Anyone have side by side photo comparisons?
J.Litton Goldmember ![]() 1,741 posts Likes: 16 Joined Jan 2010 Location: Florida's Treasure Coast More info | Oct 08, 2010 21:32 | #1 Anyone have side by side photo comparisons? 7D MK II.17-40L.100-400L.500L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
liquidstone insane Bird photographer ![]() 1,089 posts Likes: 114 Joined Dec 2005 More info | Oct 08, 2010 21:40 | #2 Romy Ocon, Philippine Wild Birds
LOG IN TO REPLY |
richardfox Goldmember ![]() 1,883 posts Joined Oct 2009 Location: Bellbrook, Ohio, USA More info | Oct 08, 2010 23:09 | #3 Well, this one will start a battle for sure! I've always had the general belief that primes are sharper than zooms, and there is a lot of data and tests confirming this situation. However, I've compared my 100-400 (set at 300mm for the test) with my 300 2.8. I'm finding the same result in that sharpness is nearly equal. Canon 50D gripped, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 10-22, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 100/2.8 macro, 100-400L, 300 2.8L, Canon 500 f8 mirror with chipped EF mount, 580EX, 1.4x and 2x Canon teleconverters, Canon EF Life-Size converter.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
phreeky Goldmember 3,514 posts Likes: 15 Joined Oct 2007 Location: Australia More info | Oct 08, 2010 23:52 | #4 The 100-400 is a complex zoom with heaps of elements. You'll probably find that all the primes are equally fantastic, and the zooms vary from stupidly sharp to somewhat disappointing. If I'd had the option of buying locally and testing prior to purchase I probably would've considered the zoom, but I had to buy online (due to my location).
LOG IN TO REPLY |
liquidstone insane Bird photographer ![]() 1,089 posts Likes: 114 Joined Dec 2005 More info | Oct 09, 2010 00:35 | #5 richardfox wrote in post #11061897 ![]() Shooting charts is one thing, but field performance is what really matters! Some samples from the field from my 100-400 IS: Romy Ocon, Philippine Wild Birds
LOG IN TO REPLY |
nightcat Goldmember 4,533 posts Likes: 28 Joined Aug 2008 More info | Oct 09, 2010 00:38 | #6 here's one comparison
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MOkoFOko nut impotent and avoiding Geoff ![]() 19,889 posts Likes: 21 Joined Jun 2010 Location: Michigan More info | Oct 09, 2010 00:38 | #7 richardfox wrote in post #11061897 ![]() Well, this one will start a battle for sure! I've always had the general belief that primes are sharper than zooms, and there is a lot of data and tests confirming this situation. However, I've compared my 100-400 (set at 300mm for the test) with my 300 2.8. I'm finding the same result in that sharpness is nearly equal. Anyone wanting to comment on the review that was posted? I'd like to see the opinions! Shooting charts is one thing, but field performance is what really matters! Well that's a slight shocker... still, I'd rather have f/2.8 vs f/6.3 at that range
LOG IN TO REPLY |
C4Miles Goldmember ![]() 1,050 posts Joined Sep 2007 Location: South Texas More info | Here is another comparison link, http://www.naturescapes.net …iewtopic.php?f=1&t=127089 Miles
LOG IN TO REPLY |
condyk Africa's #1 Tour Guide ![]() 20,887 posts Likes: 22 Joined Mar 2005 Location: Birmingham, UK More info | Oct 09, 2010 03:42 | #9 Owned three 100-400s and none compared to my 3 x 400mm's ... others may find different results. My opinion is the zoom has variable quality across copies while the prime is consistent. This has been debated many times and really the only way to satisfy yourself is buy both and return the one you don't like. You can only count on the lens you have on your own camera. https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php?t=1203740
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Tanglefoot47 Goldmember ![]() 2,413 posts Joined Oct 2005 Location: Tulalip WA about 40 miles north of Seattle More info | Oct 09, 2010 04:04 | #10 adam8080 wrote in post #11061507 ![]() Do a search Maybe he has?? never hurts to ask sometimes you might find what your asking for
LOG IN TO REPLY |
harcosparky Goldmember More info | Oct 09, 2010 05:24 | #11 Go to a camera shop and do your own side by side comparison. adam8080 wrote in post #11061507 ![]() Do a search And if he does a search, and finds a 6 year old thread on the topic?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jm4ever Senior Member ![]() More info | Oct 09, 2010 06:31 | #12 A few years ago I decided to buy the 400L even thou I already had the 100-400 as I kept reading people saying over and over the prime was much better. But in the end I returned the prime as it didn't really give me anything better than I was already getting with the zoom.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Livinthalife Cream of the Crop ![]() 5,118 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jan 2006 Location: Austin,TX More info | Oct 09, 2010 06:34 | #13 Focus speed and bokeh are the most noticeable differences. Fast focus on a prime as there are less elements. And for the samples, bokeh is better on the prime as well...BUT having the flexibility of a zoom is a huge befit.... -Andy-
LOG IN TO REPLY |
J.Litton THREAD STARTER Goldmember ![]() 1,741 posts Likes: 16 Joined Jan 2010 Location: Florida's Treasure Coast More info | Oct 09, 2010 07:21 | #14 Thanks for the links and support! Does anyone have any pictures of the two of together them for a size comparison? 7D MK II.17-40L.100-400L.500L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Tyreman Goldmember 1,073 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Cambridge,Ontario,Canada More info | Oct 09, 2010 07:37 | #15 I have had and used both. Canon 1DX II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting! |
| ||
Latest registered member is Mannyromano123 585 guests, 189 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |