Looking to purchase the Canon 100-400 for wildlife photo. We have the 70-200 4.IS with the EF 1.4x II Extender and love the results, but not long enough focal length . Question: how is the 100-400 image quality etc. as compared to the 70-200 4IS? We have a 50D and thinking of trading the 70-200 toward the 100-400.
Appreciated, John
Posted by Steve Foss on September 15, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Long post coming, so bear with me.
The 70-200 f4IS/1.4 TC combo (wide open at 280mm) will produce IQ essentially the same as the 100-400 wide open at 400mm. The 70-200 series is notably sharp for zooms, and the 100-400 is slightly soft wide open at 400mm. I emphasize "slightly," because the difference in IQ between the 70-200 series alone (no TC) and the 100-400 when both are wide open at max focal length is a pretty small difference.
There IS a difference, for sure, but it's nothing any consumer will notice. That difference is magnified by online pixel peepers, but in the real world of prints, it's negligible.
Here are some positives to the 100-400.
1. It's a great zoom range, perfect for a huge variety of wildlife/avian situations. From the tight portrait shots that so many photographers seem to prefer these days to the looser environmental portraits that most consumers prefer. It's difficult to overemphasize the flexibility delivered by this 100-400 range.
2. If shooting birds on perches from a blind, the minimum focus distance of six feet will allow a chickadee shot just past MFD to fill half of the frame on a 1.6 crop sensor. And for that reason, it's also a great butterfly lens and excellent at floral photography in certain situations.
3. Its focus speed is very slightly slower than the 70-200 series, but plenty fast enough on Ai servo focus mode for BIF. I shot it that way off 20D and 30D bodies for four years and with good technique and the center focus point, it's plenty fast. It'll be faster yet with the 50D's improved AF performance.
4. Its IQ at all apertures and focal lengths is good enough so images can easily be not only sold as prints but marketed to top-end professional clients such as publications and promotional businesses.
Some drawbacks.
1. The push-pull design is seen as cumbersome by many, and takes a bit of getting used to after the twist zoom of the 70-200 series. I don't mind it at all.
2. You lose some cropability with it at longer ranges when compared with primes because all primes are sharper than zooms. As an example, I made an 8 Mp capture of a pair of eagles using the Canon 400 f5.6L and cropped away 70 percent of the image and still came away with a very nice and sharp 11x14 print. The 100-400 doesn't resolve sharply enough to do that. And with the 15 Mp of the 50D, you have pixels to burn, so there will be situations you want to crop to magnify beyond what the native focal length of lens/TC allows.
3. With the TC (f8 aperture), your 50D won't autofocus the combo, and the 100-400 only delivers really nice IQ with the TC in excellent light.
Some further thoughts.
Budget clearly is a consideration, but consider this: The 400 f5.6L is tack sharp, weighs about the same as the 100-400 and is more compact. It's one of the most affordable L lenses Canon makes, delivering IQ as good as any of the other faster supertele primes (costing thousands more) that I've shot, and is easily found for around $900 lightly used.
My suggestion would be to hold onto the 70-200 and pick up the 400 prime, even if you have to save a bit. That way you get the flexibility of a lens you already know inside out (your 70-200) but for not a lot of money (relatively speaking), you get the tack sharpness of a 400mm prime. Downside of the 400 f5.6L is no IS, but I use it with a monopod whenever possible and a tripod quite often, and I get really nice results at surprisingly slow shutter speeds when technique is good.
It also bears mentioning that the 400 f5.6L with the 1.4 TC, while AF is lost on all but "1" series bodies, delivers gorgeous IQ. There are quite a few situations where I've used this combo and used manual focus. Shot off a tripod at eagle or osprey nests is one example.
Food for thought.
Whatever you choose, enjoy!
Posted by Richard Wong on September 15, 2009 at 11:48 PM
I rented the 100-400 last week to shoot wildlife and absolutely hated the lens. It is big and bulky not to mention difficult to zoom because it is a push / pull system as opposed to the regular lenses.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on September 16, 2009 at 9:36 AM
I second the motion, definitely go for the 400mm/5.6. I'm starting to realize how good Canon primes really are. I just got the 100mm/2.8 Macro and for a non-L lens the image quality is absolutely nuts just using it as a short zoom for normal scenes. It easily keeps up with the 5D2's big sensor. My 70-200mm is very sharp, but if the primes beat that, my next two lenses are the 200/2.8 and the 400/5.6 primes.
Posted by Bill Brennan on September 16, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Keep your 70-200 2.8. as it is a wonderful lens. Consider renting the other lenses that you are considering to purchase. I have both the 70-200 and the 100-400. I like the 70-200 better and have been thinking about getting a prime lens to replace the 100-400.
