guidance

[prh555]

hello to all,

my interests are landscape and nature.

i own a 30D, 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L IS, 70-200 f2.8 L IS and canon 1.4 II extender.

i will buy a 40D soon.  i am going to the tetons and yellowstone in may for 2 weeks and i'm trying to decide between a 100-400 L or a 400 5.6L.  next year i plan on going to the everglades, and hawaii for the whales.

after yellowstone i will sell the 30D, and plan on buying the 5D replacement within a year if available.  eventually i would buy a 28 f1.8 and 85 f1.8 for low light.

the biggest picture blow-ups would be 16x24.

so what 400 would you buy?  any other thoughts?

thanks for advice, prh

[Paul Sumi]

If you can, rent both of the lenses for a weekend and try them both out.

The 100-400 is more flexible but the 400 f/5.6 has the reputation of being sharper.  The 100-400 has IS (albeit older generation) while the 400 has none.  You may or may not like the push-pull zoom of the 100-400.

I see that you already own the70-200 f/2.8 L IS.  I've informally tested the 100-400 against the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 with 1.4x extender.  My 70-200 with 1.4x TC is sharper than the 100-400 throughout the shared zoom range.  YMMV.

Best,

Paul

[Jeremy Roussak]

If you can, rent both of the lenses for a weekend and try them both out.

The 100-400 is more flexible but the 400 f/5.6 has the reputation of being sharper.  The 100-400 has IS (albeit older generation) while the 400 has none.  You may or may not like the push-pull zoom of the 100-400.

I see that you already own the70-200 f/2.8 L IS.  I've informally tested the 100-400 against the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 with 1.4x extender.  My 70-200 with 1.4x TC is sharper than the 100-400 throughout the shared zoom range.  YMMV.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've no experience, but Michael's M did indeed V, at least with the 2x TC. See [a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml]this[/url].

Jeremy