Looking for a lense choice advise, please...

[Robin Usagani]

most of the samples are from a cropped sensor.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Canon 400mm DxO Tests

 

[Miti]

Yes you're right..Indeed mind blowing mamma mia... it should work on mine as well.

 

[Miti]

I have kenko tubes for macro and I can see I might use them with the long tele...I didn't know that..

 

[Infinite_Day]

IS is a nice feature but you don't have to have it to get good photos. As long as you keep your shutter speed up and learn how to use the lens you will be fine. I have a Nikon 300mm f/4 with a 1.4 TC which pretty much ends up being very close to the same lens as the Canon 400mm f/5.6 and I've gotten some really nice images out of it now that I'm finally learning how to work with it properly. I've also heard good things about the Sigma big zooms but some you get a mixed bag of reviews there. Good luck with whatever you decide to go with.

 

[Miti]

thanks Infinite-Day
I think I will get Canon 400mm f/5.6....it's just fantastic...I was worried about the IS thing but you illuminated me.

 

[DiskoJoe]

What sort of questions is this? Go with the 100-400L. Why would you want something lower quality when everything else you have is L quality?

 

[Miti]

I've made up my mind: Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. I'll loose the IS and zoom versatility of the 100-400L.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I've made up my mind: Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. I'll loose the IS and zoom versatility of the 100-400L.

Do you really want to lose that much focal range? That 300mm's of range that you cannot cover. A 100-400L is a really useful lens and The quality would be the same with either lens since they are both L and at 400mm both are f5.6. The 100-400 is also about $300 less on average. I know people that have the 100-400 and use it alot. Just food for thought.

 

[Infinite_Day]

From what I am seeing the 100-400mm is $300 more. I didn't mean to imply one was better than the other as I don't shoot Canon. I was just imparting the fact that not having IS in a 400mm prime is not such a big deal with good shooting technique. Heck I'd take either but for long shooting on wildlife I'd prefer the prime and then buy a smaller intermediate zoom. That's all preference, though. You can't go wrong with either lens, really.

 

[Robin Usagani]

No way, for sure 400mm prime will be sharper than 100-400. Just the fact that it has fewer elements (no zoom and no IS) will certainly make your image sharper. Just google it. There are plenty of people have done tests on these 2 lenses. But if you are looking for more universal lens, then without a doubt 100-400 is a better choice.

 

[DiskoJoe]

well maybe a slight difference but they are both L lenses. So its like comparing oranges to oranges. either way he will get a good lens. but imo a 400mm lens is not something I would ever get a lot of use out of where a 100-400 would be quite useful for many purposes.

 

[DiskoJoe]

From what I am seeing the 100-400mm is $300 more. I didn't mean to imply one was better than the other as I don't shoot Canon. I was just imparting the fact that not having IS in a 400mm prime is not such a big deal with good shooting technique. Heck I'd take either but for long shooting on wildlife I'd prefer the prime and then buy a smaller intermediate zoom. That's all preference, though. You can't go wrong with either lens, really.

just did a quick search on ebay. nothing really in depth.