# 100-400L IS I vs 400L/5.6 for beginner wildlife/birds/sports



## Snzkgb (Jan 17, 2017)

Right now I'm in search for the best begginer wildlife/bird/sports lens.
I've already bought the 7D just for that, now I'm looking for the best lens for under 1000$ used.
I've read through and watched many and many reviews, some people say and show in the charts that 100-400L is less sharp than 400L/5.6 (like Tony Northrup), some says and shows the opposite, or at least that 100-400L is not less sharp than 400L/5.6 (photozone.de).

I know that a mid sample of 400L/5.6 might be really a tad sharper than, for example, mid sample of 100-400L, and it is lighter than 100-400L. But I'm a novice, I sure will have problems with finding target without zooming capabilities of 100-400L, and this IS do matters too.

300L/4 IS with 1.4 TC is another story, which I like less than two mentioned above because of TC. But it can also be an option.

So, what you'll say?


----------



## Ryananthony (Jan 17, 2017)

Are you willing to consider third party lenses? I have the Sigma 150-600C. I used it on my 7d, 5d3, and now 1dx with great results on all. AF has been very reliable on this lens for me. It is a little slower in aperture, but only a third of a stop in comparison to the 400mm f5.6L, but you get all the way up to 600mm.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 17, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> Are you willing to consider third party lenses? I have the Sigma 150-600C. I used it on my 7d, 5d3, and now 1dx with great results on all. AF has been very reliable on this lens for me. It is a little slower in aperture, but only a third of a stop in comparison to the 400mm f5.6L, but you get all the way up to 600mm.


No, I prefer to use canon lenses on canon, though I heard some good things about 150-600.


----------



## applecider (Jan 17, 2017)

First a little clarification, are you shooting with original 7d? The original does not I think support f8 focusing, in case you want to add an extender.

The 400 prime is a good beginning lens especially for learning mid to large birds in flight, it is very hand holdable, and sharper than the mark I 100-400mm on average. The mark ii 100-400 is a very nice lens and if you could find one for your price target I would grab it, with the caveat that you get to try or return it if you get a bad used copy. There are used version ones available for under 1k.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 17, 2017)

I owned both the 100-400 vI and 400 f/5.6. For birds, I preferred the prime as my copy was sharper. There is a lot of copy variation with the 100-400 I, so you may find a "good" copy that is close to the 400 in sharpness, but your odds are not good. Most people that have a good copy are hanging onto it.

So, my suggestion would be the 400 f/5.6, a really terrific lens for the money. I really didn't miss the ability to zoom much when I had it. The zoom was almost always shot at the long end anyway.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 17, 2017)

What sort of sports? If field sports you will probably want flexibility of the zoom when the players approach the touchline. Also, the 100-400 has IS which the 400mm prime does not. If you are stuck on 400mm you may not find yourself using it as much as you thought. However the prime lens is much lighter.

My own view is that sample variation does exist but it is much less than you would guess from viewing the internet makes out - my copy was absolutely fine and remember that people usually post to say ' I have a problem' not 'mine is great'. The 100-400 was a standard tele zoom for many action photographers for a very good reason and that is that it is a damned good lens. Also bear in mind that people have their own views of what constitutes 'sharp' and I have seen many posts where someone's 'this is appalling' is my 'actually that is not bad'. 
If you are beginning wildlife photography then I think sample variation in the lens (even accounting for sample variation) will be insignificant to limitations in your technique. 

I don't know how it works in Russia, but in UK if you buy a second hand lens from a dealer you get a 3-month or 6-month warranty and you can often have 7 or 14 day trial period and return the lens if you are not happy with it. Sometimes, I will order a lens or camera when the weather looks good, try it out for a few days and return it if I do not want to keep it.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 17, 2017)

applecider said:


> First a little clarification, are you shooting with original 7d? The original does not I think support f8 focusing, in case you want to add an extender.
> 
> The 400 prime is a good beginning lens especially for learning mid to large birds in flight, it is very hand holdable, and sharper than the mark I 100-400mm on average. The mark ii 100-400 is a very nice lens and if you could find one for your price target I would grab it, with the caveat that you get to try or return it if you get a bad used copy. There are used version ones available for under 1k.


Yes, I have original 7D. As for 100-400 II, I definately won't have money for it.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 17, 2017)

bholliman said:


> I owned both the 100-400 vI and 400 f/5.6. For birds, I preferred the prime as my copy was sharper. There is a lot of copy variation with the 100-400 I, so you may find a "good" copy that is close to the 400 in sharpness, but your odds are not good. Most people that have a good copy are hanging onto it.
> 
> So, my suggestion would be the 400 f/5.6, a really terrific lens for the money. I really didn't miss the ability to zoom much when I had it. The zoom was almost always shot at the long end anyway.


