| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/09/2006 02:13:18 PM · #1 |
I compared the '70-200' F2.8 L, the '100-400' L, and for reference I threw in the Sigma 70-300. I also used a Kenko pro 1.4x and a basic Tamron 2x teleconverter.
All shots were taken off a tripod with IS turned off at F5.6. I took three shots with each lens at each focal length and selected the best. All were nearly identical, so autofocus on all three lens was very consistent. Photos were taken of a magazine page with a simple lighting set up at 1/40th of a second shutter. Note that this test compares sharpness only.
Conclusions:
At 100mm and 200mm: '70-200', '100-400' and the Sigma are nearly identical with the sigma being maybe the sharpest! 200mm
At 280mm: The '100-400' was clearly the sharpest. Surprisingly the Sigma was sharper then the '70-200' with the 1.4x and the 2x. 280mm (Sigma excluded)
At 400mm: The '100-400' blows the '70-200' with a 2x teleconverter out of the water. No 'comparison'. 400mm results:400mm
|
|
|
|
09/09/2006 03:03:45 PM · #2 |
| That's interesting. Thanks for doing the 'comparison'. |
|
|
|
09/09/2006 03:12:41 PM · #3 |
| Are you TRYING to get me to spend more money?? The '100-400' is next on my list anyways, and you're not helping :P |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 07:36:09 AM · #4 |
| If you were considering the '100-400' L Canon, have a think at what length you would use it. If you reckon you'd be using it at the long end alot of the time, have a look at this artical on the Luminous Landscape |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 07:55:37 AM · #5 |
I'd be interested to see this 'comparison' done again, but this time using the Canon 1.4x and 2x teleconverters (of which the 1.4x is excellent, but the 2x a little soft by repute), as using low quality tele glass would degrade even the best lenses...
Message edited by author 2006-09-11 07:55:45.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2006 08:07:21 AM · #6 |
| Also another factor to consider is the '70-200' 2.8 Canon l has a fixed aperature. |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 08:15:37 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by wimbello:
If you were considering the '100-400' L Canon, have a think at what length you would use it. If you reckon you'd be using it at the long end alot of the time, have a look at this artical on the Luminous Landscape |
I use the 100-400L frequently and, unless I'm handholding it in a strong breeze and using shutters of 1/160 or less, my 100% crops never look like his. Maybe he has one that needs a little adjusting?
I love the 100-400L so much that, if forced to give up all lenses but one, that would be the one I'd keep. I'd just move a little further away... Wish it was a little faster though...:) |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 08:27:56 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Also another factor to consider is the '70-200' 2.8 Canon l has a fixed aperature. |
Indeed. The other thing to remember is that most lenses tend to get sharper the more they're stepped down, so for fairness they should all be tested somewhere in the f8-f11 range, unless you want to compare them at their fastest possible common point (which is probably f5.6 or f6.3)...
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/31/2025 05:38:45 PM EST.
