Reading mode: Light Dark

100-400 V.1 vs. V.2 vs. 500 V.1

Go to last post
I am surprised with your results -- which are completely the opposite of the results I get with my 500 f/4 and older 100-400. How did you get the 500mm equivalent on the zoom lenses? Are the images cropped? How much wind was there when you made these photos? Was IS turned off in all three cases? Were you outside the minimum focusing distance for any of the lenses? Something doesn't seem right here.
 
The sharpness is still very nice and acceptable, Fred.
 
dgumshu said:
The sharpness is still very nice and acceptable, Fred.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's acceptable. It looks the same as the old 100-400 without the TC. It was harder to get though. I probably just need more practice with the combo.
 
CameraCarl said:
I am surprised with your results -- which are completely the opposite of the results I get with my 500 f/4 and older 100-400. How did you get the 500mm equivalent on the zoom lenses? Are the images cropped? How much wind was there when you made these photos? Was IS turned off in all three cases? Were you outside the minimum focusing distance for any of the lenses? Something doesn't seem right here.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. It's not plausible.

I'll be doing some more testing, obviously. All the images are cropped and the 500mm image is larger in fact. There was no real wind at the time of exposure. I do see some pine needle movement in the images though hence the further testing. IS was off. Distance was approximately 50-feet.

As I said elsewhere. Field testing is the only real way to know just how a lens is doing. We'll be going to Bosqué the first week in January for field testing in a known environment.

It always takes me quite a bit of time to come to a conclusion about sharpness. That's why I can't order a lens with the idea of possibly sending it back. I should have a good idea in a couple of weeks though.
 
Frankly they all look horrible at original size.

i would suggest that every lens I own would continue me out sharper than all 3....

so so thanks but something is wrong here!
 
expro said:
Frankly they all look horrible at original size.

i would suggest that every lens I own would continue me out sharper than all 3....

so so thanks but something is wrong here!
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm sure you're completely correct.

It was, however, just an informal comparison which was not intended as state-of-the-art.

Your encouragement is much appreciated. We await your test shots.

--
Fred Lord
 
Last edited:
This afternoon, since there were no birds, I tested the old and new 100-400 lenses at 400mm against the 500 V.1 again. I used the chart from Bob Atkins printed on a 13x19 sheet. There is no doubt in my mind now that the zoom is not quite as sharp or contrasty as the 500. It is close however.
I set up the tripod on a concrete floor, MLU, focused live view with a loupe, remote with 2-second delay with a monopod supporting the camera body itself IS was off, etc. I took several shots with each lens while watching live view for vibrations. It was quite solid and there were none. The various test shots were quite consistent in appearance so I think this is a correct test. The tests showed what would be expected. The 500 is at the top of the heap with best sharpness and contrast, the new zoom is a VERY close second and the old zoom (which is a pretty good copy) is falling behind the new zoom by more of a gap than the new zoom falls behind the 500. CA is also much better with the new zoom. Mystery solved.
 
Thanks, Fredlord; that's what I would have expected, although perhaps not that the new zoom was so close to the 500 prime. Good work and good news. I look forward to your further tests at Bosque. For what it's worth, I just tested the 400 f/5.6L with the Canon 1.4X TC III, and while I'm very happy with the bare lens, I'm not happy with its performance with the TC. I can tell you that it does better with the Canon TC III than with the Kenko DG Pro 1.4.

FF
 
Flying Fish said:
Thanks, Fredlord; that's what I would have expected, although perhaps not that the new zoom was so close to the 500 prime. Good work and good news. I look forward to your further tests at Bosque. For what it's worth, I just tested the 400 f/5.6L with the Canon 1.4X TC III, and while I'm very happy with the bare lens, I'm not happy with its performance with the TC. I can tell you that it does better with the Canon TC III than with the Kenko DG Pro 1.4.

FF
Click to expand...
The most obvious difference is in the CA although it is generally softer all over.

Well then, just send the TC on to me and I'll test it with the new zoom lens. I'm buying a refurb TC if they ever get any in stock. No hurry though.

--
Fred Lord
 
Last edited:
Flying Fish said:
Thanks, Fredlord; that's what I would have expected, although perhaps not that the new zoom was so close to the 500 prime. Good work and good news. I look forward to your further tests at Bosque. For what it's worth, I just tested the 400 f/5.6L with the Canon 1.4X TC III, and while I'm very happy with the bare lens, I'm not happy with its performance with the TC. I can tell you that it does better with the Canon TC III than with the Kenko DG Pro 1.4.

FF
Click to expand...
How coincidental... I did the same test today in the rain. The Canon 1.4 iii slows the 400mm F5.6 AF down to about the speed of the 300 F4. Consequently, not great for BIF's, but acceptable for static subjects. I was, however, impressed with the IQ as I wasn't expecting more than I was getting with the Kenko. It's like a night and day comparison. I didn't have anything to really shoot at, as all animals were avoiding the weather, but here are a few.

The numbers on the stone was taken from about 70 feet and the Phillips heads on the screws are clearly visable.

The Ford emblem was 20-25' feet from me.

7D2 with 400 F5.6 and Canon 1.4 iii from 20-25'

7D2 with 400 F5.6 and Canon 1.4 iii from 20-25'

7D2 with 400 F5.6 and Canon 1.4 iii from about 70'

7D2 with 400 F5.6 and Canon 1.4 iii from about 70'
 
Flying Fish said:
Thanks, Fredlord; that's what I would have expected, although perhaps not that the new zoom was so close to the 500 prime. Good work and good news. I look forward to your further tests at Bosque. For what it's worth, I just tested the 400 f/5.6L with the Canon 1.4X TC III, and while I'm very happy with the bare lens, I'm not happy with its performance with the TC. I can tell you that it does better with the Canon TC III than with the Kenko DG Pro 1.4.