The money question is strong for me. For example, I can buy 100-400L I for just 500$, while 400 f/5.6 are not common used in Moscow, so I could find only couple of them for 800$ for the cheapest one.
Of course I want to save as much money as I can.


----------



## SteveM (Jan 17, 2017)

If you are shooting birds a 400mm prime is good, but for general wildlife and sport it may be too powerful at times. The lack of stabilisation ruins it for me personally when I want to shoot at 1/100th second due to bad light. 
The 100-400 mkl is hit and miss quality wise and some don't like the pump action zoom, which creates a dust pump effect.
For sport and general wildlife you may find 300mm to be adequate, you can get close to much sport, and wildlife is often shot showing the animal in its surroundings. 
If the latter is of interest, then consider the 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS, a very highly thought of lens currently retailing in the UK for £1069 after cash back. The cash back expires on the 18th January, tomorrow. A tiny bit over your price, but a very good versatile lens.


----------



## candc (Jan 17, 2017)

The 400 f/5.6 lens is a good option if your primary use for it is birds in flight. I have seen a lot of good images taken with the 100-400 but there is a lot of copy variation and the "is" is not as good as the more recent options. 

Budget wildlife lens = tamron, sigma 150-600


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jan 17, 2017)

My thoughts re. the 100-400L I: My copy is o.k. sharp, but not outstanding; yet, I think technique is still more critical. When careful I can get sharp results but I don't use the lens frequently enough to be consistent myself. The IS is only good for about two stops and not helpful for moving subjects - it has no value for sports, moving birds, or when using a tripod. Any lens that extends has to pull air in and push air out based on length... the 'dust pump' concerns are overblown unless you are in a very dusty environment (then you need a fixed length lens). Don't plan on zooming out to locate subject than zoom in for shot - the act of zooming usually loses the subject anyway. Instead, learn to locate at the focal length you want to shoot at (usually 400 mm for distant subjects). For me, weight can be a factor. The 100-400 does get heavy - I use a backpack and tripod most of the time.

If you are truly just getting started, consider the 70-300 non-L lenses (either Mk I or Mk II) to learn with and decide if you use the long end enough to justify going to 400mm. Much less investment. If you are hooked you will want both better body and better lens.


----------



## BobG (Jan 17, 2017)

I had the 100-400 IS I for 7 or 8 years when I started bird/wildlife photography. When I was starting I found it fairly difficult to initially get the target BIF into the field of view at 400mm (on a 40D) and often had to pull back a bit, then zoom in again once I was tracking the bird and it was in focus. The IS helped when tracking as well. I also found that the 100 end was used when taking sea birds as you can generally get much closer to the target.

Given that the second hand price of the 400 prime is nearly twice that of the zoom in your area, I would definitely go for the zoom initially as you will almost certainly want to trade up in a few years.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 17, 2017)

I would rate from worst to best:

400F5.6

100-400 version 1

Sigma or Tamron 150-600

100-400 version 2

and then the "big whites"

As soon as you get past the 150-600s, the price starts to skyrocket!


----------



## Drum (Jan 17, 2017)

My own opinion is that the zoom is the way to go, mainly for target acquisition as some said before a fixed length doesn't give you the flexibility that a beginner may need. I wouldn't discount the Sigma or Tamron 150-600's as they are very capable lenses and offer the 400-600 mm option that neither of the Canon's do. Unless you are saving up for CPS membership they are a real alternative.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 17, 2017)

SteveM said:


> If you are shooting birds a 400mm prime is good, but for general wildlife and sport it may be too powerful at times. The lack of stabilisation ruins it for me personally when I want to shoot at 1/100th second due to bad light.
> The 100-400 mkl is hit and miss quality wise and some don't like the pump action zoom, which creates a dust pump effect.
> For sport and general wildlife you may find 300mm to be adequate, you can get close to much sport, and wildlife is often shot showing the animal in its surroundings.
> If the latter is of interest, then consider the 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS, a very highly thought of lens currently retailing in the UK for £1069 after cash back. The cash back expires on the 18th January, tomorrow. A tiny bit over your price, but a very good versatile lens.


I have 70-200/2.8 L, so I don't think extra 100mm is worth it with 70-300L zooms.
But extra 200mm definately worth it for me.


Don Haines said:


> I would rate from worst to best:
> 
> 400F5.6
> 
> ...


