Hi Folks,

I'm trying to make a choice between the two, and no the 100-400mm is not an option.

I'll only use the lens at an airshow.

I'm curious if some of you have examples of shots taken with both lenses, with or without the 1.4 TC.

Any advice without photos is also welcome.

Thanks!!

Sorry Mike, I haven't got any experiance with either of those (I use the 100-400mm )

Can I ask though, why fixed lens, cost or just not interested in a telephoto zoom? I must admit that when I review my photos most aren't in the 400mm range.

Hi Mike,

I saw this post and while I don't have a lot of time at the moment but I thought I would at least make a few comments about the 400mm F5.6 L that you are talking about. I have had the lens for about 2 years now and I love it but there are two things that you might want to take into consideration:

1) You won't be able to use the 1.4 TC and have autofocus. Check Canon's website for exact details. I have field tested this and found that the autofocus didn't work.

2) The lens does not have Image Stabilization (IS). I didn't think this would be a big deal when I bought it and it is my single biggest regret. I bought it over the 100 - 400 because of clarity issues. Given the opportunity to do it over again, I still wouldn't buy the 100 - 400 but I would find something with IS.

For the record, I do shoot things that fly, both mechanical and natural. Hope this helps.

Renderman

1.4TC will only work with 1 series bodies.. but the OP isn't talking about putting the 1.4TC on the 400..

I borrowed Andy B's 400 5.6 back in '07 to shoot the hogs when they were over here from Germany
straight 400 5.6 while stood on top of my Shogun





with a 2x TC - which meant manual focus

I have used the 400 f5.6L before and it was stellar, very good for sunny days.I use a 300 2.8 and to me having a big aperture is a must but if you are tight on a budget and simply want to get the longer focal length get the 400 5.6.If you dont mind having to use a 1.4 TC then the 300 f4 is on the same league as the 400 in build and image quality but you get the bonus of a wider aperture.

The perspective in the seventh shot just looks weird. How can the plane waiting in the background appear to be bigger than the one on the runway?

My guess is because the one in the background you get to see the whole length where the one in the foreground it's almost like a head on shot so you don't get the full idea of the size?

Ha, I noticed that too ... Just sitting here looking at it thinking "How the?". It looks like an RC plane.

I've used the 400mm 5.6 to shoot jets, shooting props with it I've found to be tough. typically at 1/400 you're going to freeze the prop or get minimal blur, anything under that and you need steady hands not to get camera shake.

My 2 cents

Well at least for low flying planes one could use a monopod.I have also used a monopod when hand holding the lens(monopod doesnt touch the ground)with one hand and the grabbing the monopod with the other.Since the lens is so light(compared to the bigger telephotos) it can help to stabilize the image that way.

Thanks for the replies. I've been talking to people who owned both.

The 300mm +1.4tc is a nice combo, but images are softer than the 400mm.

Another thing, which almost everybody complained about, is the significant drop in AF speed when using the 1.4tc.

Can't have it all ;-)