Four Ways to Shoot 400mm -- A Comparison

[Belmondo]

It occurred to me today that I have three different ways to shoot a 400mm picture:
My 70-200 f/2.8L with a 2X extender
The 400 f/5.6L prime
The 100-400 f/4-5.6L zoom

I was waiting for my wife outside the casino today, so I set up my tripod on the roof of their parking structure, and took the identical picture with each lens. I thought I’d share these with you just for fun. I was a little surprised how close the pictures are in quality.

Note: All pictures were shot in AV mode at f/8, then converted from RAW to TIFF in PS/CS. There was no enhancing of the images (i.e. sharpening, WB, exposure, compensation, etc.). Except for the reference photo, all these shots are 100% crops.

This is the view from the parking garage.
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/353Lens_Test_Scene.jpg

This is the 400 prime.
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/353Lens_Test_400_prime_100_Crop-med.jpg

The 100-400 zoom
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/353Lens_Test_100-400_zoom-med.jpg

And finally, the 70-200 with the 2X extender
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/353Lens_Test_70-200_2X_100_crop-med.jpg

As can be expected, the last one is a little softer, but still quite acceptable. The other two look very similar to me.

Just though I’d share.

Tom

[figment]

something is going on with the contrast with the prime lens picture...

[Tom W]

You have too many lenses - give me one. :P

Really, they are pretty doggone close.

[Tom W]

something is going on with the contrast with the prime lens picture...

Oh, yeah. I hadn't noticed at first, but the white side of the bus isn't quite as white with the prime as it is with the other two.

In fact, colors are just a pinch darker.

Tom, how's the exposure - are they all the same? I suspect that the prime might be 1/3 or so stops slower.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Was it "aprtly cloudy" because on my monitor the last pic (200mm w/2X) is the brightest,. and as others said the prime is the darkest.. I wonder did the environment change at all?

[IanD]

To my eyes (with the good glasses on and cleaned) the prime shows slightly darker white. The lettering on the $100 chips also appears a little darker. I believe that I prefer the 100-400 image the best.
There appears to be a small grub worm between the $5 and $100 chips at the bottom of the crop :lol:

[Belmondo]

Was it "aprtly cloudy" because on my monitor the last pic (200mm w/2X) is the brightest,. and as others said the prime is the darkest.. I wonder did the environment change at all?

It was a rather murky, hazy day. I suspect the problem is more in how the camera chose to meter each image. I should have shot these in manual mode for absolute consistency. Maybe I'll try it again for my own edification. Next time, I won't bore you guys with the results.

Ian...it could be a grub worm. I should note that the desert variety is generally crunchier than others---they're already half cooked when you catch them.

[figment]

belmondo ,

Post em. I appreciate the information!

[Scottes]

At 400% zoom the Prime appears a *touch* sharper.

Which is, for all intents and purposes, just about meaningless.

I can't wait til the taxman sends my check. 100-400 will be mine! I get to join the Lofty League of Lensmen, upgrading my membership in the League of Lensmen.

And maybe one day, when my wife isn't looking, I may just enter the realm of the Lofty League of Laudable Lensmen. Aaaah, the 4L. What a club! I hear they get to measure Starrett rulers from distances unknown to mere mortals. Boy! I can't wait.

[Tom W]

It was a rather murky, hazy day. I suspect the problem is more in how the camera chose to meter each image. I should have shot these in manual mode for absolute consistency. Maybe I'll try it again for my own edification. Next time, I won't bore you guys with the results.



Please bore us - then give me the worst-performing lens combo of the three. :P

[figment]

... the Lofty League of Lensmen...LMAO! :lol:

[figment]

It was a rather murky, hazy day.Are you a novelist as well by any chance? :lol:

[Belmondo]

It was a rather murky, hazy day.Are you a novelist as well by any chance? :lol:

No, it really was murky and hazy. We have some very significant mountain on thee sides of our valley, and they're not more than a few miles away in any direction. Today, we couldn't see the mountains---might as well have been in Kansas. I call that murky and hazy.

