Four Ways to Shoot 400mm --- AGAIN!

[Belmondo]

I tried my little experiment again today. I was killing time this morning at a construction site, and decided to repeat the process using a different subject, and with the lenses wide open whenever possible. This time, there really is a 4th lens. I also shot with my 70-200 using the 2X extender. The loss of two f-stops meant I had to shoot this particular shot at f8, but everything else is the same. These are all 100% (screen resolution) crops of the actual images. As before, there has been absolutely no post processing in any of these pictures.

I don’t know what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from this except to say that they’re all pretty darned good. To my eye (such as it is), they fall just about where you’d expect them to. The prime is best, the 100-400 does well, and the two lenses with the doubler on them are surprising.

I don’t question that these pictures could be improved by not shooting them wide open, but then, this was a test.

Opinions?

This is the actual view from where I was shooting. I took this with my 50mm f1.4, and include it for reference only. My subject was the house right in the middle with the windows in the garage door.
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/35350mm-med.jpg

The first shot is with the 400 f/5.6L
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/353400mm-med.jpg

This is the 100-400. For some reason, the EXIF date says it was shot at a focal length of 375mm. I don’t know why it says that because the lens was fully extended.
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/353100-400-med.jpg

Again, I decided to try the 70-200 f/2.8L IS with the 2X extender.
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/35370-200_with_extender-med.jpg

This is the one I forgot about last time. It’s the 70-200 f/4L with the 2X extender.
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/35370-200_f4_with_extender-med.jpg

[Tom W]

Tom - I'm on the laptop so its hard to tell, but it looks like the 400 prime is a little darker again. Can you go to the RAW and bump it up a half stop? Or am I seeing things wrong on the LCD.

[Belmondo]

You're right. I deliberately left it that way for the sake of intellectual honesty---all the pictures are exactly the way they came out of the camera. I didn't do anything except re-size and crop. It is interesting, though, isn't it? It defintely has some effect on the camera's metering.

[Tom W]

Yes, there is some kind of effect going on. Just for fun, I'd like to see what would happen if you equalized the brightness a little. I'm wondering if the slightly darker first image is making it even sharper than it is.

This is hard for me as I'm on the LCD tonight. I'll look at them tomorrow on the CRT. They all look pretty doggone good, but the first two do have the advantage.

[IanD]

To me eyes the prime is sharper but as noted darker.
The other 3 shots are not slouches by any stretch.
It would be interesting to see the same pictures again with the lens stopped down equally.

[chris.bailey]

Intersesting that the Prime looks darker and with more contrast. Must be a problem with the metering between them but its hard to understand why this should be the case. As said elsewhere it would be interesting to have a series of shots at the same aperture setting. Would also be interesting to see that series at say 300%.

Are we getting close to being measurebators?

[Belmondo]

Maybe someday soon I'll do that. I'd like to try them all at, say, f/8 or higher. That's what the 2X extender does to thee 70-200 f4 (2 full f stops). I think the differences would be even more pronounced.

Tom

[Tom W]

Intersesting that the Prime looks darker and with more contrast. Must be a problem with the metering between them but its hard to understand why this should be the case. As said elsewhere it would be interesting to have a series of shots at the same aperture setting. Would also be interesting to see that series at say 300%.

Are we getting close to being measurebators?

Actually, I think that the prime is reporting f/5.6 to the camera but its aperture is slightly smaller, say 1/3 or so stops smaller. Its not a big differrence, and if the pictures weren't adjacent to each other, one probably would never notice.

That said, I'm looking at them on my CRT now. Yes, the prime has a slight edge in contrast and resolution, but none of the other 3 are anywhere close to bad. They're all very sharp.

I find this test very interesting in light of the test done by the Luminous Landscape which found a drastic difference between the 100-400L and the 400 prime. I respect LL's testing, but I can't help but think that something went wrong with that particular comparison.

