wonder how much quality loss I would have to forgo using the zoom
(say at 400 for comparison). Looking for real world experience here so
unless you have used these lenses don't bother responding. Look forward to
your views and comments.

regards


--
Don From Down Under

I have the 100-400mm IS L lens and it is quite nice. I do not own/use the
400mm f/5.6L but without IS and the same aperture.. well??
I went for the 100-400 for the zoom & IS features. Having the zoom feature
makes it much more usable for me. Oh and yea the IS does make handheld much
more possible.
It does come with a cost but its worth it.

"Don" wrote in message
...
Guys/Gals

I have the 400 L series 5.6 Lens for birding and love it. However, other
opportunities lay ahead whereby I could see myself hoping to photograph
other larger wildlife. With this in mind I was thinking of the 100 to 400
zoom IS L series. The crux of the matter is that I love the quality of
the
prime and wonder how much quality loss I would have to forgo using the
zoom
(say at 400 for comparison). Looking for real world experience here so
unless you have used these lenses don't bother responding. Look forward
to
your views and comments.

regards


--
Don From Down Under

See
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tten-400.shtml
for a comparison.

From: "Don"

I have the 400 L series 5.6 Lens for birding and love it. However, other
opportunities lay ahead whereby I could see myself hoping to photograph
other larger wildlife. With this in mind I was thinking of the 100 to 400
zoom IS L series.

The 400 f/5.6L which you already own is sharper than the zoom. I used it
handheld to take this one yesterday and I don't think I would've gotten as good
a result with the zoom, even with the IS:

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/37959124/original

A better solution would be for you to get the original 70-200 f/2.8L or the IS
version of that lens.

From: "Don"

I have the 400 L series 5.6 Lens for birding and love it. However, other
opportunities lay ahead whereby I could see myself hoping to photograph
other larger wildlife. With this in mind I was thinking of the 100 to 400
zoom IS L series. The crux of the matter is that I love the quality of the
prime and wonder how much quality loss I would have to forgo using the zoom
(say at 400 for comparison). Looking for real world experience here so
unless you have used these lenses don't bother responding.

Hi Don,

I have the 100-400 IS and my wife has the 400 f/5.6 L and I get to use both of
them ... at 400 mm wide open the zoom has a pretty noticeable light fall-off in
the corners, especially in low contrast light, but if you can stop down one or
1.5 stops the image quality difference isn't as noticeable between the two
lenses. I put together a chart (just for you showing Canon's MTF values for
the 400 f/2.8 L, 400 f/5.6 L and 100-400 @ 400 that shows the rapid tailing off
of the 100-400 at the corners wide open, at least in theory. I have a shot
from a couple of weeks ago that shows the same thing, I can send you a jpeg if
you want to see it ... http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/ef_400mm.jpg for the
mtf chart.

For "larger wildlife" I'd suggest the 500 f/4 if you can handle the cost and
weight ... if you're really keen on image quality I'd suggest keeping the 400
f/5.6 and getting a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with a 1.4x, then you're covering pretty
much the same focal range as with the 100-400 but with better optics.

Basically if we can take two lenses for this focal range we take the 70-200 and
the fixed 400, which is especially good for birds-in-flight. If we can only
take one because we're flying and have the 500's we often take the 100-400
instead of the 400, especially if it will be used hand-held or from a platform
or vehicle where we can't set up a tripod and the IS feature comes in handy.

Bill

Folks, as always, lots of good advice. Bill, thanks for the below and also
to the poster who sent me to luminous landscape. Decision made, staying
with the 400 fixed.

regards
Don from Down Under

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
...
From: "Don"

I have the 400 L series 5.6 Lens for birding and love it. However, other
opportunities lay ahead whereby I could see myself hoping to photograph
other larger wildlife. With this in mind I was thinking of the 100 to 400
zoom IS L series. The crux of the matter is that I love the quality of
the
prime and wonder how much quality loss I would have to forgo using the
zoom
(say at 400 for comparison). Looking for real world experience here so
unless you have used these lenses don't bother responding.

Hi Don,

I have the 100-400 IS and my wife has the 400 f/5.6 L and I get to use
both of
them ... at 400 mm wide open the zoom has a pretty noticeable light
fall-off in
the corners, especially in low contrast light, but if you can stop down
one or
1.5 stops the image quality difference isn't as noticeable between the two
lenses. I put together a chart (just for you showing Canon's MTF
values for
the 400 f/2.8 L, 400 f/5.6 L and 100-400 @ 400 that shows the rapid
tailing off
of the 100-400 at the corners wide open, at least in theory. I have a
shot
from a couple of weeks ago that shows the same thing, I can send you a
jpeg if
you want to see it ... http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/ef_400mm.jpg for
the
mtf chart.

For "larger wildlife" I'd suggest the 500 f/4 if you can handle the cost
and
weight ... if you're really keen on image quality I'd suggest keeping the
400
f/5.6 and getting a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with a 1.4x, then you're covering
pretty
much the same focal range as with the 100-400 but with better optics.

Basically if we can take two lenses for this focal range we take the
70-200 and
the fixed 400, which is especially good for birds-in-flight. If we can
only
take one because we're flying and have the 500's we often take the 100-400
instead of the 400, especially if it will be used hand-held or from a
platform
or vehicle where we can't set up a tripod and the IS feature comes in
handy.

Bill

Folks, as always, lots of good advice. Bill, thanks for the below and also
to the poster who sent me to luminous landscape. Decision made, staying
with the 400 fixed.

regards
Don from Down Under

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
...
From: "Don"

I have the 400 L series 5.6 Lens for birding and love it. However, other
opportunities lay ahead whereby I could see myself hoping to photograph
other larger wildlife. With this in mind I was thinking of the 100 to 400
zoom IS L series. The crux of the matter is that I love the quality of
the
prime and wonder how much quality loss I would have to forgo using the
zoom
(say at 400 for comparison). Looking for real world experience here so
unless you have used these lenses don't bother responding.

Hi Don,

I have the 100-400 IS and my wife has the 400 f/5.6 L and I get to use
both of
them ... at 400 mm wide open the zoom has a pretty noticeable light
fall-off in
the corners, especially in low contrast light, but if you can stop down
one or
1.5 stops the image quality difference isn't as noticeable between the two
lenses. I put together a chart (just for you showing Canon's MTF
values for
the 400 f/2.8 L, 400 f/5.6 L and 100-400 @ 400 that shows the rapid
tailing off
of the 100-400 at the corners wide open, at least in theory. I have a
shot
from a couple of weeks ago that shows the same thing, I can send you a
jpeg if
you want to see it ... http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/ef_400mm.jpg for
the
mtf chart.

For "larger wildlife" I'd suggest the 500 f/4 if you can handle the cost
and
weight ... if you're really keen on image quality I'd suggest keeping the
400
f/5.6 and getting a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with a 1.4x, then you're covering
pretty
much the same focal range as with the 100-400 but with better optics.

Basically if we can take two lenses for this focal range we take the
70-200 and
the fixed 400, which is especially good for birds-in-flight. If we can
only
take one because we're flying and have the 500's we often take the 100-400
instead of the 400, especially if it will be used hand-held or from a
platform
or vehicle where we can't set up a tripod and the IS feature comes in
handy.

Bill