[Tapeman]

Thank God there wasn't a huge difference. It makes it easier for those of us who have only one way to get to 400 mm resist rushing out for the superior lense. Mine is 200 2.8L X2. There is plenty of stuff I need before upgrading good lenses. A 77mm murky & hazy filter perhaps?

Thanks

[hmhm]

I was a little surprised how close the pictures are in quality.


You should have shot them at f/5.6, and compared the corners!
-harry

[Belmondo]

I don't know, Harry. It's a valid test, I'm sure, but those are behaviors more typical of measurbators, and I'm certainly not one of them. In thinking the thing through, I probably did slant things a little by shooting at f/8, but I was really thinking of shooting them all more or less in their 'sweet spot' instead of pushing their limitations.

I think at f/5.6, the prime would probably do a little better than either of the zooms. Maybe I'll do that the next time I have all my equipment with me and a little time on my hands. :wink:

[2new]

belmondo - I'd love too see the results shot manual with a different subject if you get the time.

thanks for the post!

[ijohnson]

You know what belmondo, that 400 prime just sucks. Send it to me and I will fix it.

Oh and by the way, when you go out with your wife, do you actually carry all of these lenses with you? Do you have a U-Haul attached to your ass?

[Belmondo]

Man, I've sure made some great friends in this forum. How can I turn down an offer like that?

Actually, I have a pickup truck with a crew cab. I keep most of the gear in the back seat except for the tripods which go in the back. It's a nuisance, and very rarely do I take it all with me. Today was something of a fluke.

[ChrisNardone]

Am I missing somethig? What's the fourth way? Not that three isn't enough.

[Belmondo]

Sorry about that. There really isn't a fourth way. Just my dyslexia acting up. :oops:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Forget the tests ... which one "feels" better? :D :wink: 8)

[ilya]

Ruler, dammit, shoot a ruler. How can you expect us to believe your test is credible if you're shooting casino chips?

[CyberDyneSystems]

ROFLMAO!

[Belmondo]

Ruler, dammit, shoot a ruler. How can you expect us to believe your test is credible if you're shooting casino chips?

You'd prefer buffalo chips?

A ruler it is. Next time, you'll get your stinking ruler pictures. Sheesh.

[robertwgross]

Ruler, dammit, shoot a ruler. How can you expect us to believe your test is credible if you're shooting casino chips?

The U.S. Secret Service is there to prevent you from shooting our ruler, the Pres.

---Bob Gross---

[Andy_T]

Sorry about that. There really isn't a fourth way. Just my dyslexia acting up. :oops:

There would be the 75-300 IS with the 1.4 extender ... might not even perform *that* bad at f/8.

regards,
Andy

[ShootTechPan]

I don't know, Harry. It's a valid test, I'm sure, but those are behaviors more typical of measurbators, and I'm certainly not one of them. In thinking the thing through, I probably did slant things a little by shooting at f/8, but I was really thinking of shooting them all more or less in their 'sweet spot' instead of pushing their limitations.

I think at f/5.6, the prime would probably do a little better than either of the zooms. Maybe I'll do that the next time I have all my equipment with me and a little time on my hands. :wink:

That would be great! Maybe a test of them all wide open, too :) I agree that measurbating isn't a good habit to get into, but it helps us potential buyers a whole lot.

You guys probably already know this, but Michael R. at LuminousLandscape.com has a good 400mm comparison, too.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

[chris.bailey]

Ruler, dammit, shoot a ruler. How can you expect us to believe your test is credible if you're shooting casino chips?

Be more specific. Would a Prime Minister do or do you want the Queen? What it has to do with lenses I dont know but who am I to ask :wink:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Tom W. !!!!!

I am shocked! Shocked I say!

To see that image of that young helpless Camera in the car,...
WITHOUT A CAR SEAT!! No SAFETY BELT!! :x

Not good my former friend,. not good at all.
I will be contacting DCYF with that photo as evidence of your negligence. :evil:

[Tom W]

Tom W. !!!!!

I am shocked! Shocked I say!

To see that image of that young helpless Camera in the car,...
WITHOUT A CAR SEAT!! No SAFETY BELT!! :x

Not good my former friend,. not good at all.
I will be contacting DCYF with that photo as evidence of your negligence. :evil:

But...But... the keys were in my pocket. The car wasn't moving.