I'm just a mortal one, I don't even dream to buy even 400DO or 500/4, not speaking about anything past 600mm.


old-pr-pix said:


> My thoughts re. the 100-400L I: My copy is o.k. sharp, but not outstanding; yet, I think technique is still more critical. When careful I can get sharp results but I don't use the lens frequently enough to be consistent myself. The IS is only good for about two stops and not helpful for moving subjects - it has no value for sports, moving birds, or when using a tripod. Any lens that extends has to pull air in and push air out based on length... the 'dust pump' concerns are overblown unless you are in a very dusty environment (then you need a fixed length lens). Don't plan on zooming out to locate subject than zoom in for shot - the act of zooming usually loses the subject anyway. Instead, learn to locate at the focal length you want to shoot at (usually 400 mm for distant subjects). For me, weight can be a factor. The 100-400 does get heavy - I use a backpack and tripod most of the time.
> 
> If you are truly just getting started, consider the 70-300 non-L lenses (either Mk I or Mk II) to learn with and decide if you use the long end enough to justify going to 400mm. Much less investment. If you are hooked you will want both better body and better lens.


Yes, weight can be a factor. I have a backpack with all my lenses and both my bodies, but it is a hell-heavy thing. And with another lens it would become even more heavy. But I think I can leave with that.
As for 70-300 non-L, I really don't want to bother buying non-L lenses.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jan 17, 2017)

I used the 100-400 mk1 for shooting sports (mostly rugby union) for many years and I was always delighted with the results. The push pull zoom mechanism on this lens is not as bad as some people say and I never had any problems with it sucking dust into the lens. For fast action sports I found it to be a quicker way of zooming than a traditional twist zoom mechanism.
Recently I upgraded to the 100-400 mk2 and sold my 100-400 mk 1. The mk 2 is slightly better than the mk 1, but given the chance again I don't think I would upgrade and I think you will be very happy with the mk 1.
For fast action sports I would not consider a prime lens unless you can afford one of the really expensive big whites.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 17, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> I used the 100-400 mk1 for shooting sports (mostly rugby union) for many years and I was always delighted with the results. The push pull zoom mechanism on this lens is not as bad as some people say and I never had any problems with it sucking dust into the lens. For fast action sports I found it to be a quicker way of zooming than a traditional twist zoom mechanism.
> Recently I upgraded to the 100-400 mk2 and sold my 100-400 mk 1. The mk 2 is slightly better than the mk 1, but given the chance again I don't think I would upgrade and I think you will be very happy with the mk 1.
> For fast action sports I would not consider a prime lens unless you can afford one of the really expensive big whites.


Thanks for the answer. Photography is my hobby, so I definately can not afford any big white , nor I would ever be able to


----------



## mnclayshooter (Jan 17, 2017)

I tend to agree with most of what everyone else has said. 

I will chime in with my own experience: 

I have the 100-400 Mk I - I must have a pretty decent copy as I don't notice any notable lack of sharpness etc. It was the third lens I bought for my DSLR having taken a big break in interchangeable lens cameras after film became "past tense" for the most part... I owned a 40mm pancake, then a 24-105 in a kit, and then the 100-400 and then of course onto others like the 17-40, 16-35 etc etc. That said... I've lugged that thing into swamps, on my kayak, up mountains, on my back on my bike, on my passenger seat in the SUV across hunting land, in airplanes, etc... It is heavy, but not unbearable, it is flexible as a zoom, it is widely used, probably easy to buy, but is going to get harder and harder to sell as it is a very old model. 

I've tried the tamron 150-600. It was just "OK"... my 100-400 was/is more complete as far as sharpness and usable focal length. The new Tamron is on sale right now at a bargain price... I've heard rumor that it is pretty good... at least on par with the original 100-400 and is a newer generation of lens that might have better resale value and will at least have a warranty (if buying a used 100-400). 

All of that said.. my next tele lense will be 300 f2.8. But that's an entirely different level of lens from the 100-400.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 17, 2017)

Snzkgb said:


> I have 70-200/2.8 L, so I don't think extra 100mm is worth it with 70-300L zooms.
> But extra 200mm definately worth it for me.



If you can manage that lens then the 100-400 will be no problem weight wise (unless you carrying both in your backpack!).

Have you thought about buying the 2x MkIII converter for the 70-200? That will give you about the same focal length as the 100-400 at the same aperture. Art Morris (one of the top bird photographers) uses that combo a fair bit when he is travelling light.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Jan 17, 2017)

old-pr-pix said:


> I think technique is still more critical. When careful I can get sharp results but I don't use the lens frequently enough to be consistent myself. Don't plan on zooming out to locate subject than zoom in for shot - the act of zooming usually loses the subject anyway. Instead, learn to locate at the focal length you want to shoot at (usually 400 mm for distant subjects).



