Reading mode: Light Dark

New Test of Canon 300mm F/2.8 and 400mm f/5.6

Go to last post
You llinked to the 300 f/2.8IS lens, not the f/4.

From photozone's 300 f/4 info though:

"It's boring but both wide open as well as stopped down results are excellent with virtually no signs of vignetting or distortions. The color balance is neutral. Performance with Canon EF 1.4x teleconverter: A lot of people rave about this combination - they even state that the performance is on the level of the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 USM L. Personally I'm a bit sceptical here. Sure, the performance remains on a high level but I can see slight deteriortion. With wide-open aperture there's indeed a visible loss of contrast compared to the naked lens. Stopping down one stop helps a lot here. So the 1.4x teleconverter is a good compromise but no perfect solution."

If you meant the f4L IS, Not the non-IS version, the info is here:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4is/index.htm

Where with the 1.4TC (420mm) the MTFs are certainly lower than the 400 f/5.6 lens, although at native 300mm, it is slightly better scores.
messner said:
Here

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_28is/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_400_56/index.htm

I thought that the 400mm f/5.6 was sharper, 300mm f/4 is better
according to this test.

Best regards from Sweden

Omar Brännström

--

Click to expand...
 
I hoped it reported the MTF of the 400 5.6 with 1.4 tc...
--
cuginoStefano
 
mazzuccato said:
I hoped it reported the MTF of the 400 5.6 with 1.4 tc...
--
cuginoStefano
Click to expand...
i'm kinda suprised the 300 f4/ non-IS beat the fabled 300 2.8 at f4?!

maybe the IS does reduce IQ a tiny tad, and the original 300 2.8 would've been a different story (of course, hand holding a beast like 300 2.8 and even using anything but 300lb tripod, IS, can often improves sharpness, unless shutter is mad high).

i'm interested to see how the 70-300 will do here as well as 16-35 vs. 17-40.
would be cool to see the 100-300L.

i also wonder if they were to go back and restest the same lens if they would get the same #'s. these tests can be very sensitive. is their procedure ultra uniform?
 
Something is definately wrong here.
--
A lot of my favs. at bairas.zoto.com/galleries
Manos
 
PicOne said:
You llinked to the 300 f/2.8IS lens, not the f/4.
Click to expand...
Yes I know, the 300 f/2.8IS was new on the test list that is why I linked to that lens. The test on the 300mm f/4 is old, no news.
PicOne said:
From photozone's 300 f/4 info though:

"It's boring but both wide open as well as stopped down results are
excellent with virtually no signs of vignetting or distortions. The
color balance is neutral. Performance with Canon EF 1.4x
teleconverter: A lot of people rave about this combination - they
even state that the performance is on the level of the Canon EF
400mm f/5.6 USM L. Personally I'm a bit sceptical here. Sure, the
performance remains on a high level but I can see slight
deteriortion. With wide-open aperture there's indeed a visible loss
of contrast compared to the naked lens. Stopping down one stop
helps a lot here. So the 1.4x teleconverter is a good compromise
but no perfect solution."

If you meant the f4L IS, Not the non-IS version, the info is here:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4is/index.htm
Click to expand...
I meant the 300mm f/4 as I wroted
PicOne said:
Where with the 1.4TC (420mm) the MTFs are certainly lower than the
400 f/5.6 lens, although at native 300mm, it is slightly better
scores.
Click to expand...
Best regards from Sweden
Omar Brännström
 
from what I could tell, the f4 IS (vs. the non-IS) is better than the f2.8IS at f/4. at f/5.6 they're about equal, and at f8 the 2.8 lens is better.
 
there isn't any test data on the 300mm f/4 (NON-IS) version.. its just a quick summary page on photozone (no MTF charts, etc..), so where do you get data that 400 f/5.6 is better than the f/4 non-IS?

Are you referring to the paragraph in the 400 f/5.6 review where he mentions MTF comparisons to the 300mm + 1.4TCs?
 
The 50 1.4 they tested appears to have a filter on it in the pictures. I wonder if they do tests with filters on the lenses? Anyway it killed on the resolution tests at f2.8-5.6.
--



Narrow depth of field ahead
Use extreme caution

http://www.pbase.com/paulyoly/root
 
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4/index.htm

And their copy of the 300 f4 non-IS + 1.4x appears to do better at f5.6 than the 400 f5.6L they tested. It's marginally better than the 300 f4L IS naked, 1830 vs. 1887 @ f4, however with the 1.4x attached the 300 f4L IS scores 1262 while the non-IS does significantly better with 1727.
PicOne said:
there isn't any test data on the 300mm f/4 (NON-IS) version.. its
just a quick summary page on photozone (no MTF charts, etc..), so
where do you get data that 400 f/5.6 is better than the f/4 non-IS?

Are you referring to the paragraph in the 400 f/5.6 review where he
mentions MTF comparisons to the 300mm + 1.4TCs?
Click to expand...
--



Narrow depth of field ahead
Use extreme caution

http://www.pbase.com/paulyoly/root
 
PaulyOly said:
The 50 1.4 they tested appears to have a filter on it in the
pictures. I wonder if they do tests with filters on the lenses?
Anyway it killed on the resolution tests at f2.8-5.6.
Click to expand...
No need to worry, I'd be very surprised if the filter was on the lens during testing.

-- Markus
 
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