Officer..... :D

Besides, the youngin' was strapped securely to the headrest with the custom-fitted Tamrac restraint system. :)

[Tom W]

Man, I've sure made some great friends in this forum. How can I turn down an offer like that?

Actually, I have a pickup truck with a crew cab. I keep most of the gear in the back seat except for the tripods which go in the back. It's a nuisance, and very rarely do I take it all with me. Today was something of a fluke.

One would expect one to keep one's Gitzo in the back of the truck. Where does the family sit?

(or is the Gitzo family) :D

Will Ian be jealous?

[Tom W]

Ruler, dammit, shoot a ruler. How can you expect us to believe your test is credible if you're shooting casino chips?

Did somebody say Ruler?

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/Ruler2.jpg

I'm hoping to get a lot of mileage out of that picture. :D

[Belmondo]

One would expect one to keep one's Gitzo in the back of the truck. Where does the family sit?

Wherever it wants!!


Actually, 'the family' is just my wife, the cat, and of course, Gitzo. The wife has the passenger side of the front seat all to herself. Gitzo stays in the back with his other 3-legged friends. Dollie (the cat) has free range of the entire vehicle, coming and going through the rear window; we have a shell on the truck, so the back is enclosed. Her favorite place to sit is on my wife's lap, and her trips to the back of the truck are generally limited to foraging for food, and using her box.

[Tom W]

Well, its pretty obvious who wears the lens in your family!

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/CarSeat.jpg

[Belmondo]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Tom:
If you're not already a bachelor, you soon will be.

Tom (W too)

[Tom W]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Tom:
If you're not already a bachelor, you soon will be.

Tom (W too)

Heh Heh! I am. I wouldn't dare post this otherwise. Even my friend's wife will chastize me for this post if she finds it. :D

[TeraGram93013]

Maybe I'll try it again for my own edification. Next time, I won't bore you guys with the results.

HEY!

One man's boredom is another's (woman in this case) geeky fascination.

I need to buy a big lens. I'm thoroughly diggin' the info. Keep it coming.

[IanD]

Ruler, dammit, shoot a ruler. How can you expect us to believe your test is credible if you're shooting casino chips?

Did somebody say Ruler?

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/Ruler2.jpg

I'm hoping to get a lot of mileage out of that picture. :D
Tom,
I thought you were going to mow the carpet and re-shoot :?:
Looks the same to me :lol:
Gitzo is awaiting his mulch (bagged, not tossed to the wind.)

[jim monroe]

For those interested in the above comparison there is the following

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

which IMHO is one of the best reviews I've read. It to me it is clear, specific, and what I want when making comparisons. Obviously to put together a full article like this takes time as well as having the appropriate lenses, neither one of which most of us have.
Hopefully those above requesting further tests will find this article interesting.

[Belmondo]

There'll be more coming, but I'm just not sure how soon.

Tom

[Tom W]

Tom,
I thought you were going to mow the carpet and re-shoot :?:
Looks the same to me :lol:
Gitzo is awaiting his mulch (bagged, not tossed to the wind.)

I was going to, but the neighbor called the city on me when I was setting up ramps on the front porch to drive the lawn tractor into the living room. Seems that there's an ordinance against using gasoline-powered machinery inside a dwelling. :)

I guess I'll have to use scissors - this could take a while. You'd best buy some feed for Gitzo.

[Tom W]

For those interested in the above comparison there is the following

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

which IMHO is one of the best reviews I've read. It to me it is clear, specific, and what I want when making comparisons. Obviously to put together a full article like this takes time as well as having the appropriate lenses, neither one of which most of us have.
Hopefully those above requesting further tests will find this article interesting.

I think that Luminous landscape ought to consider re-taking that test. It appears to me that the 100-400 wasn't focused properly, for whatever reason. I'm not denying or confirming that the prime 400 is better, but I don't think it would be that much better. I could be wrong, of course, which is why I'd like a second opinion.

I'm looking forward to Tom's next test, hopefully on some similar subject material, and adjusted for equal exposure level.

