500mm Vs 100-400mm

Given that I am using an eos 30d at 8 mega pxl. Should one be able to see a deffinate difference in the quality of file obtained from the 500mm F4 and the 100-400 F4-5.6.
Or is the 100-400 lens of sufficient quality that I would need to go up to say a 5D at 12 megs before there was any noticable difference.?

I ask this being aware of the differences between the lenses and am speaking of image quality in general terms. Is 8 Megs a limiting factor here?

County Man wrote in post #5446298
Given that I am using an eos 30d at 8 mega pxl. Should one be able to see a deffinate difference in the quality of file obtained from the 500mm F4 and the 100-400 F4-5.6.

In one word "yes".

Not used either, but I would say 8mp is plenty to see the superiority of the 500

I have both and there is no comparison. Using then on 30d and 1dmk2. But you won't find that much difference in picture quality to say justify $4000 difference. But there are other things like AF speed, 500mm vs 380mm something, 500mm able to take 1.4xTC to make superb 700mm f5.6 lens and so on.

Examples

100-400L

I'm not understanding how you're thinking the lens relates to image quality in terms of megapixels. Since the focal lengths are different, if you took a photo of the same exact thing, you'd have to crop with the 100-400 to get the same size subject, and of course the image quality would be different because of that. But that's not because the lens is inferior, it's simply a difference in focal length. If you were proportionally closer to the subject with the 100-400, then I still really don't see what you mean. I have both lenses and have gotten great images with each.

gymell wrote in post #5446721
I'm not understanding how you're thinking the lens relates to image quality in terms of megapixels. Since the focal lengths are different, if you took a photo of the same exact thing, you'd have to crop with the 100-400 to get the same size subject, and of course the image quality would be different because of that. But that's not because the lens is inferior, it's simply a difference in focal length. If you were proportionally closer to the subject with the 100-400, then I still really don't see what you mean. I have both lenses and have gotten great images with each.

I have what I think is a very sharp copy of my 100-400. I have taken images over the past year which I am very happy with. I have had my 500 lens about 6 months and just feel underwhelmed by the images i am getting from it especially at F4. I sent it to Canon who as stated on the worksheet; checked and adjusted tilt and centering, Adjusted focus, cleaned and tested but on return after shooting with it I am still underwhelmed. Just trying to guage opinion. I will try to post some examples.

I know its not a good comparrison/example but I was out to take pics not compare. I will put others up. These actually look sharper than the full sized image because of sharpening for web but I hope it gives some indication of my thoughts. You can see some others here shot with the 500. Just a check when it came bac from repair. http://markenglish.smu​gmug.com …114_kQ8iJ#28806​5462_hMfSo
1st shot is 500 2nd 100-400. Sorry about the poor samples.
Thanks for the comments so far.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

And the problem is?

I still don't understand what you looking for.

bobbyz wrote in post #5446964
And the problem is?

I still don't understand what you looking for.

I guess I am looking for a bit more pop and better sharpness. I guess you feel these are ok but thats part of the problem I can only compare with what I see on the web and I just cannot seem to get the same quality despite best efforts. Or am I expecting too much?

In general, the longer the lens, the longer it takes to get good with it. Yes, a significant difference 'tween 400 and 500. Many people are not WOWed with their 500 right out of the box. Pratice?

Major diference between the two.

As a matter of fact i didnt believe people when they said that even the 400 f5.6 L was much better than the 100-400L and tested them side by side.

The 100-400 did excellent tll about the 300mm range, then the sharpness goes south. That and the contrast and color.

Hope it helps

the wow factor also depend on the subject you shot.

Honestly I'm not seeing the difference between the two when it comes to sharpness and "pop". I'm not sure how much more you're going to get, with the distance involved here.

the main thing is your at f6.3 at 400 but f4 on the 500 so gain SS AND THE sharpness wil be better too.
Rob.

OK, here are some 100% crops for you. The color/contrast from 500mm f4 are better.

100_400 at 400 and at f5.6