I would say that this probably sums up about 75% of the complaints about any long lens, especially the 100-400 as it is such a widely owned "entry level" long-ish lens. 

Set your shutter speed at about 2x the focal length and you'll be in pretty good shape. It will probably limit your night-time photography, but honestly, unless you read a lot of this forum, I don't think night-time photos are what most of us are after. 

I don't know this guy, but did a quick google search on "long lens technique" to find a photo of some good starting points... this is pretty good and sums it up well: 

http://www.moosepeterson.com/techtips/longlens.html


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 17, 2017)

After moving on from my first DSLR the Rebel XTi, I got the 7D and 100-400. I think the 100-400 would be the best lens for you. The 400 prime's advantage comes in shooting BIF with a high enough shutter speed to negate the benefits of IS. Otherwise the zoom is the best for everything else IMHO. My copy of the 100-400 was very sharp at 400 and compared well to my new version two copy. The version two showed its advantage with the 1.4TC attached and other areas like IS but not in centre sharpness at 400. 

If you can get used 100-400 for $500 vs $800 for the prime I'd go with the zoom everyday of the week


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2017)

Highly recommend the 100-400 (MkI) lens, pairs wonderfully with the 7D. The 400/5.6 is a great lens for BIF (birds in flight) where the high shutter speeds obviate IS. But for perched birds where you can use a slower shutter, the IS is a great benefit (especially with an APS-C sensor where high ISO is more noisy). The shorter minimum focus distance if the 100-400 can also be a big advantage, and for me, the fact that it collapses to a shorter length is a major plus. The IQ of the 100-400 is very good, the only potential downside is a somewhat 'nervous' bokeh with complex backgrounds (e.g. a bird in a thicket).

Before switching to a 1D X + 600/4 II, I used the 7D + 100-400L combo for birds and wildlife, and I was quite pleased with the results.

"_Red-Winged Blackbird's Landing_"



EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/1600 s, f/6.3, ISO 1600

"_Yellow Warbler_"



EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 125

"_Bird's Eye View_"



EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 160

"_Mockingbird's Glare_"



EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 200

"_Riverbank Roughhousing_"



EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/500 s, f/6.3, ISO 500


----------



## FEBS (Jan 17, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Have you thought about buying the 2x MkIII converter for the 70-200? That will give you about the same focal length as the 100-400 at the same aperture. Art Morris (one of the top bird photographers) uses that combo a fair bit when he is travelling light.



Really ??

The 70-200 II is almost the same weight as the 100-400 II. So the weight of the extender is on top of that. Also the 70-200II with 2xIII extender is not that good. Image quality is much better of the 100-400II. So, the only gap is 70-100 then but that seems no problem to me. When I want to travel light I take my 5Diii, the 16-35f4 and the 100-400II. If possible I add the 24-105.

A bird photographer that wants to travel light should only look to the 100-400II, and if f8 is working for the body, a 1.4xIII extender perhaps. But a 70-200 for bird photography with a 2x extender is not the right choice. THe 1.4xIII extender will give decent result from the otherhand. After I bought the 100-400II, my 70-200 stays on the shelf, hardly ever used since that moment, unless low-light conditions or portrait.

For sports the 70-200II has the advantage of the f2.8 to stop the action.

For OP his question concerning 100-400I or 400/5.6. Hard to give the right direction. The missing IS on the 400/5.6 is not the big issue. You need higher shutterspeed for 400mm, and that's for both lenses. For wildlife and birds, the 400/5.6 would be great, for sports however, the distance to the action (indoor) might give you the need to go for the 100-400. Outside, you can zoom by your feet . The 100-400I has a lot of sharpness variations between the existing copies. If you don't want sports in the inside, for which is the 7D not the most appropriate, I would recommend the 400/5.6 unless you can really test the 100-400 zoom and see if that copy is really sharp.

Francois


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2017)

FEBS said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Have you thought about buying the 2x MkIII converter for the 70-200? That will give you about the same focal length as the 100-400 at the same aperture. Art Morris (one of the top bird photographers) uses that combo a fair bit when he is travelling light.
> ...



I think the point is that the 2xIII is lighter than the 100-400, i.e. take 70-200/2.8 and 2x instead of 70-200/2.8 and 100-400. My travel zoom is usually a compromise (70-300L), but on trips when I was taking the 70-200 II, I would toss in the 2x 'just in case' whereas I would not take both the 70-200 and the 100-400. 

