I'm searching for a 400mm lens and had the choices down to the Canon 100-400mm IS or the Canon 400mm f5.6, with the 100-400mm in the lead due to the versatility of the zoom.

My problem is now two fold. The 400mm prime is an exceptionally sharp lens (not to say the 100-400 isn't sharp) and from what I understand matches up nicely with a 1.4x TC. I can't find an overwhelming reason to cross it off my list.

Second, it has been suggested to opt for the 300mm f4IS + 1.4x TC instead.

Any thoughts and recommendations? I'm working on a budget of $2K and while I would prefer a 500mm or 600mm prime, they are cost prohibitive.

Depends on what you are planning on using it for and whether reach or versitility is you preimary need.

For shooting birds in flight or surfing (or similarly speed and reach oriented subject matter) - the 400mm f/5.6 would be the call.

All around lens, the 300 or 100-400 - both have IS, which for me is important.

I personally like the 300 + 1.4x combo. You have a sharp 420mm with IS and the AF is still fast enough for action shots. The 300 alone is very sharp. I use this combo for landscape, surf and wildlife.

Depends on your priorities and what you will shoot.

Mostly, I'll be using this for birds (song birds to bald eagles) and little league baseball. I've got a Sigma 50-500mm already and am thinking it may be better to invest in the 400mm prime.

But the 100-400mm is very appealling as well.

there is little gain in sharpness from a 300 f4+1.4x compared to the 100-400 and the flexibility of the 100-400 makes it really useful - rarely use the 300 and should sell it

the 400 is probably the way to go for birds, but you'll need at least a monopod without the IS

if you get the 100-400, the Sigma will gather dust

IME, the 100-400 is sharper at 400 than the 300 prime is with a 1.4x TC, especially wide-open. The 300 prime isn't as sharp wide open, compared to the zoom. If you can get 3/4 closer to your subject, however, the 300 by itself at f/5.6 is a little sharper than the zoom at 400/5.6.

Personally, I could never see *not* having an IS lens. The 400 prime is a great AFer for birds in flight, and has better bokeh than the zoom (and I believe that better bokeh means more practical DOF), but I could not see working without the potential for IS. I am already into the marginal areas of hand-holdability with the IS zoom in 75% of the situations I find myself using it. Only in direct sunlight do I get shutter speed potetnial that doesn't require IS, especially with at least 1 1.4x TC.

Oh for a 400/f.6 iS ...


Giles

That clinches it for me. The 100-400 is absolutely great for LL, and pretty darn good for birds too. You'll find the other solutions are often awkwardly long for LL, especially on the 1.6x crop body.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

I'm not very impressed with my 1-4. It's great in terms of portability and convenence and all that, but just isnt that sharp. I chose it over anything else because of the IS. I've often wondered if I got it calibrated if it would be better, but frankly, I'm not sure I want to spend another 100 on the lens.

Also, it's focus is significantly slower than other lenses I have; that will be a huge factor in bird shots. Going between it and a 70-200 when shooting sports is painful in terms of AF.

The day they make a 5.6 IS, I sell the 1-4.

How about a 100-400 f/4L IS? That was included in the latest "credible rumor" floating around the other day.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net