# 400 5.6 + 70-300 vs. 100-400II?



## Cory (Apr 27, 2018)

I'm ramping up my "running" event photography and the perfect lens will be a 400 5.6. 
I know it's controversial to say, but I find its rendering "better" than any zoom; even though the best zooms are very good and very versatile. 
With that, I can see how a 70-300 will be very useful at times which points to the smaller zoom/400 prime combo.
Does that combo make sense, at least sort of, or is it a thought to slightly compromise and just make life easier with the 100-400II?
THANKS.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 27, 2018)

It does seem somewhat cumbersome to go around with both a 70-300mm zoom and and the physically long 400/5.6 when the 100-400mm II will cover both - and I would dispute that the 100/5.6 is better than the zoom at 400mm. The TDP's copy of the 100-400mm II outperforms both its copies of the 70-300mm L from 100-300mm.


----------



## JPAZ (Apr 28, 2018)

FWIW, my 100-400ii is one of the sharpest in my arsenal. I don't have a 400/5.6 for comparison, but the utility of the zoom is worth it


----------



## NancyP (Apr 28, 2018)

I would have to say that the 400 f/5.6L and the 100-400 LIS vII have indistinguishable image quality at 400mm. I own both. 400 f/5.6L does not have image stabilization, so it is less versatile - a great bird-in-flight lens, but one is obliged to use shutter speed of 1/500 or faster for any reliably sharp hand held shots. So, not great for hand held shots where light is low and subject isn't moving. This isn't a limitation if you have the camera on tripod. The 100-400 vII can be hand held at 400mm at 1/125 with reasonable success, if your technique is good. The weight difference is noticeable but manageable. So - the question is, what else are you going to be using the lenses for? What do you have currently in the 70-200 or 70-300 range? Have you considered a 70-200 f/2.8?


----------



## JBSF (Apr 28, 2018)

NancyP said:


> I would have to say that the 400 f/5.6L and the 100-400 LIS vII have indistinguishable image quality at 400mm. I own both. 400 f/5.6L does not have image stabilization, so it is less versatile - a great bird-in-flight lens, but one is obliged to use shutter speed of 1/500 or faster for any reliably sharp hand held shots. So, not great for hand held shots where light is low and subject isn't moving. This isn't a limitation if you have the camera on tripod. The 100-400 vII can be hand held at 400mm at 1/125 with reasonable success, if your technique is good. The weight difference is noticeable but manageable. So - the question is, what else are you going to be using the lenses for? What do you have currently in the 70-200 or 70-300 range? Have you considered a 70-200 f/2.8?



+1 on all points. MFD on 100-400 is also better than either of the other lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 28, 2018)

NancyP said:


> I would have to say that the 400 f/5.6L and the 100-400 LIS vII have indistinguishable image quality at 400mm. I own both. 400 f/5.6L does not have image stabilization, so it is less versatile - a great bird-in-flight lens, but one is obliged to use shutter speed of 1/500 or faster for any reliably sharp hand held shots. So, not great for hand held shots where light is low and subject isn't moving. This isn't a limitation if you have the camera on tripod. The 100-400 vII can be hand held at 400mm at 1/125 with reasonable success, if your technique is good. The weight difference is noticeable but manageable. So - the question is, what else are you going to be using the lenses for? What do you have currently in the 70-200 or 70-300 range? Have you considered a 70-200 f/2.8?



NancyP is a great fan of the 400/5.6 and so you should take her comments here very seriously.


----------



## Cory (Apr 28, 2018)

No matter where I go, the 100-400II is recommended. 
I guess it makes sense to have my wide and long ends covered by zooms and then I can address my "primes" addiction in the standard range.
On occasion, too, there's parades, other events, etc. 
100-400II it is.
Not sure if this site saves me money or costs me money. Probably saves.
Thanks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2018)

Cory said:


> I'm ramping up my "running" event photography and the perfect lens will be a 400 5.6.



Photographing running events usually involves being in a fixed position as runners approach you. I don't understand how a prime lens is 'perfect' or even desirable in that situation.


----------



## Cory (Apr 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > I'm ramping up my "running" event photography and the perfect lens will be a 400 5.6.
> ...


I've made it work and do appreciate the better image quality offered from primes, but maybe it's time to move on and embrace the benefits of zoom lenses. It might be a whole new world.


