Tested: 300f4IS, 400f5.6, 100-400IS and more...

PhotoTom · Dec 9, 2005

Here's one quick example, but it's been post-processed a bit:

I have some high-contrast comparisons between the 300/4 + 1.4X and 100-400 on a very difficult subject, and they are quite comparable at f/5.6. They are not flattering to either lens wide open, due to the extreme shooting situation (shiny white aluminum wires in bright sunlight leaves a bit of a fuzzy haze around the subject), but they serve to show the lenses in the worst conditions.
--
Tom

PhotoTom · Dec 9, 2005

OK, Pbase isn't cooperating right now. If you don't see the image, give it a try a bit later.

PhotoTom said:
Here's one quick example, but it's been post-processed a bit:

I have some high-contrast comparisons between the 300/4 + 1.4X and
100-400 on a very difficult subject, and they are quite comparable
at f/5.6. They are not flattering to either lens wide open, due to
the extreme shooting situation (shiny white aluminum wires in
bright sunlight leaves a bit of a fuzzy haze around the subject),
but they serve to show the lenses in the worst conditions.
--
Tom

--
Tom

ejmartin · Dec 9, 2005

Thanks for the extensive comparisons. You have a very sharp 100-400L.
--
emil
--

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/fz20/bird_galleries_2005/
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/

Daniella68313 · Dec 9, 2005

fStopJojo said:
daniella you certainly have shown what an excellent copy of the
400f5.6 can do in the right hands, even wide open and with a
1.4xTC. as for my 400 f5.6, it is a flat out excellent copy; the
only thing here is that it ran into an exceptional 100-400IS that
is unbelievable at 400mm wide open, let alone the fact that it's
"only" a zoom.

how is your zoom at F8? does it improve? Is your 400mm prime sharpest wide open?

you seem to have got a superb copy of the zoom. hang on to it!

fStopJojo said:
for birding i see how the 400 f5.6 is the best of the bunch bc of
its wicked AF speed (although the 100-400 isnt too far behind
really, especially with its focus limiter).

fStopJojo said:
btw, for the record, plenty of folks around the web forums that
count a good copy of the 100-400 equal to the prime, FWIW. ask
this at POTN, for eg.

yes I think Adam T. also has a very sharp one.

--

Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

Daniella68313 · Dec 9, 2005

neophyte said:
From all posts the the zoom and prime, I feel:

there is no difference between the image quality of

a 'good copy' of zoom and prime

that you are more likely to get good copy of the prime

(simpler lens, less elements etc) than the zoom which
has more components which add to the variation in
quality (Canon's QC in question)

given the above two, the only difference between the

zoom and prime is that the prime has much faster AF

I think if you have the best copy of each lens, then the prime will be sharper wide open still. My guess is that if you don't see the difference it is probably because both outresolve your sensor.

neophyte said:
I know many here will disagree with this assessment.

Cheers!
Neo

--

Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

Daniella68313 · Dec 9, 2005

PhotoTom said:
You did well. Thanks for the info.

The only surprise I saw was the slightly lessor performance of your
300/4. Mine's really crisp, even with the 1.4X.

mine was like that, soft wide open with the 1.4x tc and I had to stop down to F5.6 to get decent sharpness out of it.

PhotoTom said:
I generally follow the old rule-of-thumb of stopping down 1
additional stop for the 1.4X teleconverter and 2 additional stops
for the 2X, but I can see from your 100-400 performance that that
much closing of the aperture isn't really necessary.

with some lens it is not necessary..and even not good. for exemple, my prime is sharper wide open. for me stopping down only degrade the image quality.

PhotoTom said:
The 70-200 with the 2X was not a surprise - the lens is awesome,
and works well with the 1.4X, but the 2X just doesn't work all that
well with that zoom.

--
Tom

--

Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

PhotoTom · Dec 9, 2005

Daniella said:
PhotoTom said:

You did well. Thanks for the info.

The only surprise I saw was the slightly lessor performance of your
300/4. Mine's really crisp, even with the 1.4X.

Click to expand...

mine was like that, soft wide open with the 1.4x tc and I had to
stop down to F5.6 to get decent sharpness out of it.

I've generally found that with my 1.4X on the 300, about 2/3 stops is enough, though it isn't bad wide open. It does have some loss of detail on very bright, contrasty scenes wide open. My 100-400 shoots best around f/7.1 when I shoot it alone, but again, it's not bad wide open.

