Karl Guttag
Senior Member
Another vote for no mods, particularly sharpening. I'm not sure what white balance mode you should choose, I would think Flash.
Karl
Karl
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
100-400 IS vs 70-200 IS and 2x-II TC (full size shots)
- Thread starter DavidP #28649
- Start date
DavidP #28649
Forum Pro
Actually, I'm using Daylight. This, according to Chuck Westfalll with Canon, is the correct WB for the 550EX. The "flash" setting is actually for strobes -- the 550EX is designed to give Daylight color temperature.
DavidP #28649
Forum Pro
I was kinda wondering about the 2 lbs. Sounded WAY too good to be true.
I think I'd rather have the 4.4 lbs and $3,000 than 2 lbs and $4,500 though.
I think I'd rather have the 4.4 lbs and $3,000 than 2 lbs and $4,500 though.
Joe Tan
Well-known member
It's not going to be an "L" lens? Didn't know that, not that it would deter me from using it. Or is it a green stripe for the DO technology but still an L class lens? Either way, I sure hope you're right. I would love a ~$3000.00 400mm f4.0 lens. That would almost be a dream lens for me (next to the 70-200 IS lens).
JOE
JOE
JCDoss
Member
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 12
I was surprised too, but no, it's not getting the "L" designation. It will have a green stripe, which I'd never heard of.
Rumors are abound at photo.net about other possible lenses with DO technology, including longer glass (500, 600, even 1000) and a 200-600/4 zoom lens. I'll believe it when I see it.
JCDoss
DavidP #28649
Forum Pro
200 - 600 f/4 ?
If I were Catholic, I'd have to go to confession for the lust I just felt.
If I were Catholic, I'd have to go to confession for the lust I just felt.
DavidP #28649
Forum Pro
OK, here it is guys.
I reprinted the test target to make it bigger. I re-shot all 3 lenses. (I think you'll be more satisfied with the 100-400 this time).
Per unaminous voting, I did NOTHING to these except crop them. All paramters were set to LOW when converting from RAW.
I've placed the three side by side, and even annotated them for you. (Aren't I a nice guy?)
Let the analysis begin!
JCDoss -- is the 70-200/2.8 IS + 2x-II combo still good enough for you to use it instead of the 100-400 IS?
I reprinted the test target to make it bigger. I re-shot all 3 lenses. (I think you'll be more satisfied with the 100-400 this time).
Per unaminous voting, I did NOTHING to these except crop them. All paramters were set to LOW when converting from RAW.
I've placed the three side by side, and even annotated them for you. (Aren't I a nice guy?)
Let the analysis begin!
JCDoss -- is the 70-200/2.8 IS + 2x-II combo still good enough for you to use it instead of the 100-400 IS?
David59483
New member
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
Could you also do one at 200mm with the non-IS 70-200 (no converter) for comparison? Or have you already decided that the older version is sharper?
Thanks
Al Goldis
Senior Member
Yes, you are a nice guy--this is much easier to digest!
You posted this before I had a chance to suggest that you NOT do any post-processing, particularly of the set-white/set-black variety, and your new tests illustrate why: contrast.
Contrast is an important part of the subjective image quality. One would guess that a 2X converter would drop the contrast and that looks to be the case in your tests.
After a quick look, here's my take:
The non-IS "looks" better than the IS 70-200. But that's actually due to contrast. While less contrasty, the non-IS resolves more detail than the IS. In fact, while the 100-400 obviously has the most contrast, I would still give a slight edge in resolution to the 70-200IS/2X combo.
You posted this before I had a chance to suggest that you NOT do any post-processing, particularly of the set-white/set-black variety, and your new tests illustrate why: contrast.
Contrast is an important part of the subjective image quality. One would guess that a 2X converter would drop the contrast and that looks to be the case in your tests.
After a quick look, here's my take:
The non-IS "looks" better than the IS 70-200. But that's actually due to contrast. While less contrasty, the non-IS resolves more detail than the IS. In fact, while the 100-400 obviously has the most contrast, I would still give a slight edge in resolution to the 70-200IS/2X combo.
OK, here it is guys.
I reprinted the test target to make it bigger. I re-shot all 3
lenses. (I think you'll be more satisfied with the 100-400 this
time).
