Camera Labs

Hi guys,

Still having a hard time deciding what body to pick, but I am convinced that I want a super tele first. My 70-200 just won't cut it when shooting birds or wildlife. There are two options for me, as far as I can tell: the Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM and the Canon EF 400/5.6 L USM.

Obviously the 100-400 is more flexible, and has a high image quality, but especially in the corners it seems that the 400 prime has the edge on 400mm. IS is missing on the prime, and it is bigger than the zoom lens. The 100-400 has this push-and-pull zoom mechanic though, which I heard some people call a vacuum cleaner. It supposedly sucks in dust and other sorts of nasty stuff that will get on your sensor.

So now I was hoping to get some first hand experiences with both these lenses, so I can make an informed choice. Really looking forward to reading what you guys think. If you have alternatives in the same price range (and by that I mean not a Euro/Pound/Dollar more than the 100-400) then I am always interested in learning about them. The Sigma and Tamron have disappointed me in the image quality department though and their slower autofocus is not something I am willing to settle with.

Kind regards,

Mike

_________________
Cameras: Canon EOS 7D, Canon EOS 40D
Lenses: Canon EF 17-40/4 L USM, Canon EF-S 60/2.8 Macro USM, Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L USM, Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
Want list: Canon EF 24-105/4 L IS USM, Canon EF 100/2.8 Macro L IS USM

Dust is not a real issue with the 100-400L, no more than it is with any other extending zoom. I've never had the 400L, doesn't seem to be any point since the image quality differences are marginal at best, and you're getting a lot less flexibility.

Assuming you really need 400mm and you don't want to go 3rd party, there isn't really anything else in this budget. Only thing I can think of is have you tried a 2x on the 70-200? Probably wont be as good as either '400 but might be worth a look anyway?

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Hi Popo,

So the 100-400 doesn't really have a big dust issue? Well that's one disadvantage that I can take off the list then. The extender (even the III) reduces image quality way too much to my liking. The thing is that I expect to be zoomed in fully all the time, so not having the flexibility will probably not be a big issue. But something like IS might be, since I don't think I will have a tripod with me all the time. How good is the IS in the 100-400? If it makes a huge difference then that might be a reason to go for the 100-400, but if it is only marginally better than having no IS at all then the 400/5.6 has a small edge in the image quality department.

Difficult choices lol .

_________________
Cameras: Canon EOS 7D, Canon EOS 40D
Lenses: Canon EF 17-40/4 L USM, Canon EF-S 60/2.8 Macro USM, Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L USM, Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
Want list: Canon EF 24-105/4 L IS USM, Canon EF 100/2.8 Macro L IS USM

The 100-400L dust I think is a self propagating myth. It's frequently mentioned by people looking at but not having the lens. That's not to say there aren't some owners of it who do claim a dust issue, but without knowing their exact circumstances it is hard to say if it is really due to the lens, that another lens wouldn't also have had similar problems in the situation where it is used. I can only say, based on hundreds of thousands of photos taken with the 100-400L over many years on multiple bodies, I have not had a dust issue with any of them. And I do use it outdoors in all sorts of conditions, not hidden away in a studio.

The IS is... an old design, not very strong. Better than nothing and can help aiming especially if it's very windy. But I wouldn't say it is essential. I also had the 35-350L in the past, which doesn't have IS either and didn't find that to be a problem. Do note I'm not afraid of higher ISO as required to keep a usable shutter speed.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

High ISO is not something that is a big issue. I am not afraid of going up with my ISO to get my shuttertimes to where I need them to be. I am shooting with a Canon EOS 40D at the moment, but am gonna try and add a 7D to my gear ASAP too. The 7D is perfectly capable of higher ISO's without degrading image quality to a useless level. So in the end I will be shooting with a 7D + 100-400 or 400 mostly. Still not convinced which will be more useful to me, though if I have the choice between being more flexible and less flexible I guess it should be an easy choice...

_________________
Cameras: Canon EOS 7D, Canon EOS 40D
Lenses: Canon EF 17-40/4 L USM, Canon EF-S 60/2.8 Macro USM, Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L USM, Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
Want list: Canon EF 24-105/4 L IS USM, Canon EF 100/2.8 Macro L IS USM