How much sharper??

[MrKickalot]

I was at the Cincinatti Zoo this weekend and it was a poor photographer's(if I can call myself that) dream. Pete's photo had 1.5 million dollars worth of N***n camera equipment there for free loan!! So I picked up a D70 and slapped on a lens in the same price range as the ones I have and took some pictures to compare to my DRebel.. pretty good.... then I wanted to go extreme... I went back and picked up a 300 2.8. Took some lion pictures, fine jpg, got it home and HOLY CRAP they are so sharp, no photoshop.. no nothing!! Of course that is a $4500 lens and I would expect that. I am assuming that the 300 2.8 canon is just as sharp.. correct me if I am wrong.

The big question here is......how much sharper is a 300 2.8 than a 100-400? Primes are expensive and impractical for me now but I was wondering if anyone had any experience with both of these lenses. I have a new standard now and don't want to be disappointed!!

[Mark Kemp]

I assume that you mean jpegs from the Nikon.

Nikon have much more in camera sharpening than Canon. Nikon assume that you are taking jpegs for direct print or other 'rapid turn around' type activities and apply what they think is the right amount of sharpening.

Canon have very little in camera sharpening because 1 they reckon that you will want to do it yourself and 2 what they do give produces a more subtle and less noisy result. Some people do think that the Nikon overdoes it a bit and on my mates D100 you do sometimes see a little bit of fringing on sharp edges and some of their compacts are worse.

But primarily there is a not a major difference in the lens or the RAW image capture quality, just a philosophical difference in the post processing applied.

[scottbergerphoto]

Nikon uses CCD's. Canon uses CMOS sensors with AA filters in front. The images produced by a CCD are much sharper prior to sharpening then ones produced by a CMOS sensor with Anti Aliasing Filter in front of it. Many people who went from the 1D(CCD) to the 1D Mark II(CMOS), now have to get used to sharpening in Photoshop. After some USM, they both look very sharp, but the color of the one shot with a Canon kills the Nikon any day.
Regards,
Scott

[CyberDyneSystems]

... but he saw jpgs from the "standard" lens on the D70 and from the 300 2.8,,... and it is this difference that was remarkable...

So lens Vs. Lens... yes the Canon 300mm f/2.8 I am sure will give just as good results as the Nikon lens will. It is in fact one of Canon's best lenses period. ( as is the Nikon 300 one of there best)

What I can not tell you is an objective comparison of a 300mm prime Vs. the 100-400mm.. for a Zoom.. the 100-400mm is amazing.. but against a prime?

Even my Sigma (with the Stigma) Prime is noticeably better than the 100-400mm.. so yes the 300mm Canon will be too.. more so.. But.. will it be enough to justify the additional cost both in dollars and weight?

That only you can decide.

[MrKickalot]

Mark/Scott:

Thanks for the info!

I think I rambled on too much and lost the forest for the trees!! I don't care as much how the Nikon compares to the Canon. I like my Canon and don't plan to change... I was more interested in how much sharper Canon prime lenses ( say 300 2.8 ) are than the Canon 100-400. I know prime is always sharper but....how much sharper! I am really thinking about this lens but if it is substantually soft compared to primes or other lenses in the same "class" I may want to look into another lens or save forever for primes!

Thanks!

[Pekka]

There is one comparison in 400mm at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/DXO-Tests/dxo-canon-400mm.shtml

[scottbergerphoto]

Mark/Scott:

Thanks for the info!

I think I rambled on too much and lost the forest for the trees!! I don't care as much how the Nikon compares to the Canon. I like my Canon and don't plan to change... I was more interested in how much sharper Canon prime lenses ( say 300 2.8 ) are than the Canon 100-400. I know prime is always sharper but....how much sharper! I am really thinking about this lens but if it is substantually soft compared to primes or other lenses in the same "class" I may want to look into another lens or save forever for primes!

