Reading mode: Light Dark

400mm shootout

Go to last post
Thank you for your test, it's useful for my future considerations (when I have the $$$).

The 100-400, to me, is unexpectedly good at 400 while the 300/2.8L, my dream lens, is less than what I've dreamed of. Anyway, 1, 3, and 4 are all very close in sharpness.
--
Brian
San Antonio, TX
D60 owner and love sharp images
http://www.pbase.com/drip
 
For what it’s worth, what Adam-T said in his post above has a lot of merit IMO. I tried to get the very sharpest picture possible when doing this test and as a result I did a lot of things I don’t normally do in everyday shooting. IE mirror lock up, tripod, taking multiple pictures to make sure the focus is exactly correct… Most of what I shoot isn’t going to stick around for all of that so I end up shooting a lot of hand held shots. My experience in the “real world” is that the two primes are significantly better than the 100-400 and that the 70-200 w/2x II TC is a bugger to get good results from hand held. What I got out of doing this test is that all of these combinations can give you very sharp results under optimal conditions. They are all good lenses and the 400mm DO isn’t blown away by the 300mm f/2.8 like I get the impression of from some people on the net. This leads me to suggest that a potential lens buyer should buy the lens that best meets their needs and not just get a particular lens because it is the sharpest one but might not exactly fit the focal length they really need.

Just my reflections on a late night lens test,

Greg
 
GregL281 said:
This is by no means meant to be the end all test, just a quick and
dirty comparison.

Since this discussion came up in another thread I decided to take a
couple of quick test shots and see what I see. I tested four
different combinations and I am posting a composite of the 4 best
shots from each lens. For each combo I took 10 shots, 5 manually
focused and 5 autofocused on my 10D. Each setup was mounted on a
solid tripod and mirror lock up was used. The shutter was
triggered using a cable release. IS was turned off for all shots.
The files were captured using highest quality jpg high resolution.
Crops are from the lower left corner of the frame. The crops are
100% crops converted to grayscale and no other post processing. I
tried to get them all to have the exact same magnification but they
are not perfect, it is late and I have work in the morning. All
shots were taken at f/5.6. These are the combinations that were
used in no particular order.

a. 300mm f/2.8L IS USM w/1.4x II TC
b. 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
c. 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
d. 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM w/2x II TC

See if you can pick out which one is the 400mm DO and which one is
the 300mm f/2.8.



Greg
Click to expand...
--

max...see my follow up reply in group idiot discussion of last nite on long lenses. my question is this: if you compare photos of a poorly defined subject such as newsprint won't the best lens produce the worst (fuzzyest) picture?
 
Hi Greg,

Thank you very much for doing this. It was very nice of you to take your time to try to put up this comparison.

What I found interesting about your test is that it did NOT give me the results that I thought it would. For example, I thought that the order of sharpness went #3, #4, # 2 and # 1 (in that order)...which put the 100-400 IS as the sharpest at F5.6. I would have assumed that #3 was the 400 F4 DO and that #4 was the 300mm F2.8 IS with TC.

Now, let me ask WHY you think the results came out the way that they did?

-JM
GregL281 said:
1. 300mm f/2.8L IS USM w/1.4x II TC
2. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM w/2x II TC
3. 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
4. 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
Click to expand...
--
http://www.MasterworkPhotography.com
 
Though I guessed that 3 & 4 were the 300 & 400, I was not sure which was which. (Got the other two right.) I was surprised that the 300 f2.8 did not do better. Just shows to go ya that TCs do degrade(no surprise) and that when using them, real attention to technique must be paid if one wants superior results.
Interesting comparo!
Tom
GregL281 said:
1. 300mm f/2.8L IS USM w/1.4x II TC
2. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM w/2x II TC
3. 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
4. 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
Click to expand...
 
So what did I win, Greg?

If I can choose, I'd like the 300 mm f/2.8, please.

Email me for my address.

;-)

Cheers,
Hans
GregL281 said:
This is by no means meant to be the end all test, just a quick and
dirty comparison.

Since this discussion came up in another thread I decided to take a
couple of quick test shots and see what I see. I tested four
different combinations and I am posting a composite of the 4 best
shots from each lens. For each combo I took 10 shots, 5 manually
focused and 5 autofocused on my 10D. Each setup was mounted on a
solid tripod and mirror lock up was used. The shutter was
triggered using a cable release. IS was turned off for all shots.
The files were captured using highest quality jpg high resolution.
Crops are from the lower left corner of the frame. The crops are
100% crops converted to grayscale and no other post processing. I
tried to get them all to have the exact same magnification but they
are not perfect, it is late and I have work in the morning. All
shots were taken at f/5.6. These are the combinations that were
used in no particular order.

a. 300mm f/2.8L IS USM w/1.4x II TC
b. 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
c. 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
d. 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM w/2x II TC

See if you can pick out which one is the 400mm DO and which one is
the 300mm f/2.8.