The IQ of the 70-200/2.8L IS II with the 2x is practically the same as the original 100-400 (yes, the 100-400 II is better, but also much more expensive if you already have the 70-200). The real trade off is that the 70-200+2x is longer and more cumbersome, but OTOH the combo is weather sealed whereas the original 100-400 is not. Here's a shot with the 7D + 70-200 and 2x (MkII verison, the MkIII is slightly better, optically), for comparison to the above.

"_Eastern Towhee_"



EOS 7D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 400mm, 1/160 s, f/5.6, ISO 3200


----------



## Ryananthony (Jan 17, 2017)

FEBS said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Have you thought about buying the 2x MkIII converter for the 70-200? That will give you about the same focal length as the 100-400 at the same aperture. Art Morris (one of the top bird photographers) uses that combo a fair bit when he is travelling light.
> ...



Unless its birds in flight, I am almost always using IS. This photo was taken at 1/20 at 600mm which there is no way I could have done with out. 

To OP. What ever option you decide, personally, I would make sure it has IS.


----------



## FEBS (Jan 17, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think the point is that the 2xIII is lighter than the 100-400, i.e. take 70-200/2.8 and 2x instead of 70-200/2.8 and 100-400. My travel zoom is usually a compromise (70-300L), but on trips when I was taking the 70-200 II, I would toss in the 2x 'just in case' whereas I would not take both the 70-200 and the 100-400.



Neuro,

Of course, if you compare the 70-200 and 100-400 against the 70-200 and 2xIII extender. Then the last has for sure a weight advantage. I understood however as travelling light as taking one lens in that case, and then I would definitely go for the 100-400 seen as a birder/wildlife. I would not propose the 70-200 + 2x combo to a wildlife/birder as a starter. There the 100-400 or the 400/5.6 seems a better choice. A you know, you always want more mm after some time. If you don't focus specifically on wildlife/birds, then the 70-200 + 2x would be a better choice, but this thread is about a wildlife/birds/sports beginner.

Francois

Nice photo of that combo anyway


----------



## yavuz (Jan 17, 2017)

1.100-400 L İS II
2:400 L 5.6
3:Tamron 150-600 G II
4:100-400 L I


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 17, 2017)

FEBS said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I think the point is that the 2xIII is lighter than the 100-400, i.e. take 70-200/2.8 and 2x instead of 70-200/2.8 and 100-400. My travel zoom is usually a compromise (70-300L), but on trips when I was taking the 70-200 II, I would toss in the 2x 'just in case' whereas I would not take both the 70-200 and the 100-400.
> ...



My point when suggesting the 70-200 f2.8 + TC was merely that that combo is good enough to be used by a very experienced bird photographer. Is it the best choice? No. It is flexible? Yes. 
Given that the OP has clearly said they cannot afford the 100-400 mkII I was offering an alternative to the MkI. And given that the OP already has the 70-200 f2.8 and is short of cash, why would adding the 2xTC not be a good place for a beginner in that he can see how much he uses it and at what focal lengths - and if the 70-200 is permanently at 200 with the 2x tc then it is clear that the prime may be the better option.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2017)

FEBS said:


> Neuro,
> 
> Of course, if you compare the 70-200 and 100-400 against the 70-200 and 2xIII extender. Then the last has for sure a weight advantage. I understood however as travelling light as taking one lens in that case, and then I would definitely go for the 100-400 seen as a birder/wildlife. I would not propose the 70-200 + 2x combo to a wildlife/birder as a starter. There the 100-400 or the 400/5.6 seems a better choice. A you know, you always want more mm after some time. If you don't focus specifically on wildlife/birds, then the 70-200 + 2x would be a better choice, but this thread is about a wildlife/birds/sports beginner.



Regarding traveling light, if you're shooting mostly at dawn/dusk (generally the best light), and you have the fieldcraft to get close to your subjects, the 70-200/2.8 II may, indeed, be a better choice as the single lens to take – two stops of light can make a huge difference in low light. 

The 70-200 II can make a great birding lens...sometimes even in one's own yard, which is where I spotted this red tail.

"_Dinner Time_"



EOS 1D X, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 200mm, 1/60 s, f/2.8, ISO 125

Still, I did not propose the 70-200+2x combo, but rather was responding to your claim that, "...the 70-200II with 2xIII extender is not that good." In fact, it's a very good combination for some situations (including situations encountered by Art Morris, and I'd say he knows a fair bit about photographing birds...).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2017)

Another relevant point (which I didn't bring up before) is that the OP mentions not just birds and wildlife, but also sports. Assuming we're not talking professional sports (where the action is lit for television, i.e. it's reasonably bright), an f/5.6 lens can be a real challenge in that setting. With youth sports (evenings outdoors with poor light, or indoors but still with poor light), I would not use an f/5.6 lens. Even at f/2.8 - f/4 (for a bit more DoF), I'm generally in the ISO 3200 - 12800 range, which is ok on FF but would be too noisy (for me) on the 7D. 

