Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 16 Mar 2009 (Monday) 16:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Telephoto: 100-400, 300/4L IS, 400/5.6

 
krb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,818 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Where southern efficiency and northern charm come together
     
Mar 21, 2009 13:41 |  #31

Roy Webber wrote in post #7568372 (external link)
Yes, me too...but at what cost and how darn heavy?;)

It would be perfect in a pintle mount on a vehicle, like the machine guns on those World War II Jeeps. :lol:


-- Ken
Comment and critique is always appreciated!
Flickr (external link)
Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,388 posts
Gallery: 572 photos
Likes: 2720
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Mar 21, 2009 14:43 |  #32

Roy Webber wrote in post #7568372 (external link)
Yes, me too...but at what cost and how darn heavy?;)

Well the closest thing i can think of is the 200-500 f/2.8 Sigma...

its $24,000 and if i remember right, over 30lbs...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattia
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
528 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2009
     
Apr 03, 2009 17:26 as a reply to  @ KenjiS's post |  #33

Right, finally cleared some time to process the RAW files from various test shootouts. First thing that became clear: I'll need to improve my technique a bit, because there's still too much motion blur/me not paying enough attention to shutter speed! I'm too used to shooting wide.

Bottom line: the 70-200/2.8 with a 1.4 TC is close to the 300/4L, although the latter does have the IQ edge. Gets a little more complicated with the 100-400; overall, contrast is about the same, I'd say sharpness is slightly better for the 300. Sample shots below. The most important thing to keep in mind is that the 100-400 was shot around midday, on a gray/overcast day, while the 300 was shot by the riverside on more or less the first properly sunny day we had, so it's major advantage is the light it had to play with; good light makes everything look, well, nicer! Tried to take some pics (insofar as possible from the store's doorway) that would exhibit shadow and highlight detail, contrast, texture, and a little bit of CA torture.

First, the 100-400:
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mattia_v/340969​4973/ (external link)

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mattia_v/341051​6476/ (external link)
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR


And the 300 F/4L:
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mattia_v/341049​8556/ (external link)
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mattia_v/340969​2211/ (external link)
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mattia_v/340968​1603/ (external link)
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR


Please do click on the pictures for full res.

As stated, the shots from the 300 are more vibrant, and I'm tempted to attribute most of that to the available light. What does bother me more, however, is the relatively visible CA, more so in the 300 F/4 shots than in the 100-400 shots. Treetops wide open against a white sky is sure to bring it out, but the 100-400 shot of the tram lines (did a tree, but at f8, and that didn't have any CA) is pretty much clean. Even the shot of the girl walking her dog (subject is clean as a whistle) exhibits some pretty wild CA on all the parked cars/every OOF area is fringed in green and/or magenta. not visible at web res, but go in closer/screen filling on a 23" monitor and it's visible, and it's certainly visible at 100%. Is this normal, or is that copy a bit of a bum lens? Reason it 'worries' me is that I'd want to use the lens with a 1.4x TC, meaning I'd be introducing more CA, rather than less. For the record: the 70-200 with TC was cleaner.

Even this shot has pretty visible CA (look at the pigeon's feet):
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mattia_v/340967​8993/ (external link)

Note that all of these are processed with DxO Optics pro, using lens corrections (including CA/purple fringing, automatic settings) for the 300. No correction modules are available for the 100-400 and the 5D as yet.

Anyway, prices have just hopped up again (damn it!), meaning the 300/4, second hand, with new 1.4 TC, is about 300 bucks cheaper than the 100-400 new (can't find any second hand). Grr. Stupid yen.

5DII | 300D | 30D IR | 17-40L | 24-105L IS | 70-200/2.8L IS | 100-400L IS | 15 FE | 35L | 50/1.8 mk I | 135L | Sigmalux 50/1.4 | Sigma 105/F2.8 Macro | C/Y Planar 50/1.4 | C/Y Distagon 35/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike55
Goldmember
Avatar
4,206 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
Apr 03, 2009 20:17 |  #34

mattia wrote in post #7661818 (external link)
I'd say sharpness is slightly better for the 300. Sample shots below. The most important thing to keep in mind is that the 100-400 was shot around midday, on a gray/overcast day, while the 300 was shot by the riverside on more or less the first properly sunny day we had, so it's major advantage is the light it had to play with; good light makes everything look, well, nicer!

The 300 by itself tends to make everything look nicer.

As stated, the shots from the 300 are more vibrant, and I'm tempted to attribute most of that to the available light.

Nope. It just doesn't have a cast. The whites are truly white, which make everything pop off around them.

Reason it 'worries' me is that I'd want to use the lens with a 1.4x TC, meaning I'd be introducing more CA, rather than less. For the record: the 70-200 with TC was cleaner.

I wouldn't worry about it. CA is not an issue with my Canon 1.4x II.


6D | 70D | 24-105 L IS | 17-40 L | 300 F4 L IS | 50 1.8 II | 1.4x II | LR5 | HV30 | bug spray | wilderness
Gallatin National Forest, Montana (external link)/Lassen Volcanic NP Campgrounds (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,903 views & 0 likes for this thread
Telephoto: 100-400, 300/4L IS, 400/5.6
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

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!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Mike1911
843 guests, 256 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.