----------



## Talys (Apr 28, 2018)

I think that the clear winner is the 100-400LII. It's just a super versatile lens with that beautiful, short, MFD, and very crisp 400mm. 

IMO, the only way I would go to a telephoto prime is for f/4. But that's a whole other ball of wax; if you wanted to use that at a running event, I'd think you'd want a second body with a 70-200/2.8 for when action gets closer. Like the pro sports thing where the long telephoto is on a tripod, and 70-200 is handheld.

I would take the 70-300 out of the running (pardon the pun). The L was a fine lens in its time, but the performance now is just inferior to the 100-400LII in pretty much every way.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 29, 2018)

JPAZ said:


> FWIW, my 100-400ii is one of the sharpest in my arsenal. I don't have a 400/5.6 for comparison, but the utility of the zoom is worth it



My 100-400II came Thursday. The few pictures I have made with it are amazingly sharp, and I haven’t even tried it on a tripod. I haven’t tried it on the low end, but since I have a 100 macro and a 24-105 zoom, there seems no point in dealing with the weight to get the same focal length, so I expect my usage to range in the 200-400 area. Autofocus and IS are amazing, too. I took a picture or the almost-full moon Friday night at 400. If there is any CA, it had certainly been removed by ACR by the time it opened it. CA is pretty obvious on the edges of the moon if it is present.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 10, 2018)

I'm a long time user now of the 100-400 II and its a great lens.
I do a huge amount of sports photography with it and its very sharp.
Focusing is fast and accurate.
I think Canon did a great job with it.


----------



## monkey44 (May 10, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> I'm a long time user now of the 100-400 II and its a great lens.
> I do a huge amount of sports photography with it and its very sharp.
> Focusing is fast and accurate.
> I think Canon did a great job with it.



I agree totally here. I too have been shooting sports, and also wildlife, for a lot of years ... 100/400 II is extremely sharp and versatile. Hard to beat it for weight and comfort in the fields ... it's so good, it almost knows what you want before you know you want it ---    In twenty + years, I've never owned a prime lens ...


----------



## Orangutan (May 10, 2018)

monkey44 said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a long time user now of the 100-400 II and its a great lens.
> ...


Which body do you use it on?


----------



## mpphoto (May 10, 2018)

Here's another vote for the 100-400 Mk II. I own it and the 70-300 L, using them for planespotting and wildlife photography. The 100-400 has better image quality than the 70-300. The only time I choose the 70-300 over the 100-400 now is when I need to keep size and weight down.

I also have the 300mm f/4L IS. I keep that lens because I just love the color in the photos I take with it. The downside is its lack of versatility as a prime. Sometimes 300mm is simply too long, especially on a crop body.

The 100-400 Mk II is so good that I just don't see any benefit to having the 400mm f/5.6. I have bad GAS, but even I couldn't justify picking up the 400 prime because I couldn't think of a reason I would prefer to use it over the 100-400.


----------



## monkey44 (May 10, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> monkey44 said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...



I used the 100/400 v1 for film/slides first, and also on a 30D and a 7D, excellent lens ... then went to the 100/400 v2 when it released ... which I use on a 5DM3, along with a 70/200 f4 IS ... I also shot with the 7D2, but did not like it at all with the 100/400 v2, so sold it, and bought another 5DM3. So, my field set up is now 5DM3 w/100/400 v2 and 5DM3 w/70/200 f4 IS ... I once did a one month field trip in the western Rockies and shot entirely with the 5DM3 and 100/400 v2. I just never needed another lens - altho I did shoot a few sunsets and scenics with the 16/35 f4 IS ...


----------



## AbsN (May 10, 2018)

I've had the 70-300L and upgraded to the 100-400ii last year. The image quality of the 100-400ii is exceptional. The 70-300L image quality is very good but absolutely lags behind in image quality the 100-400ii on my 5dsr. 

However I have found myself wishing I still had the 70-300L on multiple occasions simply because it is much lighter and considerably more compact. As a travel lens the 70-300L is superb and still has very good image quality. You can't go too far wrong with either really in my opinion.


----------



## Cory (May 10, 2018)

Thanks again. As much as I like primes the 100-400II is on the wish list (along with an 85 prime). 
For "running" I'd be good with the 400mm prime, but for other things the zoom would be really good to have.

8)


----------



## Hector1970 (May 11, 2018)

Good choice I think. You'll enjoy the 100-400mm II.
It has a very short focusing distance too - I think 1M.
It's good for things coming at you getting closer and closer.