Daniella68313 said:
Daniella68313 said:

I generally follow the old rule-of-thumb of stopping down 1
additional stop for the 1.4X teleconverter and 2 additional stops
for the 2X, but I can see from your 100-400 performance that that
much closing of the aperture isn't really necessary.

Click to expand...

with some lens it is not necessary..and even not good. for
exemple, my prime is sharper wide open. for me stopping down only
degrade the image quality.

Yes, there is some room for experimentation, and it's a good idea to learn each lenses' sweet spot. I've used the 2X on the 300/4 and found that about 1 1/3 to 1 2/3 stops cleans it up nicely. Unfortunately, that can get you small apertures meaning eithier high ISO or slow shutter speed or both. Sometimes, a little compromise is in order.

I don't have any lenses that are better wide open than stopped down even slightly, though some are very close. The 300/4 is pretty sweet on its own wide open.

Daniella68313 said:
--

Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send
them to me via email instead! thanks.

--
Tom

neophyte · Dec 9, 2005

I am nor very clear when you say "outresolve your sensor".
Can you eleborate on this.

My prime is definitely sharper wide open than my zoom.
But IMHO, if one has good copies of both the zoom and prime
there is not much difference between them.

But with the TC:
zoom @ f8 + TC = prime @ wide open + TC. But the AF is faster
and more reliable with the prime + TC. Note that I say this for
stationary subjects. I am still experimenting with the prime+TC
for flight shots.

I soemtimes also question the practicality of these tests. All these
are done on tripod and in real life I will never use either of these
lens on a tripod. A more realistic test would be to shoot similar
subjects under the same lighting condtions (say Avocets at the
Baylands) with both lens and see which one turns out better.

Cheers!
Neo

fStopJojo · Dec 9, 2005

Daniella said:
how is your zoom at F8? does it improve? Is your 400mm prime

sharpest wide open? you seem to have got a superb copy of the zoom. hang on to it!

truth is stranger than fiction, i suppose: it's actually about the SAME from f5.6 to f8. i'm very happy that is the case. wide open performance is stunning. i was really amazed how badly it made the 80-400 EX look; maybe i should assume i got a "so-so" EX copy, i dont know what to make of it.

Daniella68313 said:
Daniella68313 said:

btw, for the record, plenty of folks around the web forums that
count a good copy of the 100-400 equal to the prime, FWIW. ask
this at POTN, for eg.

Click to expand...

yes I think Adam T. also has a very sharp one.

i think i recall this also, thx.

PhotoTom · Dec 9, 2005

I did a little messing around with the 300/1.4 and 100-400 today. I used the tripod & remote shutter release. Did not use MLU, but maybe if I get some real free time, I will.

I haven't taken the time to convert, crop, and place the images on the web, but my 300/4 and 1.4X does seem to lose contrast a bit wide open. It isn't until I'm down 2/3 stops that it matches the 100-400 at f/5.6. At that point, they're both pretty good. I hadn't noted this lens combo being much trouble before in prior use, but I usually don't shoot it wide open.

Perhaps when I get a great deal of free time, I'll do the test more scientifically with multiple shots at each aperture, MLU, remote release, and manual focus.

fStopJojo said:
PhotoTom said:

You did well. Thanks for the info.

The only surprise I saw was the slightly lessor performance of your
300/4. Mine's really crisp, even with the 1.4X.

Click to expand...

--
Tom

PeaceFrog · Dec 9, 2005

Daniella68313 said:
My guess is that if you don't see the
difference it is probably because both outresolve your sensor.

Even if the lens outresolves the sensor you will still see a difference. Both lens resolution and sensor resolution play into the final output resolution.

Greg

--

http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

PeaceFrog · Dec 9, 2005

neophyte said:
I am nor very clear when you say "outresolve your sensor".
Can you eleborate on this.

Yea, I don’t really know what she is talking about there either.

neophyte said:
My prime is definitely sharper wide open than my zoom.
But IMHO, if one has good copies of both the zoom and prime
there is not much difference between them.

This has certainly been my finding.

neophyte said:
But with the TC:
zoom @ f8 + TC = prime @ wide open + TC. But the AF is faster
and more reliable with the prime + TC. Note that I say this for
stationary subjects. I am still experimenting with the prime+TC
for flight shots.

Again you seem to agree with my findings also.

neophyte said:
I soemtimes also question the practicality of these tests. All these
are done on tripod and in real life I will never use either of these
lens on a tripod. A more realistic test would be to shoot similar
subjects under the same lighting condtions (say Avocets at the
Baylands) with both lens and see which one turns out better.

