keithreeder wrote:
Indeed - nobody complains about the 300mm f/2.8 IS being slow to focus...
Or any other current up-to-date IS lens for that matter. Simple truth of it all is that current IS systems only affects one thing negatively--your wallet (and for many its negligible).
pixNW wrote:
How much difference is there in IQ between a 300 f4 IS with a 1.4x and the 400 5.6?
I have owned/tested two 400 f/5.6 and three 300 f/4 IS lenses. In that sample, the 400 f/5.6 was decidedly a sharper lens. Once you mount a TC on the 300 f/4 IS, the "sharpness distance" between the two increases even further.
However, speaking in more practical terms, if you can't have sufficient shutter speed and/or a stable support, then the 300 f/4 IS +1.4xTC combo might in fact give you better results. If you plan on shooting zoo animals or bugs and such, the 300 f/4 IS might give you better results again because of its exceptional MFD of 1.5m.
Was the 300 at 5.6 less sharp than the 400 at 5.6? With the 1.4TC and the 300, you're really at 5.6 aren't you? If so, how much shutter speed advantage will the 300/1.4TC have over the 400?
Yes, I'm aware that the AF slows down. I sometimes use a 1.4TC on my 70-200 2.8, and it doesn't work near as well for action shooting with the TC attached for sure.
I've been thinking about getting a 300 f4 mostly for some sports shooting, but thought with a TC it might work okay for some birds (not in flight type shots) and other somewhat still wildlife. I have a feeling I may kick myself though, and should probably pony up for the 300 2.8 IS.
PetKal wrote:
I have owned/tested two 400 f/5.6 and three 300 f/4 IS lenses. In that sample, the 400 f/5.6 was decidedly a sharper lens. Once you mount a TC on the 300 f/4 IS, the "sharpness distance" between the two increases even further.
A lot of people say that the 400f5.6L is clearly sharper than the 300f4L IS + 1.4x TC. However, photozone.de has actually measured that the 300+TC is sharper in the center (1796.5 lines per picture height) already wide open at f5.6 (vs the 1657 of the 400). Though losing in the corners about the same amount as winning in the center. And considering that the 300+TC is 420mm, that adds 5% more to the resolution, bringing it to an effective 1886 (with a fixed camera position)!
My own experience also support this, having tried a friend's 400f5.6L and owning a 300f4L IS + 1.4xTC myself. In fact, I don't ever hesitate to use my 300f4L IS with the 1.4x TC when the need arises. True, it does not take the TC as gracefully as the Sigma 300f2.8 EX DG or the 400f2.8L II, but still well enough for it not to be a real issue.
Though, as others have said, AF is clearly slower - although that has not prevented me from taking successful BIF images with the combination. In fact, with the 40D, more than 90% of blurred images are because I was not able to keep the focus point on the bird. When you follow a bird, AF only needs perform small adjustments all the time, so AF speed is actually not that big an issue. Only when you see a bird and quickly try to grab it, then AF speed really matters. Or when you lose the bird and need to recatch the focus.
The only place where the 400f5.6L clearly wins in image quality is astrophotography. Aberrations are almost unnoticeable throughout the image area (1.6x crop at least) while even the plain 300f4L IS shows oddly-shaped bright stars even in the center.
astrolucida wrote:
A lot of people say that the 400f5.6L is clearly sharper than the 300f4L IS + 1.4x TC. However, photozone.de has actually measured that the 300+TC is sharper in the center (1796.5 lines per picture height) already wide open at f5.6 (vs the 1657 of the 400). Though losing in the corners about the same amount as winning in the center. And considering that the 300+TC is 420mm, that adds 5% more to the resolution, bringing it to an effective 1886 (with a fixed camera position)!
Thanks astrolucidia, very helpful post.
My own experience also support this, having tried a friend's 400f5.6L and owning a 300f4L IS + 1.4xTC myself. In fact, I don't ever hesitate to use my 300f4L IS with the 1.4x TC when the need arises. True, it does not take the TC as gracefully as the Sigma 300f2.8 EX DG or the 400f2.8L II, but still well enough for it not to be a real issue.
Though, as others have said, AF is clearly slower - although that has not prevented me from taking successful BIF images with the combination. In fact, with the 40D, more than 90% of blurred images are because I was not able to keep the focus point on the bird. When you follow a bird, AF only needs perform small adjustments all the time, so AF speed is actually not that big an issue. Only when you see a bird and quickly try to grab it, then AF speed really matters. Or when you lose the bird and need to recatch the focus.
