Fixed lens. Over zoom (Page 2): This is probably the best advice about this topic so far. I use zooms because they provide me with much more versatility in the field. The image quality...

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

RDH wrote:

First it is not a fixed lens it is a Prime Lens. ... (show quote)

This is probably the best advice about this topic so far. I use zooms because they provide me with much more versatility in the field. The image quality between prime and zoom is negligible nowadays if you purchased quality optics.

I have only one prime - 105 micro.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

Bookkooker. wrote:

What is the benefit of Canon fixed 400mm over 100-400mm zoom?

Is it worth the extra cost??

Which 400mm prime lens are you comparing the 100-400mm to? I own both the 1-4 and a 400mm f5.6L lenses. According to bench tests the 400mm f5.6 is the sharper of the two lenses. On my two copies I can't see the difference.

Both have their uses. The 1-4 is easier to track a BIF with or if you get a large bird, like a GBH or Great Egret, up close. The 400mm prime is great for birds sitting in tree. It is also the lighter of the two lenses for carrying any distance.

Some have complained about the 1-4 sucking in dust. I had my lens rebuilt about a year ago, my 100 pound Lab stomped on it causing damage, and according to Canon my lens was clean inside. It is not something I worry about. I shoot in some pretty dusty places!

Jim D

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Bookkooker. wrote:

What is the benefit of Canon fixed 400mm over 100-400mm zoom?

Is it worth the extra cost??

Worth the extra cost? Actually it's cheaper than the 100-400. And yes, it's worth it's money, It has considerable better IQ than the 100-400. I used to have the 100-400 and liked it very much, but I tried the 400 prime as well and stuck with it and got rid of the 100-400. The 400 prime is also a whole lot lighter and therefore a lot easier to use for BIF and such. AF is quicker as well.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Bozsik wrote:

This is probably the best advice about this topic so far. I use zooms because they provide me with much more versatility in the field. The image quality between prime and zoom is negligible nowadays if you purchased quality optics.

I have only one prime - 105 micro.

I have both prime and zooms and they are of the highest quality and the primes are always sharper. Could be that it is much easier to do a camera alignment, fine tune-Nikon and micro adjust-Canon with the prime lenses than with a zoom.

thelazya Loc: Wendell, MN

If you can wait, Canon is coming out with a new 100-400L.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

thelazya wrote:

If you can wait, Canon is coming out with a new 100-400L.

Yeah, no more push 'n pull zoom!
A new 400/5.6 is just around the corner too (with IS)!

ddonlewis

I'm going to first assume you "require" the range of the 400mm. In regards to the lens, I think you have to determine "honestly" if you are a prime or zoom lens person. I bought an 85MM F1.8 lens to use indoors at karate tournaments. I quickly found that I didn't like not having the zoom function, and I personally didn't see superior pictures. The legendary Herbert Keppler said that in order to see a difference at a particular F stop you had to have a difference of around 10 points in the Modern Photography magazine lens tests between the two lenses. The lenses you're talking about are both Canon professional level "L" lenses. Currently you can buy the 400MM F5.6 for about $300 less than the zoom. I would guess that you may be able to see some difference with the 400MM being slightly better because zooms are inherently less good at the extremes. But you will have to decide if the slight improvement is worth the loss in flexibility.

Budnjax Loc: NE Florida

no....I have a 100-400 and have had a 400mm f/5.6. The 100-400 is a great lens even with a Canon 1.4X extender and obviously the additional focal lengths are a big plus, too. It's rumored that Canon will soon issue a new version of the 100-400, which means the current model may go on sale at a lower price. I say may because the new model may cost a lot more than the current one. Canon recently announced a 200-400 f/4 zoom with built-in 1.4x extender for $11,500. Is this lens worth over 5 times the price of the current 100-400 with a separate 1.4x extender? I really doubt it unless you have very very deep pockets.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Bookkooker. wrote:

What is the benefit of Canon fixed 400mm over 100-400mm zoom?

Is it worth the extra cost??

