11-17-2012 08:09 AM
Having attended the MotoGP at Valalencia last week, and using my 7d with a 70-200mm with 1.4 extender. I have realised I need a longer lens for such events. I was wondering what lens would be better, ie sharpness. I know the 100-400mm has the benefit of the zoom, but I don't want to lose image quality if I can help it.
Solved! Go to Solution.
11-17-2012 12:03 PM - edited 11-18-2012 03:03 PM
This topic has been debated many times at both Photography on the Net (POTN) and Fred Miranda (FM) for years with no clear winner. I suggest you forget about choosing one or the other based only on IQ under ideal circumstances. You're not going to see the difference doing what you do unless you have extremely good panning skills. The prime is marginally sharper but so what? It limits what you can shoot because you can't keep changing position so you'll miss opportunities, some of which may be that "money shot". I shoot a different form of action, and based on the expectations of those viewing motorsports photos I strongly suspect the ideal photos will have slow enough shutter speeds for blurred wheels (or spokes) & background but a rider & bike that very crisp. Meeting those requirements will cancel any difference between the 2 lenses IQ wise 99% of the time.
For my needs the prime (just about ANY prime) would be useless, even if I got them free, and I rely on lenses considered to be less than ideal by most because they're superzooms, BUT they do the job, & well. They may not have the very best IQ but they do get the shot, and do it consistantly. Just remember it's not just the lens that captures the shot, it's the combination of the lens, the body, knowing how to set the variables in the body, and your ability to either pan perfectly or hold it steady enough. Blow one of those a tiny bit & the IQ is now less than what was possible when exacuted perfectly. You're not shooting stationary riders from a tripod from a fixed distance all day long so consider all the variables from your previous trips to the track before buying.
02-06-2013 08:55 PM
For Canon, all of the super telephotos - the ones that cost $14,000 - are primes...so the pro sports shooters and the pro BIF shooters don't seem to need zooms to ply their trades...So I don't buy your argument regarding not getting the shots using the 400mm f/5.6.
It's fine to use your 100-400, nothing wrong with that lens but don't try to say the 400mm is not useful. The internet is full of incredible pictures taken by this lens. Perhaps it needs to be in the right hands. Search the internet for picture comparisons...the gain in sharpness is significant, not just a little like many are saying here.
02-06-2013 09:46 PM - edited 02-06-2013 09:48 PM
It's fine to use your 100-400, nothing wrong with that lens but don't try to say the 400mm is not useful. The internet is full of incredible pictures taken by this lens. Perhaps it needs to be in the right hands. Search the internet for picture comparisons...the gain in sharpness is significant, not just a little like many are saying here."
Another very important factor of the 400L ƒ5.6 is the much faster acquistion of focus vs. the 100/400L making it a much better lens for birds in flight and other moving objects
400L ƒ5.6 manual exposure 1/1600 @ ƒ8 handheld
03/30/2023: New firmware updates are available.
EOS 1DX Mark III- Version 1.7.1
Speedlite EL-1 - Version 1.0.2
03/30/2023: Product Advisory for EF50 F1.2 L USM
03/30/2023: Product Advisory for EOS R10
2/07/2023: New product announcements!EOS R8 EOS R50RF-S55-210mm F5-7.1 IS STMRF24-50mm F4.5-6.3 IS STMRF15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM
Canon U.S.A Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or part without permission is prohibited.