Tom, any 200% + crops available? I don't think they're necessary but I'd like to put this issue to rest. :D

[By S]

For me the prime is definitely more contrasty with less flare, whether it's actual exposure is much darker is harder to say. Also resolution assessment is hard since there isn't much detail (any?) in the picture. But overall the images do seem to get softer as expected.

The 100-400mm is definitely the "shortest" lens in the bunch...apparently the 375mm reported is accurate. So I guess it isn't really a 400mm lens.

[Belmondo]

TomW:
I'm on my way out the door right now (to take wifey to the hair dresser). I'm guessing I won't get a chance to work on this until much later today if at all, but I will try to work those up for you.

I can't comment on Luminous Landscape's test. I've seen it, and all I can say is, my results appear to be different. :?

You may be right about the cause of the 5.6 image being darker. Initially I thought the result of the first series might have just been an anomaly, but the result in the second set is nearly identical.

I think the thing that surprised me most was the quality of the two 70-200 zooms. I certainly would not have predicted it, especially based on earlier experiences with the 2X extender. Admittedly, the f/4 lens had a little advantage in that the lowest effective aperture I could get out of it was f/8---the 2X extender slows the lens down two full f-stops. I felt I could partially overcome some of that advantage by using a subject far enough away to eliminate any possible benefit from the additional depth of field.

Ultimately the question boils down to: Do I really need 4 different lens/lens combinations capable of shooting 400mm? I think I have to sell something.
:(

[Tom W]

For me the prime is definitely more contrasty with less flare, whether it's actual exposure is much darker is harder to say. Also resolution assessment is hard since there isn't much detail (any?) in the picture. But overall the images do seem to get softer as expected.

The 100-400mm is definitely the "shortest" lens in the bunch...apparently the 375mm reported is accurate. So I guess it isn't really a 400mm lens.

You know, now that you mention it, maybe its the greater contrast that makes the prime appear darker. Look at the white diagonal trim - its as bright, if not brighter, on the prime as it is on the 100-400 zoom. Perhaps its the wider range of contrast that makes it appear darker.

Really hard to say, and we're probably splitting hairs on that issue.

[Jack_C]

Just a note, the Canon 2x extender adds 2 stops to the aperture display to compensate for the loss of light it causes, but it does not change the lenses aperture.

Example, if you want to compare the performance of the lenses with apertures at f/8 you would have to stop down an additional 2 stops when the extender is attached, to f/16.

Otherwise you are comparing the prime with aperture at f/8 to the 70-200 with aperture at f/4.

[iwatkins]

Interesting....

I usually find shots from primes to be sharper out of the camera. In addition, they tend to have more contrast and usually much better colour rendition.

The Prime image is obviously darker for the shadow areas and the background (mountains), but the white of the boards doesn't look much (if any) lighter. I would say it is giving you image with much more contrast, which is good in my book.

But anyway, all shots are close. So close I wouldn't bother with the prime to be honest. I will take it off your hands for nothing, if you pay shipping. :wink:

Cheers

Ian

[MarkH]

TomW:
Ultimately the question boils down to: Do I really need 4 different lens/lens combinations capable of shooting 400mm? I think I have to sell something.
:(

Clearly you don't require the 70-200 f2.8L IS or 2x converter.

Please send them to me.

[hmhm]

Otherwise you are comparing the prime with aperture at f/8 to the 70-200 with aperture at f/4.

Actually, I think testing the lenses at the same effective aperture is the most appropriate "apples to apples" comparison. A 70-200/4 zoomed to 200mm and with diaphragm set to f/4 with a 2x tele-converter is a 400mm lens at f/8 in all respects, from exposure to depth of field, etc.
-harry

[ShootTechPan]

Another awesome comparo, thanks Belmondo!

If you have a minute, could you post 100% crops of one of the edges or corners from each lens? That should be pretty informative, too. Of course, I guess what we're seeing depends on if you're using a 1Ds, 1D or 10D/Rebel/D60/D30 (1.6 crop).

