Prime lens -v- IS zoom

Jonners · #1 (**permalink**) 06-06-2009, 11:33 AM

I'm new to this forum, so please forgive me if this has already been covered. Also Roger (Lincsbirder), thank you very much for your very helpful advice the other day. In fact I think it's your Bempton Cliffs shot of a whitethroat that showed me how far I have to progress!
I'm seriously considering getting rid of my Sigma 80-400mm Optical Stabilizer lens and replacing it with a Canon 400m f5.6. However, will I miss the OS/IS capability of the lens, or does that simply allow me to take reasonable hand-held shots in poor light that disappoint on closer inspection?
While I try and save up, I'm going to try and improve my techniques and try the lens without OS, but using a monopod. I use a Canon 350D, but reckon the lens is more important than the camera body. Any opinions would be appreciated.

willing to learn · #2 (**permalink**) 06-06-2009, 12:40 PM

I have a 300mm 2.8 that works well with a 1.4 X TC and 2.0 X TC which gives me some options. But I would not be with out my 100-400mm canon zoom lens. All my photograpy to date is hand held though I would like a tripod, and it will be my next buy.
Regards
Colin

Jonners · #3 (**permalink**) 06-06-2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willing to learn

I have a 300mm 2.8 that works well with a 1.4 X TC and 2.0 X TC which gives me some options. But I would not be with out my 100-400mm canon zoom lens.
Regards
Colin

Would that be because of its IS option, or because of its zoom?

willing to learn · #4 (**permalink**) 06-06-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonners

Would that be because of its IS option, or because of its zoom?

Both really as my edit said all my photography to date is hand held and I try for a lot of flight shots. I recently tried the 400mm 5.6 while photograping peregrines, granted on the day I was using it the light was poor, but on that particular day the pump with IS was noticable better. I also like the ability of the zoom which can quickley be altered if you are taken by suprise by a subject. You are pretty much stuck with the prime.
Regards
Colin

Ollie · #5 (**permalink**) 06-06-2009, 02:07 PM

Hi Jonners.

You could ask several people what they think of such and such a combination and get a different answer from each one. It all depends what set up they are using themselves and what their style of shooting is

Many people get great results using a zoom lens, especially the Canon 100-400mm zomm that has IS. Colin in fact has proved that this can be a great combination by his shots in the Gallery as have several other WAB members.

Personally as you know I use the Canon 400mm F5.6 prime and wouldn't swap it for a Canon 100-400mm. A lot depends on your style of shooting If you think that you need the zoom then the 100-400m may be the way to go. I have never used a lens with IS so would not like to make any comment on that.

I use the 400mm F5.6 on a monopod for static shots but always hand hold it for in flight shots. It's a fair bit lighter than the 100-400mm and I find it easy to hand hold for the in flight stuff.

The one thing that most people will agree on is a fixed length prime lens will always out perform a zoom lens in terms of picture quality.

You are quite right in saying that the lens is more important than the body. Put a second rate lens on an entry level body and you will get second rate photos. Put a first class lens on an entry level DSLR and you will get first class photos.

It's a pity we can't try various lens combinations before we make up our minds which one to buy. At the end of the day you need a combination that you are happy and confident with. Anyway I think my photos reflect the quality of the 400mm prime.

Words · #6 (**permalink**) 06-06-2009, 03:39 PM

If you're only using one lens the real question is how frequently you work at less than 400mm. The 400 f/5.6 is a fabulous lens, really sharp even when wide open. That makes up for some loss of the IS in terms of shutter speeds. If you are using a monopod, with practice the prime can work in fairly poor light. There are occasions though when I take the 100-400 out, especially if I suspect I may be working at close quarters (check minimum focusing length), or am after larger or closer subjects. The zoom is inherently more flexible, but the quality of the 400 f/5.6 will be an eye-opener I'm sure.

Jonners · #7 (**permalink**) 07-06-2009, 06:32 PM

Thank you for all your comments - definitely food for thought. The 400 f5.6 does sound really appealing and sometimes I just wish my photos were that bit sharper. I haven't really done any tests to see how much of a difference the optical stabilising makes to the end results, so while I save up, perhaps I'll try doing that. Thanks again.

charlieb · #8 (**permalink**) 07-06-2009, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ollie

It's a pity we can't try various lens combinations before we make up our minds which one to buy.

You could always rent and spend some time with each.

Ollie · #9 (**permalink**) 07-06-2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlieb

You could always rent and spend some time with each.

Good point I had never thought of that one.

BillyPilgrim · #10 (**permalink**) 07-06-2009, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ollie

Good point I had never thought of that one.

Or you could order one off the internet, use it for a few days and then send it back under the Distance Selling Act. I'm pretty sure the postage would cost less than renting one.