Kelly **** , Mar 30, 2010; 11:17 a.m.
I'm looking at getting a telepoto lens and have narrowed it down to 2 choices...
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM or Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
I'm pretty aware of the pros and cons of each; I know the 400mm has better glass, being a prime lens, it's pretty light and well balanced, but doesn't have IS. the 100-400mm on the other hand has IS, and is perhaps more versatile with the zoom, but the picture quality isn't as good.
I currently have 3 lenses... 50mm f/1.8, 60mm f/2.8 macro and the kit 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom.
So I don't really have anything in the in-between stage. I also don't have a specific subject in mine. Unlike a lot of people I'm not specifically a bird photographer. I'm currently traveling indefinitely, and would like to be able to take some nature/wildlife shots, as well as things like surfers, and waves. I'm a pretty amateur photographer, but slowly learning.
I've read that most people with the 100-400 shoot full out at 400 most of the time, but since I don't have any middle range I'm wondering if I might be better off with the zoom. On the other hand a friend of mine is selling his 400mm for $950, which is a pretty good deal.
Because I'm traveling (currently in Honduras) I also don't have the option to try either of them out. Perhaps in a few months when we get to Cancun, I might be able to find a camera shop and have look, but my friend's will no doubt be gone by then.
Anyway, just looking for advice, if you could only afford one, and were in my situation which do you think would be a better fit? (also, not to open a whole 'nother can of worms, but if there is something else I haven't considered that might be better feel free to suggest it.)
Thanks in advance!
Umesh Bhayaraju , Mar 30, 2010; 11:23 a.m.
go for 100-400 mm lens.... it is versatile and is sharpest in its zoom range compared to any other manufacturers. and will last long.
Ron Hartman , Mar 30, 2010; 11:35 a.m.
The 100-400 zoom is quite a jump up from what you have, in size, weight and price.
I have the Canon 70-300 IS zoom. It's much easier to carry around and comparable in image quality. Occasionally I wish I had something longer, but not often enough to carry around something of twice the weight. But if you feel you need 400mm, I'd go with the zoom for the IS and versatility, especially since you don't have lenses in between.
Philip Wilson 
, Mar 30, 2010; 11:48 a.m.
The 100-400 is much more versatile. If you are thinking of a prime I might suggest the 300 F4. The 300 F4 is a much more flexible lens as it can become a 420 F5.6 if you add the 1.4x TC - the IQ and AF will be lower than the 400 F5.6 but very similar to the 100-400 zoom.
If you plan to get a 70-200 zoom then I would suggest you look at a prime (300 F4 or 400 F5.6)
If you only plan to get one lens then the 100-400 zoom is the one
If you are not sure about the need for 400mm, and more especially the size and weight of the 100-400 then buy a 70-300 zoom and see how you get on. You can later upgrade to the 100-400 is you confirm your choice.
I would not underestimate the size and weight of any of these lenses. They are not the sort of thing you carry just in case. Indeed I found that I bought a second 70-200 (an F4IS) as I just didn't carry the 70-200 F2.8 around enough.
Scott Ferris 
, Mar 30, 2010; 11:50 a.m.
Zoom,
The IS and flexibility of the zoom far outweigh the IQ and fixed focal length of the non IS 400 prime. If you had a specific job for the prime then maybe, but it will be a general use lens so the zoom is the better option for you, IMHO.
Take care, Scott.
Ilya E , Mar 30, 2010; 01:29 p.m.
I think you should consider 70-200 f/4L IS and 1.4 extender. It will give you superior IQ and versatility.
Colin Carron 
, Mar 30, 2010; 02:13 p.m.
IS (image stabilisation) is a real plus. I woud not buy any long telephoto without IS these days. Holding a 400mm telephoto withour IS requires a steady hand and a fast shutter speed. IS makes it much easier.
Mike Hitchen , Mar 30, 2010; 02:21 p.m.
I agree regarding the IS - if you have not used a lens of this length before then your technique will be pretty poor and the IS will help you a lot. Plus the flexibility.
I have the 70-300 IS USM and think it is a very good lens for the money. A few reports say it is comparable to the 100-400 at f8 and 5.6 in the centre of the picture but not as good at the edges (and that is what you re paying for). I am thinking of the 100-400 only because I find for birds, the 70-300 can be slow in focussing (especially in lower light).
This is a very good review and comparison by BobAtkins. Decide where you want to compromise!
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_100_400_l_is_review.html
Travelling in Honduras? I'm not jealous (much!)
Tommy DiGiovanni , Mar 30, 2010; 02:39 p.m.
Just a thought but why not a 55 - 250? I would think either of the lenses you mention would be a lot to carry for general travels. A 70-200 F 4IS + 1.4 TC is another good option that will be much easier to carry around.
Philip Wilson , Mar 30, 2010; 03:01 p.m.
Tommy and Ilya make good points for general flexibility and portability the 70-200 F4 IS is a hard lens to beat. I use mine extensively as it's smaller size and light weight (it is half the weight of the 70-200 F2.8 or the 100-400) make it very portable. In addition this is a fairly new design with the latest 4 stop IS (both the 100-400 and the 300 f4 have the oldest 2 stop IS). On the APS-C body this gives you an effective 112-320mm lens. It works well in the rain (as the lens is weatherproofed and will retail almost 100% of it's value for resale.