Thanks!
The 100-400 IS L gets the most work on my Mark II. The majority of my RC Flying pics are shot with that lens as are many of my candid portraits. It's sharp and extremely versatile.

http://www.pbase.com/image/29513366%20.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/20905204.jpg

I recently bought the Canon 400 f/5.6 hoping to get more reliable AF Servo in poor lighting, but haven't put it though its paces. An F/ 2.8 Canon 300 or 400 is crazy expensive. I'll have to sell alot of pictures before I go that route.
Regards,
Scott

[slin100]

Nikon uses CCD's. Canon uses CMOS sensors with AA filters in front. The images produced by a CCD are much sharper prior to sharpening then ones produced by a CMOS sensor with Anti Aliasing Filter in front of it.
Whether the sensor is a CCD or CMOS has nothing to do with the antialias (AA) filter. All digital sampling systems, including digital cameras, technically require antialias filters to pre-filter out information the system is incapable of faithfully sampling. Without such a filter, a digital imaging system can exhibit undesirable artifacts, such as moire.

Despite this requirement, some manufacturers, such as Sigma and Kodak, have chosen not to include an antialias filter. To most people, the most apparent effect of this design decision is that images appear much sharper than images from cameras with antialias filters. But there can also be differences among cameras with antialias filters because the filter itself can be weak or strong. For the record, the Nikon D70 does have an antialias filter. It just happens to be weak compared to ones used by Canon. OTOH, the D70's well-known moire is an consequence of the weak filter.

[robertwgross]

Whether the sensor is a CCD or CMOS has nothing to do with the antialias (AA) filter. All digital sampling systems, including digital cameras, technically require antialias filters to pre-filter out information the system is incapable of faithfully sampling. Without such a filter, a digital imaging system can exhibit undesirable artifacts, such as moire.


Yes, and the antialias filter is also referred to as a Nyquist filter.

You know, in college, I thought that was a pretty tough topic. Now I just accept it.

---Bob Gross---

[maderito]

Whether the sensor is a CCD or CMOS has nothing to do with the antialias (AA) filter. All digital sampling systems, including digital cameras, technically require antialias filters to pre-filter out information the system is incapable of faithfully sampling. Without such a filter, a digital imaging system can exhibit undesirable artifacts, such as moire.


Yes, and the antialias filter is also referred to as a Nyquist filter.

You know, in college, I thought that was a pretty tough topic. Now I just accept it.

---Bob Gross---
Harry Nyquist (http://www.ieee.org/organizations/history_center/legacies/nyquist.html) was a modest man who spent some time in New Haven CT before moving on and up in the world. The Nyquist theorem (http://home.fuse.net/injanius/), like the work of other brilliant men, was just one of his many contributions to science. He did not live to see or use a digital camera. :(

[RichardtheSane]

If KennyG pops his head in I believe he has both the 300 F2.8 and the 100-400L

:)

[KennyG]

If KennyG pops his head in I believe he has both the 300 F2.8 and the 100-400L

:)

Hello, somone call?

You have to realise that the 300 2.8 IS is probably Canon's sharpest and fastest (to focus) lens. It is in a different category to the 100-400L. For starters it is of a much newer design with optics that were designed to take TC's without seriously effecting image quality.

The 100-400L is a very sharp lens, no doubt about it. It has superb contrast and is clean corner to corner. The 300 is sharper again (so it should be for more than 3 times the price), it has no nasties at all and superb bokeh.

Let's look at two examples. The following was taken with my 1D, 100-400L at 400mm, 1/320 and F5.6 Probably the worst case scenario, max zoom, wide open. The car was approaching me at 80-90mph and I was using AI Servo, picking up focus 20 yards back. There has been no post-processing other than that done by Capture 1. It is more than acceptable for sharpness bearing in mind the subject matter.

http://www.motorpix.co.uk/images2/C1Pro-005.jpg

This was taken with the 1D and 300 2.8 IS also at 1/320 and F5.6. As it is red and Ferrari, he wasn't hanging about.

http://www.motorpix.co.uk/images8/cr-07.jpg

The first thing you notice is how the image from the 300 seems to jump off the screen at you compared to the one from the 100-400L. Also, you will notice how you can measure the DOF just by looking at the image and how nicely it goes OOF. Ok, it isn't a true direct side-by-side comparison, but it is how I over all find the difference between the two.

And, to finish my praise for the 300, this was taken on Sunday. It was a quick shot of one of the top rallycross drivers. I was on my way back to the car when I spotted him being interviewed. I was some 60ft away with the 1D and 300+1.4TC fired up and took this quick hand-held shot. Not exactly a walk-around lens for candids, but I just love the look of what it does.


http://www.stiuk.dial.pipex.com/rx-port.jpg