Finally, another point regarding the 70-200 + 2x...the OP indicates having the 70-200/2.8. If that means either the non-IS version or the MkI version with IS, neither take a 2x TC nearly as well as the 70-200/2.8L IS II. So in that case, I'd be reluctant to go that route.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 17, 2017)

I've owned two 100-400mm MK I lenses and a 400mm f/5.6. For me, the zoom won hands down. The 400 is very long and difficult to put in a ordinary camera bag, you need to use a minimum of 1/800 shutter speed, and 1/2000 works best. This coupled with the original 7D, which struggles at ISO 800, means the combo is great for bright daylight shooting, but if it gets overcast, or in early evening, forget it. 
The IS of the zoom helps with slower shutter speeds for stationary objects, but if the subject is moving, then either lens needs bright light.

As to variability, its true that early lenses had a lot of variability, by the time I bought mine about 7 years ago, that issue was resolved. So check the date code and skip a older lens.

Here is one with my 100-400mm L original version at 400mm.


----------



## SteveM (Jan 17, 2017)

To date, I haven't paid full price for any of the L series lenses I own. I sit back for 6 months, 9 months, and wait for the cash back.....essentially I am saving up slowly as well.
It may be I have lost interest in that lens after 6 months thus saving me from an impetuous purchase.
The 100-400 mkll, as well as it being a very good lens, focuses (on some cameras) at f8. This makes it compatible with a 1.4 converter which it takes extremely well. This way you are slowly building a very solid and capable system that will last for a lot of years (and have good resale value should you need it). Somewhere down the line you buy the 7D mkll and you have f8 focussing. If you buy the 1.4 at a much later date to add to this, you have a seriously powerful lens and a very professional setup. Buying the 100-400 mkl, that will never be an option for you if you wish to retain AF and a Canon extender.
In 6 months you may even find a second hand version of the mkll.
My point is, unless you really need it now, maybe sit back and save up. 
Clearly, I know nothing about your finances, it may be saving up isn't an option. In that case the old 100-400 is the wise choice in my opinion - test one first, the push pull zoom isn't for everyone.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 17, 2017)

SteveM said:


> To date, I haven't paid full price for any of the L series lenses I own. I sit back for 6 months, 9 months, and wait for the cash back.....essentially I am saving up slowly as well.
> It may be I have lost interest in that lens after 6 months thus saving me from an impetuous purchase.
> The 100-400 mkll, as well as it being a very good lens, focuses (on some cameras) at f8. This makes it compatible with a 1.4 converter which it takes extremely well. This way you are slowly building a very solid and capable system that will last for a lot of years (and have good resale value should you need it). Somewhere down the line you buy the 7D mkll and you have f8 focussing. If you buy the 1.4 at a much later date to add to this, you have a seriously powerful lens and a very professional setup. Buying the 100-400 mkl, that will never be an option for you if you wish to retain AF and a Canon extender.
> In 6 months you may even find a second hand version of the mkll.
> ...


My finances are quite low, and I need the lens as soon as possible. Extender for f/5.6 lenses is not an option anyway, because my bodies cannot AF with f/8.


----------



## JBSF (Jan 17, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've owned two 100-400mm MK I lenses and a 400mm f/5.6. For me, the zoom won hands down. The 400 is very long and difficult to put in a ordinary camera bag, you need to use a minimum of 1/800 shutter speed, and 1/2000 works best. This coupled with the original 7D, which struggles at ISO 800, means the combo is great for bright daylight shooting, but if it gets overcast, or in early evening, forget it.
> The IS of the zoom helps with slower shutter speeds for stationary objects, but if the subject is moving, then either lens needs bright light.
> 
> As to variability, its true that early lenses had a lot of variability, by the time I bought mine about 7 years ago, that issue was resolved. So check the date code and skip a older lens.
> ...



I concur with every word of this. I use 7D and 7D mark II, and I now have the 100-400 mark II. I know several people who get great photos with the 400 f:5.6, but it doesn't work for me, because I'm not steady enough. Looking at your (the OP's) signature, you are already using lenses without IS, so it may work for you. But if I were starting again and on the same budget, I would get a late production 100-400 mark I instead of the 400 f:5.6. Just to complicate things, you might also consider the great 70-300 L IS, though it does not have as much reach and cannot take a Canon TC.