Greg
Click to expand...
 
Even without the TC the 300mm f/2.8 is only slightly better than the 400mm DO. I looked at these pictures last night until I went cross eyed and to me it looked like the 400 DO was the sharpest then the 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x was next (VERY close, almost indistinguishable) then the 100-400 which was surprisingly close then the 70-200 which was a pretty good way off. I have to say I agree with MR and Fred Miranda that the 300 and 400 primes are very close in quality with the 300mm having the edge. I disagree with MR that the 100-400 is so far off in quality but it is a step down. I also agree with MR that the 100-400 is significantly better than the 70-200 + 2x TC combo. I honestly don’t think the 400mm DO gets the credit it deserves, if it was as bad as people say it was I would have dumped it a long time ago. It is relatively small and light and the optical quality is great. The 300 has better contrast and probably better bokeh in extreme situations but I have not experienced the bad bokeh yet that the 400 is said to produce. Before I bought the 400mm f/4 DO I had rented the 400mm f/2.8 and the large size and weight killed that idea pretty quickly for me. That was the reason that I didn’t even bother to look at the 600. I was debating getting the 500mm f/4 but I found a great deal on the 400DO so that is what I got. I don’t regret it one bit.

By the way, this test says nothing about color rendition or bokeh or any other charachteristic of the lens. For me you really have to experience a lens first hand to make any meaningful judgment on it.

Greg
 
and that's the PRICE! lol

One day we need to go out and shoot and compare it to the 500/4 IS.

I could've got the 400/4 DO IS used for about what I paid for the used (mint) 500/4 IS.

I still think I made the right decision, but I'd like to see first-hand just how hand-holdable (and luggable) the 400/4 DO really is.

By the time one puts a flash on it, I'll bet he wishes he were using a tripod anyway.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
DavidP said:
I still think I made the right decision, but I'd like to see
first-hand just how hand-holdable (and luggable) the 400/4 DO
really is.

By the time one puts a flash on it, I'll bet he wishes he were
using a tripod anyway.
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised at how usable the 400DO is without support. I don't pull it out much, as most of my stuff doesn't need that length. But things like the air show and the F1 race I spent most of the time hand-holding it. For the air show, I'd put it on the tripod every for a break when there was a lul in the action. For the F1 race, I had a monopod with me but it got in the way more than it helped. So for a good 4-5 hours on both days of race weekend I was simply hand-holding the 400DO.

Course, my normal rig is a 1D on a Pro-RL bracket with 550EX and either the 28-70 or 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens, which isn't exactly a light combination either. The 70-200 is a 3.5lb lens, while the 400DO specs say 4.2lbs I believe. So it's really not that much heavier...

Cheers,
Chris

--
My photo gallery: http://www.cawtech.com/~caw/PhotoGallery/
My PhotoSIG page: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=37120
 
Yeah, it's just hard to believe it can be THAT light. LOL.

The extra length probably makes it feel a bit heavier, though (longer moment).

But what's another 4 lbs to get to the 500/4? LOL

And then just another 4 to get to the 600/4? (Haven't gotten THERE yet).
Christopher A. Wichura said:
Course, my normal rig is a 1D on a Pro-RL bracket with 550EX and
either the 28-70 or 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens, which isn't exactly a
light combination either. The 70-200 is a 3.5lb lens, while the
400DO specs say 4.2lbs I believe. So it's really not that much
heavier...
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
I can carry around the 400 DO on my 1D all day with no problem. It doesnt' feel much different from the 70-200 f/2.8L IS except that it is bulkier, especially with the hood on.

Greg
 
Seriously, we need to compare these lenses first-hand sometime.
GregL281 said:
I can carry around the 400 DO on my 1D all day with no problem. It
doesnt' feel much different from the 70-200 f/2.8L IS except that
it is bulkier, especially with the hood on.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
Thank you very much for this test! Awesome. It confirmed what I have believed: The 400/4 is more then "good enough". But you have made my 300/2.8+1.4 vrs 400/4 decision much harder now :) Weight/size vrs close focusing distance....grrr....
GregL281 said:
1. 300mm f/2.8L IS USM w/1.4x II TC
2. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM w/2x II TC
3. 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
4. 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
Click to expand...
 
It's a shame you aren't in the UK, as I have the 400 f5.6 prime on order and should get it very soon. It would be great to add this to the mix too.

Excal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top