So IS works just fine on the 70-200mm 2.8 IS and 2X Extender? If so I think we have a (budget) winner.

[typer77]

I am still a newbie; so it is very interesting to see all these differences with difference lenses combo.

the Prime looks like it has more clarity. If you look at the layers of the roof shielding (you know what I mean) it is much clearer than the 70-200 with 2X.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Another awesome comparo, thanks Belmondo!


So IS works just fine on the 70-200mm 2.8 IS and 2X Extender? If so I think we have a (budget) winner.


How so? The 70-200mm IS costs about $700.00 more than the Prime? (it is in fact by far the most expensive lens listed)

Add in another $250.00 for the 2X and you've spent nearly $1K more to get a picture clearly not as good as the prime (albiet very good in it's own rights)

If one needed a zoom and a 400mm I would recommend either the 70-200mm f/4 or even a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for about $600.00 and the 400mm f/5.6 prime, all together for the same price as the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS

[Belmondo]

Good points, Jake.

If I was going to be doing a lot of shooting strictly at 400mm, the prime would be the obvious choice. I think it's the 'clear' winner in the comparison. The reality is, however, I need the extra versatility of the 100-400 zoom, so that's the lens I'll use for the vast majority of my long shots. Image Stabilization is another bonus.

The 70-200 (either of them) with the TC is really a bandaid when you have the real thing in your bag. The much-tauted 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a wonderful lens within its intended focal range. With the TC on it, it becomes only so-so, and a less-than-perfect performer at the longer focal lengths.

Even though it wasn’t the absolute best performer at 400mm, I’d still stick with the 100-400L.

Then, there’s the 400 f/2.8L……..it’s not in my little comparison because I can’t afford it. But wouldn’t it be fun?

[timmyquest]

ok, so we got 4 ways to 400.

and i'm about 100 times more confused as to what i want now.

That gets me to 400 :-)

[CyberDyneSystems]

...Even though it wasn’t the absolute best performer at 400mm, I’d still stick with the 100-400L.

Then, there’s the 400 f/2.8L……..it’s not in my little comparison because I can’t afford it. But wouldn’t it be fun?

400mm f/2.8 8)

I can only dream... but it's the 800mm f/5.6 with 2X that really opens the eyes :shock:

If I could have only one of the lenses above,. and I knew that 400mm outdoors was more of a priorty than 200mm indoors or in low light,. but I still required the flexibilty of a zoom... I agree with you Tom that the 100-400mm is not only a great choice but probably the best.

It all dpends on what you are doing.

[Guillermo Freige]

Belmondo:
I think the EXIF says 375 because the real focal lenght is in fact 375 :)
If you compare this particular shot with the rest, you'll notice the area covered is larger than the other shots. It's possible the 100-400 is in fact a 100-375 lens?

[Belmondo]

Belmondo:
I think the EXIF says 375 because the real focal lenght is in fact 375 :)
If you compare this particular shot with the rest, you'll notice the area covered is larger than the other shots. It's possible the 100-400 is in fact a 100-375 lens?

OMG

I've been robbed.

Since it's a push/pull zoom, maybe I just didn't pull hard enough on it. :?

[BrettD]

I was just looking through some of my shots with the 100-400 L and many of them say 400mm in the exif data.

Did you send in the rebate card that came with the lense to get the extra 25mm ?

Brett D

[tarves57]

I would be very interested to see a comparison at 400mm using the 300m/f4 L IS plus 1.4x extender.

I bought myself the 100-400mm recently, to use for bird photography, but birds being the size they are, I found that after cropping, the sharpness was not ideal, probably because of the dull winter days. I've heard someone call the 100-400 a "good weather lens" and sure enough, a couple of photos I took when the sunlight was good were sharp, but Scottish weather being what it is, and because I usually shoot at full length, I decided I would be better off with the 300 IS + 1.4x and it has been recommended as having better sharpness in dull light.