----------



## SteveM (Jan 17, 2017)

Slightly off piste, To get a higher usable ISO out of the 7D try using DxO prime for its noise reduction. I was playing with this a couple of days ago, ACR noise reduction was giving me a usable 3200 ISO, DxO prime gave me 6400.... It is extremely good. The Nikon magazine (you can probably Google your way to it as well) are offering a free copy of version 9 currently (this will process the 7D, check if you need Lightroom though). 
Version 11 is more flexible, you'll need the 25% voucher they offer on the £160 purchase price though.
This is b........good software, I borrowed a Nikon D7200 and shot some very usable photos of my daughter at 12,800 ISO....after processing in Prime - they wouldn't stand up to much sharpening so you need a good lens to start with, but they would still print very nicely at A3.
Another reason to stick with the best L series glass.
Give the free version a try, it really is like an injection of life into the camera....no, I do't work for DxO.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 17, 2017)

SteveM said:


> Slightly off piste, To get a higher usable ISO out of the 7D try using DxO prime for its noise reduction. I was playing with this a couple of days ago, ACR noise reduction was giving me a usable 3200 ISO, DxO prime gave me 6400.... It is extremely good. The Nikon magazine (you can probably Google your way to it as well) are offering a free copy of version 9 currently (this will process the 7D, check if you need Lightroom though).
> Version 11 is more flexible, you'll need the 25% voucher they offer on the £160 purchase price though.
> This is b........good software, I borrowed a Nikon D7200 and shot some very usable photos of my daughter at 12,800 ISO....after processing in Prime - they wouldn't stand up to much sharpening so you need a good lens to start with, but they would still print very nicely at A3.
> Another reason to stick with the best L series glass.
> Give the free version a try, it really is like an injection of life into the camera....no, I do't work for DxO.


I'm using lightroom and I'm quite happy with noise reduction of that tool.


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 18, 2017)

In regard to the 70-200 with 2xTCIII, I did use this along side the 200-400 on a trip to Borneo back in 2014. I found the IQ to be very similar to the 100-400. However the AF takes a big hit and u less you leave the limiter on the outer range it is actually unusable when full range is selected. 

However it is a versatile combo because sometimes you can get closer and use it with 1.4TC or with the bare lens, gaining a stop of light each time. 

But the above only applies to the newest ISII version.


----------



## neonlight (Jan 18, 2017)

I've had a 600D and 100-400 I for about four years, and am pleased with the results. I too debated whether to go for the 400 f/5.6 or 100-400 and while the 400 (at the time) appeared to be better, the IS appealed to me though it is only about 2 stops practically. I've used the 100-400 with both the 1.4x and 2x. Focussing is the biggest issue with 2x as it is twice as sensitive, and no AF. One reason I like the 100-400 is that it squashes down for carrying, and I must be among the few who prefer the push-pull action to twist. Having the ability to zoom certainly is more flexible but most of the time I've used the lens at 400mm. 
Any TC makes the lens a sunny day only one.


----------



## neonlight (Jan 18, 2017)

...and the cormorant perched on a tall tree, taken with 100-400I and 2x III.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 18, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> In regard to the 70-200 with 2xTCIII, I did use this along side the 200-400 on a trip to Borneo back in 2014. I found the IQ to be very similar to the 100-400. However the AF takes a big hit and u less you leave the limiter on the outer range it is actually unusable when full range is selected.
> 
> However it is a versatile combo because sometimes you can get closer and use it with 1.4TC or with the bare lens, gaining a stop of light each time.
> 
> But the above only applies to the newest ISII version.


Unfortunately I only have 70-200L f/2.8 first version, with no IS.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 19, 2017)

So today I've bought 100-400L IS first version. It appeared to be not so big and heavy, as I'd expected it to be.
Tomorrow I'll take it to the canon service to tune the AF to be deadly accurate on both of my bodies. I've only made a couple of photos, but from what I see, my copy is pretty good and sharpness is not bad at all.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 19, 2017)

Enjoy your new toy! ;D

Do the Canon centre actually AFMA your lens/camera for you? As far as I am aware in UK they will check each item (lens and body) to make sure they are within manufacturing tolerance but do not check and calibrate them as a pair.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 19, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Enjoy your new toy! ;D
> 
> Do the Canon centre actually AFMA your lens/camera for you? As far as I am aware in UK they will check each item (lens and body) to make sure they are within manufacturing tolerance but do not check and calibrate them as a pair.


In Russia you can get your gear (body and lens) to the Canon service centre, tell that you need to fine tune AF on your gear, give gear away and come back after 3-5 hours to pay like 20$ for the service and to get your tuned gear back. I prefer to do that rather than microadjusting AF in camera by myself.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 19, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> In regard to the 70-200 with 2xTCIII, I did use this along side the 200-400 on a trip to Borneo back in 2014. I found the IQ to be very similar to the 100-400. However the AF takes a big hit and u less you leave the limiter on the outer range it is actually unusable when full range is selected.
> 
> However it is a versatile combo because sometimes you can get closer and use it with 1.4TC or with the bare lens, gaining a stop of light each time.
> 
> But the above only applies to the newest ISII version.