Per unaminous voting, I did NOTHING to these except crop them. All
paramters were set to LOW when converting from RAW.
I've placed the three side by side, and even annotated them for
you. (Aren't I a nice guy?)
Let the analysis begin!
JCDoss -- is the 70-200/2.8 IS + 2x-II combo still good enough for
you to use it instead of the 100-400 IS?
DavidP #28649
Forum Pro
That's one of the reasons I had "normalized" them before -- to get rid of any white-balance issues, and to minimize the effects of contrast.
I wish I'd saved the image as TIF. I may go back and try to "normalize" each part of it, to illustrate what you're saying.
I wish I'd saved the image as TIF. I may go back and try to "normalize" each part of it, to illustrate what you're saying.
DavidP #28649
Forum Pro
OK, here I've gone back in and "normalized" for contrast effects by using the white-level and black-level eyedroppers in Levels for each of the three shots.
I did this on the original image, so I ended up JPGing the original JPG -- sorry for any additional artifacts that created. (I'm not THAT nice a guy to go back and do it right -- lol)
I did this on the original image, so I ended up JPGing the original JPG -- sorry for any additional artifacts that created. (I'm not THAT nice a guy to go back and do it right -- lol)
Red Dawn
Forum Enthusiast
Hi
thanks for the effort...
hmm...the 70-200 IS with converter does seem to be able to resolve more detail, even if only slightly so. But it seems to be a bit softer than the rest.
Red Dawn
thanks for the effort...
hmm...the 70-200 IS with converter does seem to be able to resolve more detail, even if only slightly so. But it seems to be a bit softer than the rest.
Red Dawn
DavidP #28649
Forum Pro
Hopefully, any differences are slight enough that when I start shooting at 200mm and 1/60 second at concerts, the IS will more than make up for it.
When I use it with the 2x-II adapter, I'll probably be stopping down to f/8 or so, too. That should help things out some.
Photography -- just another word for compromise.
When I use it with the 2x-II adapter, I'll probably be stopping down to f/8 or so, too. That should help things out some.
Photography -- just another word for compromise.
Thinh
Member
David, thanks for taking the time to do this comparision.
The 70-200IS+TC is of great interest to me and i have been waiting for such a comparison since the day of the rumoured 70-200IS. I returned my 100-400IS because of it
To my amateur eyes, I can not see the difference in PS6@200%. What this means for me is the 70-200IS+TC is what i will get.
Thanks David,
Thinh
The 70-200IS+TC is of great interest to me and i have been waiting for such a comparison since the day of the rumoured 70-200IS. I returned my 100-400IS because of it
To my amateur eyes, I can not see the difference in PS6@200%. What this means for me is the 70-200IS+TC is what i will get.
Thanks David,
Thinh
I did this on the original image, so I ended up JPGing the original
JPG -- sorry for any additional artifacts that created. (I'm not
THAT nice a guy to go back and do it right -- lol)
JCDoss
Member
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 12
Yes. The 70-200IS/TC combo looks to perform at least as well as the 100-400IS. I agree fully with Al Goldis's assessment of resolution and contrast of the three lenses. However I'm somewhat surprised at how much the 2xTC affected the contrast of the 70-200IS. The IS lens seems to have been affected much more than the non-IS version.
Regardless, your tests are enough for me... the 70-200IS it is!
Thanks David,
JCDoss
DavidP #28649
Forum Pro
Presumably, the 70-200IS is just less contrasty than the 70-200 is (without the TC). I should run a test at f/2.8 on both lenses, just to see.
I still think that the MTF curves Canon provided for the 70-200 IS (on that French site) looked slightly worse than the 70-200. Somebody else disagreed with me, though.
It's that site where all the rumors are started.
If somebody could link to it, it could be discussed in light of what we've seen here.
Of course, the important point is this: there ARE differences in lenses, too. I have no idea if what we're seeing is within those tolerances or not.
I still think that the MTF curves Canon provided for the 70-200 IS (on that French site) looked slightly worse than the 70-200. Somebody else disagreed with me, though.
It's that site where all the rumors are started.
If somebody could link to it, it could be discussed in light of what we've seen here.
Of course, the important point is this: there ARE differences in lenses, too. I have no idea if what we're seeing is within those tolerances or not.