I won't be able to tell though, until they get my bloomin' order in!
I enjoyed seeing what you have shown so far though!
Susan

[ShootTechPan]

Hey Belmondo,

Again, great thread... can you post some more 100% clips from this test? Thanks.

[Jim_T]

Great post.. It's always nice to SEE the differences between lenses rather than endlessly discussing them.

The 400 and 100-400 images definitely look darker.. It may be a slight variation in metering, but I think contrast has a lot to do with it.

The bottom 70-200 images with the 2x mutiplier are definitely lighter, but I don't see a great difference in sharpness.

As far as the exif on the 100-400.. My 100-400 always shows 400mm when fully extended...

You know what I'd really like to see (if it's not too much trouble :) ).. I'd love to see a comparision between the 70-200 f/2.8 at 200mm and the 100-400 at 200mm.. (With both of them stopped down to around f/5.6 - f/8 ).

[Belmondo]

Hey Belmondo,

Again, great thread... can you post some more 100% clips from this test? Thanks.

I don't know what else I could do with the shots I already have except to grab some 100% crops from out near the edges of the shots. Maybe I'll do that.

The 400 prime is not currently available. I've loaned it a friend who's thinking of buying one, and he isn't quite close enough to 'borrow it back' for a short time. Although I will soon have another way to shoot 400mm (300 f/4 w/1.4X TC), it still is not likely to be as good as the prime, especially in this type of evaluation.

Maybe when the prime comes back in a couple months I'll take more time and do a more thorough test.

Sorry.

[karusel]

Very interesting comparison, thanx belmondo. The 100-400 disappointed me a bit though... but I'll go and buy it for the same reason that you'll keep it. Soon. 8)

[ShootTechPan]

I guess I was hoping to see some higher contrast areas (such as the leaves just on the edge of the crop). Or I guess you could post the complete original files! :) Then we can measurebate to our hearts' content. I can host them for you if you need space.

[minatophase3]

ok, so we got 4 ways to 400.

and i'm about 100 times more confused as to what i want now.

That gets me to 400 :-)

I am with you. As a newbie I don't see a lot of difference between the 4 shots. Looking at them I am now leaning towards the 70-200 IS and a 2x converter. Just this morning I had made my mind up on the 100-400 IS :x . I guess I just keep reading the board and change my mind another 100 times before I get something :lol: .

[MDJAK]

You've had three years to save for the 400 f2.8. A few less trips to the hairdresser and you'd have it.

me

[MDJAK]

Oh, btw, if you're the arbiter of good taste, what does that make me?

[JaGWiRE]

I don't know what else I could do with the shots I already have except to grab some 100% crops from out near the edges of the shots. Maybe I'll do that.

The 400 prime is not currently available. I've loaned it a friend who's thinking of buying one, and he isn't quite close enough to 'borrow it back' for a short time. Although I will soon have another way to shoot 400mm (300 f/4 w/1.4X TC), it still is not likely to be as good as the prime, especially in this type of evaluation.

Maybe when the prime comes back in a couple months I'll take more time and do a more thorough test.

Sorry.
I am curious how the 300 f4 will preform. I am guessing users of this lens who own the teleconverter use it 1/4 to 1/2 of the time with the teleconverter.
PS, AF speed on the 70-200 2.8 with a 2x tele can't compete with the 1-4 or 400 5.6 or 300 f4 with 1.4 I think (from what I think I remember reading, correct me if I'm wrong though.)

[Tapeman]

Daga vu all over again. (I know that is spelled wrong.)

[MDJAK]

Daga vu all over again. (I know that is spelled wrong.)


Deja Vu. I know that is spelled right.

[bbbig]

Hi - I know this thread is pretty old, but I was wondering if you ever got around shooting the other 3 combos at f/8 for an equal comparison. I'm very interested, as I'm currently considering either 70-200 f/2.8 IS or 70-200 f/4 IS. Thanks.

[Calzinger]

Anyone else as impressed as I am with the 70-200 2.8 and 2xTC?