Independent review on a highly respected site that has the 5th highest amount of traffic of all the photography related sites in the Internet:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

For all practical purposes the 400 5.6 IQ is equal to a "good" 100-400 IQ especially on crop frame. On full frame the zoom loses a little in the corners.The prime 400 is more compact and lighter @400mm than the zoom. The prime does NOT have IS. The zoom, because of it'e mechanical and optical complexities is subject to a wider sample variation regarding IQ (image quality) and requires more cleaning and maintenance because it pumps air. The prime will accept and is optimized for the Canon Tele converters. The zoom will accept but is not optimized for the CANON TC's.

dar_clicks Loc: Utah

Bookkooker. wrote:

What is the benefit of Canon fixed 400mm over 100-400mm zoom?

Is it worth the extra cost??

Some previous posts have better answered your question directly so I only have this to add: It was mentioned that some like to use zooms and others like to use primes. Yep. ... so it depends on your preferences and what kind of shooting you will do and features you'll need for it.

I switched to a 300 mm prime from a zoom that max'd out at 500 mm. I was only using the zoom near the long end anyway, typical for my "long lens subjects," plus I found the zoom feature to be kind of an added aggravation in the field. If I add a 1.4X TC for those times I need a little extra reach I'm about where I would have used the zoom anyway and IQ nearly equal (my prime is sharper than the zoom). The 300 also turned out to be a favorite, nice to use. A much longer prime would be better for animals and birds, but I can't afford it.

Michael O' Loc: Midwest right now

Bookkooker. wrote:

What is the benefit of Canon fixed 400mm over 100-400mm zoom?

Is it worth the extra cost??

Better glass, and yes, there is a difference. What I'm not really enamored about with my 100 - 400 zoom is that its a trombone, and it seems to want to slide like one. It gives much versatility in that range, but you sacrifice a bit of fine definition, and are encumbered with having to be very careful you don't slide it out or in slightly, especially when shooting freehand at something like a soccer match. Not so important doing landscapes. My big glass 200, 300, and 400 are all nearly perfect, and the trombone is always just a very nice substitute.

Michael O' Loc: Midwest right now

gessman wrote:

Independent review on a highly respected site that has the 5th highest amount of traffic of all the photography related sites in the Internet:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

And if you think the 400 f 5.6 is good, be aware that the 400 f 2.8 is markedly better -- it's crystal clear with great definition and no spherical or chromatic aberration. Same with the 300 f 2.8 and the 200 f 1.8, and all of these are L's. Ditto for the 500mm
f/ 4.5 and the 600 f/ 4. Cannon knows how to build big glass.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

Michael O' wrote:

And if you think the 400 f 5.6 is good, be aware that the 400 f 2.8 is markedly better -- it's crystal clear with great definition and no spherical or chromatic aberration. Same with the 300 f 2.8 and the 200 f 1.8, and all of these are L's. Ditto for the 500mm
f/ 4.5 and the 600 f/ 4. Cannon knows how to build big glass.

Yes they do, and ask for big prices to go with that glass! The f2.8L is only $11,499.00

http://www.adorama.com/CA400282.html

At that price it should focus and press the shutter button for you!

Jim D

RRS Loc: Not sure

oldtool2 wrote:

Yes they do, and ask for big prices to go with that glass! The f2.8L is only $11,499.00

http://www.adorama.com/CA400282.html

At that price it should focus and press the shutter button for you!

Jim D

If we look at the original post the question is "Is it worth the extra cost?''. It all depends on how much money you want and can spend on your hobby. You can say what you want to about the cost of the best glass and we all know what that is, however when you or your survivors sell that glass your not going to loose any money! After you look at images shot with the primes 200mm through 600mm and yes I know there's an 800mm is out there too but that's another story and if you can see a difference then you are hooked. For those that can't see a difference more power to you because now you are presumably happy with what you have and can enjoy this fine hobby without the want monster nipping at your heels all the time. Now if you are lucky enough to work for NG or SI don't worry because they will buy whatever it takes to get the job done but for the rest of us just hang in there, Christmas is just around the corner!