I think the point is to demonstrate what is possible. If you do these tests without a tripod… then you are testing the photographers skills a lot more than you would without and the results would have even less meaning.

Greg

--

http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

Harvey F · Dec 9, 2005

Hi,

Thanks for the time and effort you put forth with these tests.

I have both the 100 - 400mm lens and the 400mm F5.6.

I recently bought the Tamron 1.4 TC (cheapie model) that does not require taping.

Using the 100 - 400mm with the TC attached I get quick auto focus.

Not quite as fast as the lens without the TC on but still what I consider fast. I basically bought the TC to use on the 400mm for birds in flight but find that it is very slow to focus. It hunts in and out and I have missed some shots because of the slow focus. I have decided to use it on the 100 - 400mm only for now.

I would really appreciate if your findings are the same as my experience or different.

Regards and thanks again,

harveyf

--
Some of my favorite pics: http://www.harveyf.smugmug.com/gallery/660630

My Galleries: http://www.harveyf.smugmug.com

neophyte · Dec 9, 2005

PeaceFrog said:
I think the point is to demonstrate what is possible. If you do these tests > without a tripod… then you are testing the photographers skills a lot more > than you would without and the results would have even less meaning.
Greg

Greg,

I see your point and agree with you, mostly. What I was trying
to say is the test should have the photographer's skill as a input.
Yes that may make the review/test less uselful for others but
is more realistic for the photgrapher himself. I soemtimes get a
feeling that folks get the zoom then hear this 'most sharp wide
open' dictum and then get the prime.
The real test given a person's photgraphic skills, would be how much
he/she can make optimum use of the equipment. Daniella's images
prove the point that a good lens does not gaurantee good images.
Many of us have a prime but she consistently gets good results.
I wonder what results she can produce with a 'average' 100-400
which most people seem to have.

Sorry for if this sounds like a rant.

My .02 cents.

Cheers!
Neo

PeaceFrog · Dec 9, 2005

I completely agree with you that for an individual photographer the end results from personal use are by far the most important. I also believe that hardly any of us will consistently use these lenses to their full capability and thus the small amount of extra sharpness that the prime can afford usually goes unrealized. I love the 100-400 IS and do not hesitate to recommend it to others who are interested in a long telephoto lens even though I know that the prime is a bit sharper under certain conditions.

Greg

--

http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

fStopJojo · Dec 9, 2005

your last sentence is right on the money.

PeaceFrog said:
I completely agree with you that for an individual photographer the
end results from personal use are by far the most important. I
also believe that hardly any of us will consistently use these
lenses to their full capability and thus the small amount of extra
sharpness that the prime can afford usually goes unrealized. I
love the 100-400 IS and do not hesitate to recommend it to others
who are interested in a long telephoto lens even though I know that
the prime is a bit sharper under certain conditions.

Greg

--

http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

--
http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests

“98% of all lenses are better than 100% of all photographers.” Michael Reichmann

fStopJojo · Dec 9, 2005

harvey, here's my bullet-format response:

1) the cheapie TC and the kenko pro (taped) both AF about the same speed on both my 100400 and 400 copies.

2) setting the focus limiter on both lenses, i cant seem to notice ANY AF speed difference. both track very well (focus limit set, ai servo, ctrpt AF).
3) pure AF speed from MFD to infinity the 400 prime is slightly faster.

4) concerning AF speed with a 1.4x and the 400prime, i dont find it any slower than the zoom; in fact, it's at least the same and at best slightly faster, but again, hard to tell any real difference, especially with focus limiter set.

do you set the focus limit?

Harvey F said:
Hi,

Thanks for the time and effort you put forth with these tests.

I have both the 100 - 400mm lens and the 400mm F5.6.

I recently bought the Tamron 1.4 TC (cheapie model) that does not
require taping.

Using the 100 - 400mm with the TC attached I get quick auto focus.
Not quite as fast as the lens without the TC on but still what I
consider fast. I basically bought the TC to use on the 400mm for
birds in flight but find that it is very slow to focus. It hunts in
and out and I have missed some shots because of the slow focus. I
have decided to use it on the 100 - 400mm only for now.

I would really appreciate if your findings are the same as my
experience or different.