[By S]

I'm also looking forward to Part 2...hopefully tested wide open since that is often where I'm shooting in real life.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm not sure i would agree with the assesment that the 100-400 was out of focus in that test..

Not to knock the 100-400m m in ANY way at all,.

But look again at the full size image,. look at how microscopic the digital satelite dish is,.

Also,. rememebr that the 1Ds has a reputation for out reolving lenses and exposing there weaknesses...

If that shot wetre taken with any other digital,. you probably would not have seen much, if any difference between the two lenses,. as when you tried to zoom in that far (or blow up the crop I should say) the Camera limitations would have renedered both images just as murky...

It is the 1Ds' resolution that is allowing the opportunity for you to see the primes superior resolving power.

Does it matter?

Not really,. with most full sized images side by side you'd hard pressed to see the clarity advantage that the prime has. Only with the monster blow up is it possible.

The 400mm f/5.6 is a SERIOUSLY good peice of glass.

I don't think it takes anything away form the 100-400mm however to compare such an enlargement. Especially when you consider the uses.

For a birder,. this is why the 400mm f/5.6 is such a hugely popular lens though.

It allows the image to by cropped and enlarged significantly.. so that tufted titmouse will fill the print :)

[By S]

Also,. rememebr that the 1Ds has a reputation for out reolving lenses and exposing there weaknesses...
Folklore I think. The 300D has higher resolution than the 1Ds.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm not sure I understand the joke?

[Belmondo]

CDS:
I'm not sure it's a joke. He might be thinking of the ID.
If not, then it's too abstract for me, and I'll laugh at anything.

Tom

[CyberDyneSystems]

Aahaa....

Oh well,. we can't all make sense all of the time :wink:

[Tom W]

Is the pixel density of the 10D higher than that of the present 1Ds? Maybe that's what he's refering to.

I don't know - I'm just suggesting/asking.

[Belmondo]

TomW
That's a possibility, because it is higher. I can't remember by how much, but I did the math one day and it it is a higher density.

Okay, I get it. :D

[By S]

I'm not sure I understand the joke?

Now I'm confused...are you referring to my post? Why would you read it as a joke? I don't get it. Anyway just pointing out the fundamental assumption in your post was wrong. In fact the 300D has higher resolving power than the 1Ds due to higher pixel density in the 300D (or 10D for that matter).

[CyberDyneSystems]

Hmmm,. the pixel density is a good point.. but I don't think it is the whole story.

Sorry if I sounded rude in any way,. I just couldn't "get" what you meant. And we have a lot of "ironic posting fun" hear so I was just perplexed. :)

Anyway,. you make a good point,. but if pixel density were the whole story, then the 8MP Sony with it's much smaller than a 10D's sensor would have just about the highest pixel density of any camera out there,. the problems with increased Pixel density "currently" is that it introduces a lot of other issues like noise etc..

I don't know if you've read the in depth reviews,. but the Sony is no 300D either,. let alone a 1Ds

Some have said that with current technology,. the 6MP to 1.6X sensor is about the densist one shoud go before the density problems outweigh the resolving power benifits. (all of this I am sure will change as technology overcomes the existing hurdles)

Also,. as a genral rule of thumb,. larger pixel sensors result in better imaging, all else being equal. This is part of why the original 1D with 4 megapixles on a larger sensor than the 10D/Rebel can really hold it's own agaist the 6 MP sensor. Despite the MUCH higher pixel density of the 6MP.

So,. depite the 300D's greater pixel density,. it is generally understood that for the time being the most critical sensor being used with 35mmm lens systems is the sensor in the 1Ds...

The Kodaks 14MP sensor is unfortunately disqualified in most cases due to horrific firmware and processing in the camera that literally erases much of the sensors expected detail level.

[Scottes]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Also,. rememebr that the 1Ds has a reputation for out reolving lenses and exposing there weaknesses...

I'm not sure I understand the joke?

Now I'm confused...are you referring to my post? Why would you read it as a joke? I don't get it. Anyway just pointing out the fundamental assumption in your post was wrong. In fact the 300D has higher resolving power than the 1Ds due to higher pixel density in the 300D (or 10D for that matter).