Frank Williams
Active member
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember a price estimate for the 400/4 DO of around $2500 after an introductory gouging, uh, marketing period.
It makes sense. The DO concept is producing a lighter, FAR LESS EXPENSIVE lens. It is basically a refined fresnel element, which needs far less precision in glass molding and grinding, thereby at a lower cost. There are also far fewer elements to work. ITs fesnel heritage is also the reason for all of the rumored flare this lens is capable of producing...
It makes sense. The DO concept is producing a lighter, FAR LESS EXPENSIVE lens. It is basically a refined fresnel element, which needs far less precision in glass molding and grinding, thereby at a lower cost. There are also far fewer elements to work. ITs fesnel heritage is also the reason for all of the rumored flare this lens is capable of producing...
Karl Guttag
Senior Member
David,
Once you have the lens all set up, it is relatively easy to change F-number. I would shoot wide open and then every stop. I notice you missed F-4 on the 70-200F2.8. The 70-200F2.8 is a little soft at F2.8 (still "well behaved" and just a little soft) but sharpens up a good bit by F4.
I would agree that unless you really get serious about setting up, that you may be best off to not worry about the corners of the chart.
Note that you can print out the center section of the chart (crop to the ousides of the focus rectangles at about 7.5 by 11. In effect you have cut out the center section of a larger chart. You can then use this to avoid seroiusly close focusing. Since you are not worrying about the outsides now anyway, you have not really lost anything.
I bought the hardwood floors before getting the D30. It is harder to do it the other way around.
Karl
Once you have the lens all set up, it is relatively easy to change F-number. I would shoot wide open and then every stop. I notice you missed F-4 on the 70-200F2.8. The 70-200F2.8 is a little soft at F2.8 (still "well behaved" and just a little soft) but sharpens up a good bit by F4.
I would agree that unless you really get serious about setting up, that you may be best off to not worry about the corners of the chart.
Note that you can print out the center section of the chart (crop to the ousides of the focus rectangles at about 7.5 by 11. In effect you have cut out the center section of a larger chart. You can then use this to avoid seroiusly close focusing. Since you are not worrying about the outsides now anyway, you have not really lost anything.
I bought the hardwood floors before getting the D30. It is harder to do it the other way around
.Karl
Can I use that as an excuse to get hardwood floors?
I'm doing this in a hallway that's probably 15' long, I'd estimate.
I could possibly back up another 10 - 15 feet before I'd be
running into obstacles.
It's all carpeted.
I do have an enclosed porch (not A/C, though -- pant, pant, pant)
that's about 35' long by maybe 6' wide (don't ask -- lol). But
it's just concrete flooring. Given the lack of A/C, I think I'd be
better off inside (where I can take my time in comfort).
It's definitely problematic to do a lens test correctly, that's for
sure.
I will, however, do the 100-400 IS shot again tonight. As well as
the 70-200 IS and 2x-II again (just to get rid of the rotation.
It's probably best just to stick to the small central area -- given
the problems of ensuring proper alignment.
I should probably also run a test at 200mm.
100-400 IS at 200mm (f/5.6 and f/8)
70-200/2.8 at 200mm (f/2.8 and f/5.6 and f/8)
70-200/2.8 at 100x2 (f/5.6 and f/8)
70-200/2.8 at 140x1.4 (f/5.6 and f/8)
With the target I have, I don't think I can get any closer.
Joe Tan
Well-known member
Thanks a bunch David! That will really help with my future decisions. All three combinations are quite superb with no very significant differences between them. At least not enough to let the image quality dictate my decisions. What lens combo works best to get the shot is what I'll use!
JOE
JOE
I still think that the MTF curves Canon provided for the 70-200 IS
(on that French site) looked slightly worse than the 70-200.
Somebody else disagreed with me, though.
It's that site where all the rumors are started.
If somebody could link to it, it could be discussed in light of
what we've seen here.
Of course, the important point is this: there ARE differences in
lenses, too. I have no idea if what we're seeing is within those
tolerances or not.
Radek Tezaur
Forum Enthusiast
To me, this looks like the 100-400 wins hands down. Look at the better contrast. You may make up for it digitally on this image of a test chart, but this will be quite a bit more difficult on a real world image. I expect the 100-400 will also have better color.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum