technic Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Ernie Aubert wrote:
So I'm not the only one who's noticed that? And it's not just my copy? I'm glad to know that. It is somewhat disappointing...
Yes, there are some threads about it and although some on the forum strongly deny it, I'm 100% convinced this is just the way it is for the 100-400II. I tested another copy and the result was exactly the same (and several others have confirmed they see the same problems). Just to be sure: if you don't get closer than 2-3 meters distance the various problems (strong spherical abberation leading to 'glow' at wide apertures, strong backfocus AND focus shift) are less visible and likely acceptable for the average user. Most owners of this lens hardly use it near MFD so they probably extrapolate the excellent qualities of the lens at longer distance to 'excellent' MFD performance ;-)
Compared to the old 100-400 Canon increased magnification, but IMHO it isn't worth it and they probably should have kept the old spec. Sigma and Tamron offer less magnification, so it is just a guess if they perform better at comparable magnification. Another issue for me was that the 100-400II has a very short working distance (from subject to front element of the lens) for closeups of dragonflies etc., compared to alternatives like a 2.8/200 or 4/300 prime. This would also be something to look for on the Sigma/Tamron, as it is difficult to determine from the spec.
This is an obvious example where both official specs and the average review is lacking in relevant information.
Sorry for off topic comment ;-)
|