The 1Ds will out-resolve lenses and expose their weaknesses. It's not simply a matter of the number of pixels. It has to do with the quality those pixels can capture, noise, etc, etc.

Think about a picture from the 1DS compared to a pictured from some Samyung 4.4 Megapixel camera that costs $200. Do you really think the Samyung is going to be better than the 1DS simply because it has more pixels? There's more to it than just the number of pixels.

[By S]

The 1Ds may be a better sensor, I'm not sure. That wasn't really the point in the original post where CDS said, "...It is the 1Ds' resolution that is allowing the opportunity for you to see the primes superior resolving power. " That's all I was responding to.

By the way, the 300D has both higher resolution and LESS noise than the 1Ds. :) But I throw that in just to keep Scottes honest. :) I can't comment on overall image quality since I've never used a 1Ds.

[Canon10D]

Tom, what are the shutter speeds in all the four pics u posted?

[Belmondo]

Tom, what are the shutter speeds in all the four pics u posted?

That's on the other computer (I'm sitting with my laptop watching a live high-speed pursuit on L.A. television)

I'lll check and post it for you later.

Tom

[IanD]

Tom, what are the shutter speeds in all the four pics u posted?

That's on the other computer (I'm sitting with my laptop watching a live high-speed pursuit on L.A. television)

I'lll check and post it for you later.

Tom
Beats the hell out of watching Martha Stewart or Survivor Lost in NY. :lol:
Then again with the way that LA traffic moves, 2 cars doing over 30mph is a high speed pursuit :lol:

[Belmondo]

Anyway, I've updated the pictures, so this is the thread with the newer pictures:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24218

[silvex]

dumb question. The 100-400 lens start at 100 and ends at 400, no problem. The 400 lens is fixed all the time at that focal length ? What uses can you have for that lens ?

[Rumrunner]

dumb question. The 100-400 lens start at 100 and ends at 400, no problem. The 400 lens is fixed all the time at that focal length ? What uses can you have for that lens ?

The simple answer :): Anything that requires 400mm or more. As CDS mentioned earlier, prime lenses offer the opportunity to crop and keep optimum quality.

[Lani Kai]

This is old...

[Rumrunner]

This is old...

Holy smokes you got that right. I wonder if Belmondo ever tested the corners at f5.6, he's had three years to do it :lol:

[silvex]

The simple answer :): Anything that requires 400mm or more. As CDS mentioned earlier, prime lenses offer the opportunity to crop and keep optimum quality.
even dumber question. If the starting point is 400mm what is the end ? infinity ?

[Tapeman]

I remember this thread. I was during Belmondo's "Four ways to shoot XXX mm" period. He also did 50 mm and one other as I recall.

[MDJAK]

I think all of the lenses used in this test are a tad soft. Send them to me for retesting immediately.

Also, which tripod was used here? Is it the tripod that was left by the side of the road? The tripod that you left at the bus depot? The tripod you left near the abandoned bus? The tripod you lost at the casino after they took your shirt too?

So, tell me, which one was it?:lol:

PS: You gotta love a forum where you can engage in sophmoric hijinx and jocularity with the Arbiter of Good Taste and not get tossed.

PPS: I'm the real arbiter of good taste around here though.:cry:

[Rumrunner]

even dumber question. If the starting point is 400mm what is the end ? infinity ?

Hmm, there is def a limit in terms of resolution. But put it this way, cropping 50% of your full sized picture taken at 400mm will give you the framing of an 800mm lens, and the quality is still very high with a 50% crop, on a normal print size.

[Woolburr]

PPS: I really bite.:cry:

Ain't it da truth!;)

[silvex]

Hmm, there is def a limit in terms of resolution. But put it this way, cropping 50% of your full sized picture taken at 400mm will give you the framing of an 800mm lens, and the quality is still very high with a 50% crop, on a normal print size.

Thanks

[Uhland]

eeessh, this thread has me considering buying the 70-200L now instead of the 100-400L
The IQ looks VERY CLOSE... Thanks.

Would like to see more comparison shots between the 100-400 and the 70-200 wide open if at all possible