FF
Click to expand...
Today we are in the midst of an incredible blizzard so it was a good time to reshoot the tests. I used a flash for lighting this time to minimize movement and it seemed to work very well. I did not do MLU but the flash was shooting at 1/16 power so the duration had to be well under 1/1000 second. Live view focusing, etc.

The results were more or less the same. It showed how close in IQ the new 100-400 really is to the 500. Wish I had a 500 MK II to test as well.
 
fredlord said:
Flying Fish said:
Thanks, Fredlord; that's what I would have expected, although perhaps not that the new zoom was so close to the 500 prime. Good work and good news. I look forward to your further tests at Bosque. For what it's worth, I just tested the 400 f/5.6L with the Canon 1.4X TC III, and while I'm very happy with the bare lens, I'm not happy with its performance with the TC. I can tell you that it does better with the Canon TC III than with the Kenko DG Pro 1.4.

FF
Click to expand...
Today we are in the midst of an incredible blizzard so it was a good time to reshoot the tests. I used a flash for lighting this time to minimize movement and it seemed to work very well. I did not do MLU but the flash was shooting at 1/16 power so the duration had to be well under 1/1000 second. Live view focusing, etc.

The results were more or less the same. It showed how close in IQ the new 100-400 really is to the 500. Wish I had a 500 MK II to test as well.
Click to expand...
 
dgumshu said:
fredlord said:
Flying Fish said:
Thanks, Fredlord; that's what I would have expected, although perhaps not that the new zoom was so close to the 500 prime. Good work and good news. I look forward to your further tests at Bosque. For what it's worth, I just tested the 400 f/5.6L with the Canon 1.4X TC III, and while I'm very happy with the bare lens, I'm not happy with its performance with the TC. I can tell you that it does better with the Canon TC III than with the Kenko DG Pro 1.4.

FF
Click to expand...
Today we are in the midst of an incredible blizzard so it was a good time to reshoot the tests. I used a flash for lighting this time to minimize movement and it seemed to work very well. I did not do MLU but the flash was shooting at 1/16 power so the duration had to be well under 1/1000 second. Live view focusing, etc.

The results were more or less the same. It showed how close in IQ the new 100-400 really is to the 500. Wish I had a 500 MK II to test as well.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
....at 400mm, so I'll keep it. But I'm looking at Tamron's and Sigma's Sport 150-600mm lens.

I'm still waiting to see more photo results from these lens using the 7D.
 
fredlord said:
This afternoon, since there were no birds, I tested the old and new 100-400 lenses at 400mm against the 500 V.1 again. I used the chart from Bob Atkins printed on a 13x19 sheet. There is no doubt in my mind now that the zoom is not quite as sharp or contrasty as the 500. It is close however.
I set up the tripod on a concrete floor, MLU, focused live view with a loupe, remote with 2-second delay with a monopod supporting the camera body itself IS was off, etc. I took several shots with each lens while watching live view for vibrations. It was quite solid and there were none. The various test shots were quite consistent in appearance so I think this is a correct test. The tests showed what would be expected. The 500 is at the top of the heap with best sharpness and contrast, the new zoom is a VERY close second and the old zoom (which is a pretty good copy) is falling behind the new zoom by more of a gap than the new zoom falls behind the 500. CA is also much better with the new zoom. Mystery solved.

--
Fred Lord
Click to expand...
The photos in the original post do not substantiate the assertion that the 100-400 II is not as sharp or contrasty as the 500. Quite the contrary.

You now state that this new test with the chart makes you have "no doubts in your mind" about that same assertion.

Can we see the samples from this test?

Thanks.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
PhotoKhan said:
fredlord said:
This afternoon, since there were no birds, I tested the old and new 100-400 lenses at 400mm against the 500 V.1 again. I used the chart from Bob Atkins printed on a 13x19 sheet. There is no doubt in my mind now that the zoom is not quite as sharp or contrasty as the 500. It is close however.
I set up the tripod on a concrete floor, MLU, focused live view with a loupe, remote with 2-second delay with a monopod supporting the camera body itself IS was off, etc. I took several shots with each lens while watching live view for vibrations. It was quite solid and there were none. The various test shots were quite consistent in appearance so I think this is a correct test. The tests showed what would be expected. The 500 is at the top of the heap with best sharpness and contrast, the new zoom is a VERY close second and the old zoom (which is a pretty good copy) is falling behind the new zoom by more of a gap than the new zoom falls behind the 500. CA is also much better with the new zoom. Mystery solved.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
fredlord said:
PhotoKhan said:
fredlord said:
This afternoon, since there were no birds, I tested the old and new 100-400 lenses at 400mm against the 500 V.1 again. I used the chart from Bob Atkins printed on a 13x19 sheet. There is no doubt in my mind now that the zoom is not quite as sharp or contrasty as the 500. It is close however.
I set up the tripod on a concrete floor, MLU, focused live view with a loupe, remote with 2-second delay with a monopod supporting the camera body itself IS was off, etc. I took several shots with each lens while watching live view for vibrations. It was quite solid and there were none. The various test shots were quite consistent in appearance so I think this is a correct test. The tests showed what would be expected. The 500 is at the top of the heap with best sharpness and contrast, the new zoom is a VERY close second and the old zoom (which is a pretty good copy) is falling behind the new zoom by more of a gap than the new zoom falls behind the 500. CA is also much better with the new zoom. Mystery solved.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Those results are way better than I could get with the 400 f/5.6L and 1.4X TCIII! But preliminary testing suggests I'll be able to get results close to that with the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II and the TC.

FF
 
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