Have fun
Bill Brennan
Posted by Steve Foss on September 16, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Renting is always a good idea before buying. Removes the element of surprise.
Definitely agree with others, rent before buying to get an idea, as to how comfortable you would be with a lens. I have a 70-200 and I tried the 100-400, I didnt like it. As an alternative to just buying the 400 f/5.6L, if you already have a 1.4x TC, get the 300 f/4L IS. That way you can couple with the 1.4 and get similar effective lens equal to 400 f/5.6L but with IS. The trade off of course is a slight loss of IQ, but IQ is still in a very good range. I had the 300 f/4L IS but sold it for the lack of use. If I needed it, I would hesitate and get that lens again in a heartbeat. You can get excellent condition used for around $900, depending upon its age.
Posted by Carroll Breaux on September 17, 2009 at 12:40 AM
I own the 100-400 and really like it. True, IQ is off with the 1.4 but this spring I was in RMNP photographing birds when a coyote came so close that I would have missed the shot if I had not been able to zoom in. After using the lense a while the slide zoom doesn't bother me. So I guess to each his own.
Discussion
7 repliesAppreciated, John
The 70-200 f4IS/1.4 TC combo (wide open at 280mm) will produce IQ essentially the same as the 100-400 wide open at 400mm. The 70-200 series is notably sharp for zooms, and the 100-400 is slightly soft wide open at 400mm. I emphasize "slightly," because the difference in IQ between the 70-200 series alone (no TC) and the 100-400 when both are wide open at max focal length is a pretty small difference.
There IS a difference, for sure, but it's nothing any consumer will notice. That difference is magnified by online pixel peepers, but in the real world of prints, it's negligible.
Here are some positives to the 100-400.
1. It's a great zoom range, perfect for a huge variety of wildlife/avian situations. From the tight portrait shots that so many photographers seem to prefer these days to the looser environmental portraits that most consumers prefer. It's difficult to overemphasize the flexibility delivered by this 100-400 range.
2. If shooting birds on perches from a blind, the minimum focus distance of six feet will allow a chickadee shot just past MFD to fill half of the frame on a 1.6 crop sensor. And for that reason, it's also a great butterfly lens and excellent at floral photography in certain situations.
3. Its focus speed is very slightly slower than the 70-200 series, but plenty fast enough on Ai servo focus mode for BIF. I shot it that way off 20D and 30D bodies for four years and with good technique and the center focus point, it's plenty fast. It'll be faster yet with the 50D's improved AF performance.
4. Its IQ at all apertures and focal lengths is good enough so images can easily be not only sold as prints but marketed to top-end professional clients such as publications and promotional businesses.
Some drawbacks.
1. The push-pull design is seen as cumbersome by many, and takes a bit of getting used to after the twist zoom of the 70-200 series. I don't mind it at all.
2. You lose some cropability with it at longer ranges when compared with primes because all primes are sharper than zooms. As an example, I made an 8 Mp capture of a pair of eagles using the Canon 400 f5.6L and cropped away 70 percent of the image and still came away with a very nice and sharp 11x14 print. The 100-400 doesn't resolve sharply enough to do that. And with the 15 Mp of the 50D, you have pixels to burn, so there will be situations you want to crop to magnify beyond what the native focal length of lens/TC allows.
3. With the TC (f8 aperture), your 50D won't autofocus the combo, and the 100-400 only delivers really nice IQ with the TC in excellent light.
Some further thoughts.
Budget clearly is a consideration, but consider this: The 400 f5.6L is tack sharp, weighs about the same as the 100-400 and is more compact. It's one of the most affordable L lenses Canon makes, delivering IQ as good as any of the other faster supertele primes (costing thousands more) that I've shot, and is easily found for around $900 lightly used.
My suggestion would be to hold onto the 70-200 and pick up the 400 prime, even if you have to save a bit. That way you get the flexibility of a lens you already know inside out (your 70-200) but for not a lot of money (relatively speaking), you get the tack sharpness of a 400mm prime. Downside of the 400 f5.6L is no IS, but I use it with a monopod whenever possible and a tripod quite often, and I get really nice results at surprisingly slow shutter speeds when technique is good.
It also bears mentioning that the 400 f5.6L with the 1.4 TC, while AF is lost on all but "1" series bodies, delivers gorgeous IQ. There are quite a few situations where I've used this combo and used manual focus. Shot off a tripod at eagle or osprey nests is one example.
Food for thought.
Whatever you choose, enjoy!
Have fun
Bill Brennan