The only place where the 400f5.6L clearly wins in image quality is astrophotography. Aberrations are almost unnoticeable throughout the image area (1.6x crop at least) while even the plain 300f4L IS shows oddly-shaped bright stars even in the center. ...Show more →
I'm not sure you can compare the two results between the 400 and the 300 + 1.4x since the IMATEST results are sensitive to the distance between the target and sensor. Photozone.de did not normalize this distance in his test, and so the much greater MFD of the 400 put it at an unfair disadvantage vs the 300 + 1.4 as the 300 is much closer to the target. As such, the comparison is, at best, very relative. Another example of this unfortunate limitation of such analysis software can be seen in the recent review of the 800mm F/5.6L IS by slrgear.com. They completely missed the boat and drew, IMHO, the wrong conclusions about the optical performance of the lens. When I get an 800, I plan to compare it using imatest to my 500 and show how when the MFDs are normalized, the results change.
astrolucida wrote:
A lot of people say that the 400f5.6L is clearly sharper than the 300f4L IS + 1.4x TC. However, photozone.de has actually measured that the 300+TC is sharper in the center (1796.5 lines per picture height) already wide open at f5.6 (vs the 1657 of the 400). Though losing in the corners about the same amount as winning in the center. And considering that the 300+TC is 420mm, that adds 5% more to the resolution, bringing it to an effective 1886 (with a fixed camera position)!
Here! Astro! Comeon, boy! (Sorry, I momentarily flashed back to the Jetsons! )
I was about to thorougly thrash you with facts, when my Lenswork II stunned me by indicating that the 300 + 1.4x is indeed sharper than the bare 400 5.6!
But then I noticed that the 400 + 1.4x is sharper yet! Guess I'll have to yell a the wife, instead...
I'm not sure you can compare the two results between the 400 and the 300 + 1.4x since the IMATEST results are sensitive to the distance between the target and sensor. Photozone.de did not normalize this distance in his test, and so the much greater MFD of the 400 put it at an unfair disadvantage vs the 300 + 1.4 as the 300 is much closer to the target.
I don't get what you're saying. Using Imatest you have a test target that you shoot, and the aim is to fill the image area with the target. Thus, the distance to the target depends on the focal length - not MFD. In this case the 300+1.4 will actually be slightly further from the target than the 400.
Or do you mean that a lens is at a disadvantage proportionally nearer its minimum focusing distance? Yes, that might explain why the 400f5.6L is so much better for astrophotography than the tests seem to show. And why the 400f2.8L II isn't overwhelmingly better than anything else I have tested (I am about at 9 meters while its MFD is 4 meters). And why the 400f2.8L II + 2x + 2x works perfectly for the Moon but not in any test.
However, photozone.de says that they use a distance of focal-length x 1.6 x ~40 (check the 400f5.6L test). As they are in Germany, I'm assuming meters. For the 400mm lens that would mean 25.6 meters, which is 7.3 MFD's for the lens. Quite far, I'd say, though certainly not at infinity. Hyperfocal distance for the 400f5.6 wide open is 2000 meters!
We can all post shots like yours, they prove not very much (and apart from the Sanderling I thought that your examples were a tad soft).
Here is one with the 100-400 + 1.4TCII at 560mm with IS turned off and 'hand held' (on a 1DMk3). The lighting conditions look no better than in your Stonechat shot, but I think that my image is better (and better exposed if I may say so):
I DO KNOW that this image would have been better with the 400 f/5.6 and sincerely believe that only people who own, or have used, both the zoom and the prime should be taken seriously in their opinions on these two lenses.
Look at the nature section on this forum, look at NSN, look at POTN and you will see that the consensus is that the 400 f/5.6 is THE birding lens, and especially for BIF shots. All these people (mostly using !D series bodies) cannot be wrong.
It is the elegant simplicity of this lens and its lightning fast AF which make it a "winner". Adding IS would, in my opinion, ruin it.
I donīt agree. We cannot all post pics like Keith. He manages to get the very best out of this zoom, and if he claims that IS is a benefit in cloudy weather conditions, we have to believe him. BTW I donīt think your shot is as detailed as Keiths pic. Maybe his shot is a tad more detailed because of IS?
I think the Photozone test is flawed. Take a look at the The-Digital-Picture camparision of the 3600/4is+1.4 vs 400/5.6, the 400/5.6 is much better wide open:
)
