# Canon 400mm or 100-400 for airshow?



## MartynV (Aug 20, 2015)

Hi,

I'm going to the Shoreham Airshow on Saturday and would be grateful for advice as to whether to hire a 400mm f/5.6L or 100-400mm. I hired a 400mm for the Eastbourne Airshow which worked well but there's no runway or opportunity to photograph parked aircraft like Shoreham. However, the 100-400 (I) is more flexible but may pose a dust problem and I'd like to avoid a dusty viewfinder screen on my 6D.

Here's a photo from the Eastbourne Airshow taken with the 400mm f/5.6L


----------



## Click (Aug 20, 2015)

Cool shot, MartynV 8)


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 20, 2015)

Either lens would serve you well, but I would lean toward the Prime 400mm because no chance for parked aircraft and the prime is lighter and has great IQ. Just keep ISO up to where you have shutter speed at 1/1000 sec or thereabouts.


----------



## MartynV (Aug 20, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> Either lens would serve you well, but I would lean toward the Prime 400mm because no chance for parked aircraft and the prime is lighter and has great IQ. Just keep ISO up to wher you have shutter speed at 1/1000 sec or thereabouts.



Thanks, there are parked aircraft and ground exhibits at the forthcoming Shoreham Airshow. The 400mm is slightly lighter and I wonder if it is noticeably sharper than the 100-400 zoom?


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 20, 2015)

MartynV said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Either lens would serve you well, but I would lean toward the Prime 400mm because no chance for parked aircraft and the prime is lighter and has great IQ. Just keep ISO up to wher you have shutter speed at 1/1000 sec or thereabouts.
> ...


I have both lenses and would say that the prime is not noticeably sharper without close pixel peeping. But being lighter is an advantage for hand held flight shots. I don't shoot air shows, but do shoot (photograph) a lot of BIF.


----------



## Coldhands (Aug 20, 2015)

I would recommend the zoom. Having that flexibility will more than make up for the slight IQ difference. I've been to a couple airshows this year with my 100-400 and a lot of the pictures I took were at the shorter end of the range. Plus, I generally find it more effective to shoot a little bit wide and then crop in as needed, as it makes it easier to keep the whole aircraft in shot as it's flying around.

Nice shot of the Vulcan, by the way. I saw it a few days ago at Herne Bay - what a sight. Got this one of it as it flew in from the east:



Vulcan over Reculver Abbey by Colin Whittaker, on Flickr


----------



## MartynV (Aug 20, 2015)

Coldhands said:


> I would recommend the zoom. Having that flexibility will more than make up for the slight IQ difference. I've been to a couple airshows this year with my 100-400 and a lot of the pictures I took were at the shorter end of the range. Plus, I generally find it more effective to shoot a little bit wide and then crop in as needed, as it makes it easier to keep the whole aircraft in shot as it's flying around.
> 
> Nice shot of the Vulcan, by the way. I saw it a few days ago at Herne Bay - what a sight. Got this one of it as it flew in from the east:
> 
> ...



Thanks, it's sad about the Vulcan and its fate is due to Airbus and Rolls Royce no longer wishing to make the parts. The zoom seems to allow more choices for framing as your great photo shows. Here's another shot of the Vulcan and a shot of the Tigers landing on Eastbourne beach.


----------



## 2n10 (Aug 20, 2015)

I have the dust stuff is a bunch of garbage. I have the 100-400 mkI for a couple of years and have had no dust issues what so ever in spite of hiking through the desert and along dusty trails most of the time.


----------



## jarrodeu (Aug 20, 2015)

Definitely the 100-400 for me as I like the versatility of the zoom and it always seemed sharp.
As far as the "dust pump" thing goes, that's obviously a myth as any lens that has a front element that moves is a "dust pump"


----------



## jarrodeu (Aug 20, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> Just keep ISO up to where you have shutter speed at 1/1000 sec or thereabouts.


Unless you're taking pictures of planes with propellers. No reason to simulate an engine failure.

Jarrod


----------



## chasinglight (Aug 20, 2015)

Having shot several air shows with the 100-400 v1 and now the v2 I can say that it is a very handy lens and the "dust pump" rumor is indeed garbage, it pumps no more dust than any other lens and I have gotten much more dust in my camera by changing lenses than from either lens. The weight and IQ of the prime would be perfect except the lack of IS which would make panning at slow SS very difficult. I pan at slow SS for prop planes , when planes fly low with the horizon behind them, or when planes are landing/taking off. It is nice to have the ability to zooms out to 100, or even drop from 400 to 300 or so when a formation flys close overhead, but 99% of my shots are made at 400mm; for the lost part I can always use more FL. I do shoot with a 2nd body with the 24-105mm but I only use that for statics and if a plane taxis near by.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Aug 20, 2015)

I use the 100-400 90% of the time for airshows. The advantage is framing. Often times you're shooting single aircraft and need the reach but then there is the problem of fly-bys of multiple planes and formations. I can't tell you how many times I've used a prime and cut off parts of planes when either too close or formations. You'll never go wrong with the zoom.

400mm



Thunderbird Solo #6 afterburner climb © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

120mm



USAF Thunderbirds Diamond © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## MartynV (Aug 23, 2015)

Thanks for the replies. I hired the 400mm for the Shoreham Airshow and, tragically, a Hawker Hunter crashed causing at least 11 deaths. I photographed the display and sent the photos to Sussex Police. My thoughts are with the families of the bereaved.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Aug 23, 2015)

Saw it on the News Martyn. Horrible crash and terrible casualty list.
As you say our sympathies must go to the families who have lost their loved ones - sorry you had to witness it.


----------



## MartynV (Aug 24, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> Saw it on the News Martyn. Horrible crash and terrible casualty list.
> As you say our sympathies must go to the families who have lost their loved ones - sorry you had to witness it.



Watching the crash happen through a telephoto lens was truly awful. In the first hour or so after the crash many adults were in tears and most were walking around in stunned silence. News broke that the pilot survived then stories followed about injuries on the A27. I couldn't believe that the pilot attempted at loop at such low altitude. The programme listed another pilot for the Hunter display instead of Andy Hill.


----------

