Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: alaska photo on April 08, 2006, 08:38:36 pm

Title: canon 400mm lens
Post by: alaska photo on April 08, 2006, 08:38:36 pm

There is a nice review on this web site that compared the Canon EF 400mm F 5.6 lens to the Canon 100-400mm IS lens.  The Better quality images were provided with the straight 400mm fixed lens.  Does anybody know when the article was written, and if this still holds true?  Can the 100-400 mm lens provide equal to, or better quality yet?

Title: canon 400mm lens
Post by: Sheldon N on April 09, 2006, 12:10:15 am

Quote

There is a nice review on this web site that compared the Canon EF 400mm F 5.6 lens to the Canon 100-400mm IS lens.  The Better quality images were provided with the straight 400mm fixed lens.  Does anybody know when the article was written, and if this still holds true?  Can the 100-400 mm lens provide equal to, or better quality yet?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62187\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't believe that either lens design has changed, so there's no reason to expect any different results. This is pretty much a general consensus about all lenses - a long telephoto prime will typically provide better image quality than a long telephoto zoom.

Title: canon 400mm lens
Post by: jani on April 20, 2006, 05:10:36 pm

Quote

I don't believe that either lens design has changed, so there's no reason to expect any different results. This is pretty much a general consensus about all lenses - a long telephoto prime will typically provide better image quality than a long telephoto zoom.

Also, Canon typically adds Roman numerals to the lens designation when they update the design, as with the 85 mm f/1.2L II.

Title: canon 400mm lens
Post by: kjkahn on April 21, 2006, 12:15:38 pm

Quote

There is a nice review on this web site that compared the Canon EF 400mm F 5.6 lens to the Canon 100-400mm IS lens.  The Better quality images were provided with the straight 400mm fixed lens.  Does anybody know when the article was written, and if this still holds true?  Can the 100-400 mm lens provide equal to, or better quality yet?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=62187\")

[a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/DXO-Tests/dxo-canon-400mm.shtml]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...non-400mm.shtml[/url]

There seems to be quite a bit of unit-to-unit variation, but I don't think you will find a 100-400 which will match a good 400 at 400mm. My 100-400 never satisfied me until I took it and my 1D2 to Canon service in NJ. It's better now, but not a great lens. Still, for me, the zoom and IS are indispensible.

Ken

Title: canon 400mm lens
Post by: RAL on April 27, 2006, 03:20:26 am

You may have found these two sites.  They provide a fair amount of test information for a number of lenses.






http://www.photozone.de/active/news/index.jsp (http://www.photozone.de/active/news/index.jsp)
http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html (http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html)

Title: canon 400mm lens
Post by: Ray on April 27, 2006, 10:17:42 am

I see a major limitation of a telephoto lens which does not have IS. It would have to be a seriously sharper lens than the 100-400 IS to interest me. I tried one once and it wasn't as sharp as my 100-400 IS. After calibration there was a slight improvement but it still wasn't as good as my 100-400 so I got a refund. I didn't pursue the matter because deep down I suspected I would not use the lens much if I had to carry around a tripod with it. You should bear in mind that in order to reap the benefit of that potential extra sharpness (which isn't guaranteed anyway because of lens QC factors) you'll need to use a shutter speed of at least 1/800th sec, without tripod.