Regards and thanks again,

harveyf

--
Some of my favorite pics:
http://www.harveyf.smugmug.com/gallery/660630

My Galleries: http://www.harveyf.smugmug.com

--
http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests

“98% of all lenses are better than 100% of all photographers.” Michael Reichmann

Tarpon6 · Dec 9, 2005

I have had the opportunity to use all three Canon lenses. My findings mirrored yours. I will disagree with the general consensus that the zoom @ 400mm was as good as the prime. The prime looks sharper to me. With the TC's the prime is overexposed, but still sharper. The 300 does loose sharpness and contrast with the TC and can not compete with the 400mm prime or zoom at 400mm.

Also the weakness of the Sigma is clearly exposed here. I have been preaching this to everyone who is considering the 80-400 vs. the 100-400. The Canon zoom is superior. It is sharper, faster focusing and has better contrast. Many Sigma users WANT their lens to be as good as the 100-400, because it is cheaper. It is not.

Another finding that you have confimed is that the Kenko Teleplus Pro is sharper than the cheapie Tamron. I have the DG version of the Kenko and it is obviously better than my Tamron.

Pretty good test, thank you for doing it..
--
Dan

Canon EOS Rebel XT 350D Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L USM II
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 USM II
Canon EF 50mm 1.8 Kenko 1.4x Teleplus Pro DG
Canon 420 EX
http://www.pbase.com/drimar

Harvey F · Dec 9, 2005

Hello fStopJojo,

Thanks for the answer.

With the 400mm I set the reading to 8.5mm because I'm shooting birds in flight. I assume that's what you meant by focus limit.

There is a big difference on the focus speed on these two lenses as I have stated and it is so frustratiung for me. When I take the TC off the 400 it focus fast and it is sharp. I just hope I'm not doing something wrong here.

I bought the TC for the 400mm. When I put it on the zoom I couldn't believe the difference and how fast it focused.

If you or anyone have any suggestions I'd love to hear them.

By the way I love my 100 - 400mm. The zoom and IS is a big bonus.

It's a great lens. I've had it almost a year now and there is not one speck of dust in it.

Good luck with yours.

Regards,

harveyf

fStopJojo said:
1) the cheapie TC and the kenko pro (taped) both AF about the same
speed on both my 100400 and 400 copies.
2) setting the focus limiter on both lenses, i cant seem to notice
ANY AF speed difference. both track very well (focus limit set, ai
servo, ctrpt AF).
3) pure AF speed from MFD to infinity the 400 prime is slightly
faster.
4) concerning AF speed with a 1.4x and the 400prime, i dont find it
any slower than the zoom; in fact, it's at least the same and at
best slightly faster, but again, hard to tell any real difference,
especially with focus limiter set.

do you set the focus limit?

Harvey F said:

Hi,

Thanks for the time and effort you put forth with these tests.

I have both the 100 - 400mm lens and the 400mm F5.6.

I recently bought the Tamron 1.4 TC (cheapie model) that does not
require taping.

Using the 100 - 400mm with the TC attached I get quick auto focus.
Not quite as fast as the lens without the TC on but still what I
consider fast. I basically bought the TC to use on the 400mm for
birds in flight but find that it is very slow to focus. It hunts in
and out and I have missed some shots because of the slow focus. I
have decided to use it on the 100 - 400mm only for now.

I would really appreciate if your findings are the same as my
experience or different.

Regards and thanks again,

harveyf

--
Some of my favorite pics:
http://www.harveyf.smugmug.com/gallery/660630

My Galleries: http://www.harveyf.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests

“98% of all lenses are better than 100% of all photographers.”
Michael Reichmann

--
Some of my favorite pics: http://www.harveyf.smugmug.com/gallery/660630

My Galleries: http://www.harveyf.smugmug.com

fStopJojo · Dec 9, 2005

that is really odd IMO. the 400 has ungodly AF speed and adding the el cheapo should not affect it as bad as you're saying. in addition, conventional wisdom would say that the 100400 would be even worse off.

i would take it to a local photo store and try on another 1.4TC, be it the same brand or whatever, and see how it fares on your 400. i'd be interested to hear how it turns out.

you might want to ask daniella (email her) since she uses the same exact set up as you (400 + el cheapo).

Harvey F said:
There is a big difference on the focus speed on these two lenses as
I have stated and it is so frustratiung for me. When I take the TC
off the 400 it focus fast and it is sharp. I just hope I'm not
doing something wrong here.
I bought the TC for the 400mm. When I put it on the zoom I couldn't
believe the difference and how fast it focused.

If you or anyone have any suggestions I'd love to hear them.

Tested: 300f4IS, 400f5.6, 100-400IS and more...

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts