Four Ways to Shoot 400mm -- A Comparison

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.

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

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

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

Really, they are pretty doggone close.

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.

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?

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

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.

belmondo ,

Post em. I appreciate the information!

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.

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

LMAO!

Are you a novelist as well by any chance?

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.

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

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