Actually, you've brought up a very good point about the 100-400L mkI and 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 2x TC. Their image quality is about the same, but in both cases their AF speed and accuracy are quite poor (compared to the 400mm f5.6 L prime and native 70-200). Both show very similar results to the 400mm f5.6 L when shooting charts in a studio. But in the real world their AF is very pedestrian, but do have very useful IS systems. Where the newer mkII 100-400L improves over all the other options (including the prime) is that it's AF system is vastly superior in both accuracy and speed. It's IQ is a little better too, and it's IS is probably the best implementation on a camera lens so far....but it's big selling point is the AF system...and maybe it's slightly closer MFD.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 19, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> arbitrage said:
> 
> 
> > In regard to the 70-200 with 2xTCIII, I did use this along side the 200-400 on a trip to Borneo back in 2014. I found the IQ to be very similar to the 100-400. However the AF takes a big hit and u less you leave the limiter on the outer range it is actually unusable when full range is selected.
> ...


I used to test shoot my 100-400L and I find AF speed is fine enough, at least for me. I thought it would be worse.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 21, 2017)

Mixed use? 100-400 f/variable L IS I is a bargain and is good enough if you don't know that you will need to be at 400 all the time. Lots of my IRL nature photographer friends, including pros, have this lens. 

Major amount of sports? Enough money to buy a used Big White? Feel comfortable hauling around a Big A** Lens? Consider one of the 300mm f/2.8 L IS lenses (I or II) and Canon v. III teleconverters.

I have and love the 400mm f/5.6L no-IS, but I use it mostly for birds, in flight, and on monopod or tripod in really low light. But then again, I don't mind a little (or even a lot of) noise in bird / wildlife action shots. I am not shooting for some advertising campaign that requires medium format, high pixel count detail.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 22, 2017)

I'm quite pleased with what this lens in combination with 7D can do. Today I spent a couple of hours shooting some birds, and I think I've done OK.


----------



## Click (Jan 22, 2017)

Snzkgb said:


> I'm quite pleased with what this lens in combination with 7D can do. Today I spent a couple of hours shooting some birds, and I think I've done OK.



It's more than OK


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 22, 2017)

Click said:


> Snzkgb said:
> 
> 
> > I'm quite pleased with what this lens in combination with 7D can do. Today I spent a couple of hours shooting some birds, and I think I've done OK.
> ...


Thank you!


----------



## serendipidy (Jan 22, 2017)

Snzkgb said:


> I'm quite pleased with what this lens in combination with 7D can do. Today I spent a couple of hours shooting some birds, and I think I've done OK.


Very nice!


----------



## neonlight (Jan 22, 2017)

Nice pic!
Another point to mention - the 100-400 I is pretty sharp in the centre; so using it with APS-C bodies is probably better than using it on FF. For FF you would probably b e better with the 100-400II


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 23, 2017)

neonlight said:


> Nice pic!
> Another point to mention - the 100-400 I is pretty sharp in the centre; so using it with APS-C bodies is probably better than using it on FF. For FF you would probably b e better with the 100-400II


100-400 II is just too expensive for me.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 23, 2017)

neonlight said:


> Nice pic!
> Another point to mention - the 100-400 I is pretty sharp in the centre; so using it with APS-C bodies is probably better than using it on FF. For FF you would probably b e better with the 100-400II



My 100-400mm I performed much better on FF than on APS-C. TDP found the same with theirs as can be seen vs the Mk II on two bodies. The smaller pixels of APS-C are less forgiving.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Both the 400 and 100-400 Mk I are good places to start. If you find you are limited in what you can do with them, you will upgrade. But, they might satisfy your needs enough - they do for many.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 23, 2017)

AlanF said:


> neonlight said:
> 
> 
> > Nice pic!
> ...


Sure I've already found that I'm limited with 100-400 Mk I and 7D, but I have no money on Mk2 and 7D2. I'd like to have some of big whites, like 500mm f/4, but, again, my hobbie do not bring me money, I only spent money on it.


----------



## neonlight (Jan 24, 2017)

"The smaller pixels of APS-C are less forgiving"

Indeed. 
I bought my 100-400 I two years before the II appeared. But I would not have been without it for two years, and it can turn in some good quality shots, perhaps needing slightly more favourable conditions.


----------

