New tests posted, plenty to peruse

4x4rock wrote:
Great tests. Really appreciated that you spent time doing all this.

Next in line, Wide lenses, sigma 12-24/Tokina 12-24/Tamron 11-18 and Canon 10-22

This next test gets my vote too...Please, please, please
I would also like to see what the difference 2mm makes at the wide end regarding FOV. Is it really worth getting the extra 2mm? Unless someone knows where test shots like this are.

Great tests and a tremendous effort on your part. Thank you
I am glad I got the 100-400 and your shots with the Kenko Pro have me leaning towards that 1.4x Tcon too.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Wonderful evaluation series.
I see no reason to alter my B&H wish list. 100-400 + Kenko TC it is.

Wow. I doubt I could afford the wagon!

Thanks for the info.

Excellent work Jojo.

Yeah, imagine how much I had to pay my son to let me use it Thanks folks for the comments and glad it's useful.

Haha, ouch. I just sold my 70-200 and picked up a second hand 300 f/4L IS off a fellow at fredmiranda. After seeing that comparison I'm a wee bit on edge. Doesn't seem like it faired to well with the 1.4x t-con.

Oh well, I'll have to run my own tests when it gets here.

RbrtPtikLeoSeny wrote:
Haha, ouch. I just sold my 70-200 and picked up a second hand 300 f/4L IS off a fellow at fredmiranda. After seeing that comparison I'm a wee bit on edge. Doesn't seem like it faired to well with the 1.4x t-con.

Oh well, I'll have to run my own tests when it gets here.

It should fare quite well with the teleconverter, but you'll likely find yourself stopping down about 2/3 of a stop for best results.

How come you didn't shoot off a few IS/OS shots handheld? I guess most people don't buy these lenses to specifically stick on tripods, they buy them to walkaround and assist with the shakes. Be interesting to see how they perform.

Doesn't look like you lose too much with the OS lens given the price, tho' the 100-400 IS is clearly of a higher IQ. As I'd expect. I'd also have expected the primes to have done a better job relative to the 100-400 IS L.

If composition was my main aim, I would want as much human input as posssible. But in lens tests, my main aim is objectivity, and that means as much removal of human input (i.e., human error) as possible. A tripod helps me do that. If I handheld the IS/OS lenses and posted shots, I'd get an earful from folks saying, "Well good for you, I'm glad to see you can handhold like that, but it says nothing for me." So in short, I'm after the best IQ these respective lenses can deliver, and the tripod gets that done. I'm sure you know where I'm coming from. Thanks for the comments, Dave.

Yes, I knew that was the case and that's entirely appropriate. I just thought it would be nice to get some basic sense of the relative merits of IS/OS. Good to see these tests and well done, as usual.

RbrtPtikLeoSeny wrote:
Haha, ouch. I just sold my 70-200 and picked up a second hand 300 f/4L IS off a fellow at fredmiranda. After seeing that comparison I'm a wee bit on edge. Doesn't seem like it faired to well with the 1.4x t-con. Oh well, I'll have to run my own tests when it gets here.

That's the double-edged sword of posting tests like mine. Don't get too caught up in the "paralysis of analysis" as you should take my findings with a grain of salt. After all, each lens I used is but one copy of thousands of others made. For example, I tend to think I got an excellent copy of the 100-400 but maybe a not so great copy of the Sigma 80-400 (will never know really). The 300 f4 was good all around but couldn't match with a 1.4xTC the 400 native lenses at 400mm and beyond (which it shouldn't be expected to). Others like their 300 + 1.4x combinations very much, and I don't doubt it one bit (and really I have no grounds to do so). So in short, I hope my tests are useful but they certainly aren't definitive; I don't think any test is. Each test simply adds to the overall contribution of a given lens' performance but isn't the last word.

Lenses gain reputations over time and I think that is very meaningful. The Canon 300mm f4 L IS USM has one of the best reputations of all, period. Enjoy your lens for all it is.

Very good job, and Helpfully. Thank you again, FstopJojo

I am extremely thankful for your great work and tremendous effort in doing these tests. I bought a used 100-400L IS and I thought it was just SOFT on my film EOS 1n. When I very recently purchased a Rebel XT, I found out that it had a focus problem. It is at Canon now being repaired and calibrated, I can hardly wait to try it now that I read your tests. I hope your copy is not a rare one. Thanks again for your work.