I own the former lens and have tried the latter. Both are very good IMP. Most is the time I will use either lens at 400mm so is there any point in getting the 100-400L? IS a factor but for bird photography not that important as they tend to move even when still and my R6 and R7 both have IBIS. Having the flexibility of a 100-400 would be useful at times but I have other lenses that cover 100-200 and a 300mm and a 150-600, but not always in my camera bag. No interest in R lenses at present.
Canon EF 400MM F/5.6L USM v Canon EF 100-400MM F/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
- Thread starter Brentor
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,183
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This reads like you already know the answer.
- Messages
- 6,105
- Edit My Images
- No
I had both at the same time but rarely used the prime after getting the 100-400mm MkII. Main difference for me was focus speed, the zoom was quicker plus it gave better results using the 1.4x,mkiii.
Edit: The zoom has a much shorter focusing distance as well which makes it a lot better for close up stuff.
Edit: The zoom has a much shorter focusing distance as well which makes it a lot better for close up stuff.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 49
- Name
- Constantin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Total score 8:5
Clear superiority of 100-400 II in three indicators:
1.Almost twice the shutter speed when shooting with a mechanical shutter with R6, which is important for birds in flight to avoid rolling shutter and jagged wings.
2. Ability to zoom, which is useful when you are hiding and a bigger bird lands next to you.
3. Possibility of macro photos without having to put on extension rings.
In the remaining points 100-400 II there is a lead, but not by much.
4.lens stabilization gives advantage when using R6
5. Faster focus
6. Sharper (at least in my specimens)
7. Better work with 1.4x II
8. Watertight seals.
The advantages of a prime lens are:
1. Lighter
2. Constant weight balance because it is not a zoom.
3. A metal hood that is inseparable from the lens (with a zoom lens, it is possible to break the thread of the hood)
4. Less chance of dust getting inside because it's not a pump (this is my guess, no direct observations)
5. I guess it is more resistant in harsh conditions and that's why I prefer it for risky shots like during a storm and also because of its lower price.
In conclusion I have both, I bought the 100-400 II because it was a bargain and since then it has gradually replaced the 400 prime. The latter I use extremely rarely only on risky missions and it is permanently attached to my old camera 1D IV for R6 I prefer the 100-400 II, but if it costs two times higher, you can easily stay with the prime lens.
Clear superiority of 100-400 II in three indicators:
1.Almost twice the shutter speed when shooting with a mechanical shutter with R6, which is important for birds in flight to avoid rolling shutter and jagged wings.
2. Ability to zoom, which is useful when you are hiding and a bigger bird lands next to you.
3. Possibility of macro photos without having to put on extension rings.
In the remaining points 100-400 II there is a lead, but not by much.
4.lens stabilization gives advantage when using R6
5. Faster focus
6. Sharper (at least in my specimens)
7. Better work with 1.4x II
8. Watertight seals.
The advantages of a prime lens are:
1. Lighter
2. Constant weight balance because it is not a zoom.
3. A metal hood that is inseparable from the lens (with a zoom lens, it is possible to break the thread of the hood)
4. Less chance of dust getting inside because it's not a pump (this is my guess, no direct observations)
5. I guess it is more resistant in harsh conditions and that's why I prefer it for risky shots like during a storm and also because of its lower price.
In conclusion I have both, I bought the 100-400 II because it was a bargain and since then it has gradually replaced the 400 prime. The latter I use extremely rarely only on risky missions and it is permanently attached to my old camera 1D IV for R6 I prefer the 100-400 II, but if it costs two times higher, you can easily stay with the prime lens.
You are probably correct but I may have missed something.
Good point.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,807
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
A little off topic but I simply wouldn't shoot any action with mechanical shutter on r6 despite everything you mentioned. Blackout and evf behaviour is intolerable in this camera in that mode. Let alone shutter wear cycles.
I don't care about birds other than duck on my table so there is that.
Maybe your copy is shagged. This resolved perfectly at 50mp so there should be zero issues on low Res camera.
That would be the main thing. For me I can see very few reasons to go and pay the going rate for the zoom, particularly when this thing is barely getting used anyway. Works perfectly when needed
- Messages
- 49
- Name
- Constantin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree with everything LLP wrote.
For a long time I also considered that evf behavior is intolerable in this camera in that mode. But only recently I found that with relatively new generations of lenses the evf behaves decently and I even manage to get more in focus shots of fast flying birds.
For a long time I also considered that evf behavior is intolerable in this camera in that mode. But only recently I found that with relatively new generations of lenses the evf behaves decently and I even manage to get more in focus shots of fast flying birds.
What new lenses have you tried?