100-400 4.5-5.6 L IS lens ?

Hi, I have owned this lens from since the time I was using it on my EOS 3 camera. I love this lens. It continues to serve me very well.

Now, I also have a 400 prime L lens. It is lighhter weightwise. and, a little sharper than the zoom at 400mm

I am thinking about what/when should I get ready to update this focal length of my gear.

There is talk about the currently selling 100-400 being better than the one I've got. Where can I find this information? Is the current lens really way better? I am very courious.

Please help me get the info I need.

Thanks for any help.

Jim

I have the 100-400, purchased around ten years ago and it is sharper at 400mm than the 400 F5.6. You can compare these two lenses at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx  The 100-400 is clearly the winner here.  I have a 5DiIII and I used it last weekend with a 1.4X.  It was pretty sharp and auto focused albeit a bit  slowly.  I have heard that some older copies of the 100-400 were not as sharp at 400, but I have no personal knowledge about that.

From what I can recall I think it was more of a consensus that there was less chance of getting a bad copy in the newer ones (less sample variation).

There are real samples of 100-400L zoom which auto focus faster and have a better IS than the version I've got. I have friends within our photo club group who own this newer version.

What I am interested to know is  'when was it' that the improved version began shipping.

As to variations between copies, I was lucky to have a GOOD copy. Mine focuses very accuratelyl after I did a micro adjust.

Jim

Having owned both at the same time new in 2009, I would say the 400 5.6L was far sharper and quicker to AF, and less of a dust collector. Of course the 100-400 has the flexibility, but if it's small wildlife you're photographing such as birds at feeders I'd choose the 400 every time. In the end I decided neither where fast enough and I couldn't afford the jump to anything faster and longer.
The problem with both these lenses is getting enough shutter speed at decent iso to capture a sharp image of moving objects without noise.

If you're selling your work or have plenty of spare cash then getting the very best availible and is worth buying newer (proven) upgrades of the same lens, but then you could probably afford the faster bigger lenses anyway if that's the case. Personally, I wouldn't go to the hassle and expense of changing one 100-400 for another just to maybe gain a small increase in sharpness that might all come down to post processing anyway.

rebel99 wrote:

Colin Smith1 wrote:

I have the 100-400, purchased around ten years ago and it is sharper at 400mm than the 400 F5.6. You can compare these two lenses at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx The 100-400 is clearly the winner here. I have a 5DiIII and I used it last weekend with a 1.4X. It was pretty sharp and auto focused albeit a bit slowly. I have heard that some older copies of the 100-400 were not as sharp at 400, but I have no personal knowledge about that.

i don't know what you were looking at but i just compared them at that link @400mm and the 400mm prime is clearly better than 100-400mm it has been proven numerous times that the prime is sharper at 400mm and it is an accepted conclusion by the majority of owners of both lenses

cheerz.

I don't agree with that.  I see something different.  Moreover in actual field use the IS in the 100-400 is going to provide a sharper image handheld.

You say, the 100-400mm can't shoot small birds at a feeder.The lens AF is too slow...Wrong!

How about something SMALLER, like dragonflies in flight and bees.

Here's a few pics using my 7D and 100-400mmIS....shooting the small stuff and not cropped

rebel99 wrote:

Colin Smith1 wrote:

I have the 100-400, purchased around ten years ago and it is sharper at 400mm than the 400 F5.6. You can compare these two lenses at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx The 100-400 is clearly the winner here. I have a 5DiIII and I used it last weekend with a 1.4X. It was pretty sharp and auto focused albeit a bit slowly. I have heard that some older copies of the 100-400 were not as sharp at 400, but I have no personal knowledge about that.

i don't know what you were looking at but i just compared them at that link @400mm and the 400mm prime is clearly better than 100-400mm it has been proven numerous times that the prime is sharper at 400mm and it is an accepted conclusion by the majority of owners of both lenses

+1

Like the OP, I've seen a number of soft early copies of the 100-400 and none of them were even close to my 400 f/5.6L.  Now two of my best shooting buddies own recently purchased GREAT copies of the 100-400 which are as sharp in the center as my 400 (but not sharper in 1:1 tests).

Having said that, "Romy" (from these parts) has an early 100-400 that beat the odds and is uber-sharp.  Even sharper than the 400 prime he owns.

R2

Nice shots .

What people don't know , post or just ignore is - was it / the comparsion done with same camera that was MAed for correct distance ?

Granted , I did the MA thing on my 70-200 with the 2 X III on it. Big difference between 70 [ 140 mm ] and 200 [ 400 mm ] Also a big difference between 70 mm at 20 feet and 50 feet .

As far as upgrading to a newer version - I am waiting for the 100-400 II to come out - yes , been waiting since 2010 . Only you can decide if it is worth it . But I also a 135-400 and 70-300

Sitting on 800 towards it - I think it will probably be from 2000 to 2400 .

Tony...here's something to think about, Tamron to develop 150-600mm F5-6.3 ultra-telephoto zoom .  If this lens has great reviews and the price is great, I'll bite.

Some one posted [ maybe on another site ] But until I can handle one -- If the IQ is good on 8 X 10 with my printer , I would consider it at 2500 . [ It would need some kind of IS tho ]

I looked at the new 24-70 II - it just did not feel right . I prefer a 72 or 77 mm lens , I have a bag for 72 mm lenses and 77 mm lenses .

The 52 , 55 and 58 mm are all in one bag .

When you carry at least 2 - UV , CPL , ND filters and hoods - it takes up a lot of space .

...I'll wait for the review and price first. The "sweet spot" lens for wildlife is 600mm. If this new lens pans out, I'll buy it.