----------



## AJ (May 11, 2018)

NancyP said:


> Have you considered a 70-200 f/2.8?


I'm with Nancy. 70-200/2.8 IS is the lens you want for your needs. You can always buy a teleconverter if you need more reach, but I doubt that will be the case.


----------



## NancyP (May 11, 2018)

Many running events are held early in the morning. There's something to be said about having an f/2.8 lens when shooting low light sports photos. If your usual shooting set-up puts you close to the runners' path, a 70-200 f/2.8 might be more appropriate.


----------



## Don Haines (May 12, 2018)

NancyP said:


> Many running events are held early in the morning. There's something to be said about having an f/2.8 lens when shooting low light sports photos. If your usual shooting set-up puts you close to the runners' path, a 70-200 f/2.8 might be more appropriate.



I agree with Nancy.

Most (actually all) of the running events that I have been to were very crowded and I ended up using the 24-70 the most, and the 70-200 when I went for an individual runner.... there was not the sight lines for the 400 to have been useful.....

Of course, your event may be different.... these ones were 10,000 runners!


----------



## Aichbus (May 30, 2018)

Until very recently I owned all three lenses, but I sold the 400 L. The image quality of the 100-400 II is better in the center and by far good enough in the corners. Contrast is better. IS is sooooo much better. 400 L is lighter and has less distortion, that's about it. The 70-300 is nice if you want to travel lighter. Image quality of my copy is perfect even on the 5DsR. So I take the 100-400 L (+ 1.4x converter) if I need he the reach, and the 70-300 L if I don't need the reach and want to travel light. After have not regretted selling my 400 L, although it is without a doubt a superb lens.


----------



## Cory (May 30, 2018)

Aichbus said:


> Until very recently I owned all three lenses, but I sold the 400 L. The image quality of the 100-400 II is better in the center and by far good enough in the corners. Contrast is better. IS is sooooo much better. 400 L is lighter and has less distortion, that's about it. The 70-300 is nice if you want to travel lighter. Image quality of my copy is perfect even on the 5DsR. So I take the 100-400 L (+ 1.4x converter) if I need he the reach, and the 70-300 L if I don't need the reach and want to travel light. After have not regretted selling my 400 L, although it is without a doubt a superb lens.


Thanks. I have my entire photography life figured out except for the long telephoto.
Tried out a 400 5.6 and instantly went "Oh yes". Rented a 100-400 I and II and both were sharp and crisp as can be, but it was the prime that produced "that look". Not saying I know what I'm talking about, but when the time comes I'll just do a pressure-on side-by-side and go with the winner then.
Thanks again.


----------



## BeenThere (May 30, 2018)

If you are shooting mostly at the 400mm end, I would go for the prime. It works pretty well for BIF if you keep the shutter speed up. The 100-400mm is obviously more flexible, especially for shorter focus distances if you are using the other focal lengths much. I have both, but that’s overkill and i’m Too lazy to sell the older lens.


----------



## sleepnever (Jul 2, 2018)

+1 for the 100-400 II. I use the crap out of mine for a variety of things. Great IS, image quality, handling. I also waited for the Canon Black Friday sale 2 years ago and picked it up refurb for $1500 out the door. You can get some really nice shots at f/5.6 on the long end.


----------



## Duade Paton (Jul 4, 2018)

I have had the 400 5.6 prime for over 6 years and it is a fantastic lens, the weight, sharpness and cost are very good. The bad points as mentioned are the lack of IS, poor minimum focus distance of 3500mm (11.5ft) and the inability to recompose with the zoom.

The lack of IS is less of an issue for me these days with the newer cameras having much better ISO capabilities. I imagine you would want your minimum shutter reasonably high to freeze the action which reduces the need for IS. 

If I had a choice I would go with the 100-400 but understand if you like the prime as it is set and forget so to speak. It is super fast and light.

I have written a review of the 400 5.6 with loads of bird photos at http://www.duadepaton.com/canon-ef400-5-6l-review-for-bird-photograph/ you may find useful. Good luck.


----------



## Zen (Aug 6, 2018)

Have always been well satisfied with my 100-400; and almost always grab the 70-200 f4, over the 2.8, for my walking around lens. The 2.8 is just too heavy, esp for normal [whatever that is!] light shots.


----------

