I compared 100-400 to 70-200/2.8s + TCx2 on tripod, both shot at f5.6, 400mm, 1/8s, 5s delayed.
Both imported in to PS to make 100% cropped, resized and converted to jpg only. No other adjustment was made. Single point focus on the snout.
Got to say that the 70-200 + 2x holds up nicely in comparison.
I can see that the 100-400 is better, but not by a lot. I think the differences will be most evident in "real" shooting situations with moving subjects.
suteetat wrote:
I compared 100-400 to 70-200/2.8s + TCx2 on tripod, both shot at f5.6, 400mm, 1/8s, 5s delayed.
Both imported in to PS to make 100% cropped, resized and converted to jpg only. No other adjustment was made. Single point focus on the snout.
They're very close, but I would say, 100-400 just a bit sharper, or crispier.
How do you find the build and feel in general, as well as stabilization?
Thanks for keeping us up to date!
cvrle59 wrote:
They're very close, but I would say, 100-400 just a bit sharper, or crispier.
How do you find the build and feel in general, as well as stabilization?
Thanks for keeping us up to date!
Built quality is about the same as 70-200/2.8s. The black metal part is a bit shinier
Zoom ring and focus ring are very smooth but required a bit more pressure to move than 70-200/2.8s.
I have not really challenged VR/ibis much, only around 2-2.5 stops so far. The cat picture that I posted yesterday was a touch soft shooting at 1/200s on 400mm. Part of it I think was that I was holding the camera near the ground using flip screen to compose. I did not really have much time to get into position nor braced myself well. So probably more about my technique rather than VR/Ibis.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Got to say that the 70-200 + 2x holds up nicely in comparison.
I can see that the 100-400 is better, but not by a lot. I think the differences will be most evident in "real" shooting situations with moving subjects.
bruce
I think lots of credit has to be given to TCx2s. It is a lot better than TC20e iii on F mount.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Got to say that the 70-200 + 2x holds up nicely in comparison.
I can see that the 100-400 is better, but not by a lot. I think the differences will be most evident in "real" shooting situations with moving subjects.
bruce
I agree! Heck, looking at those 2 images really close it seems the bokeh in the 70-200 shot is even a little cleaner
I took a couple more snapshots today and that's it. The lens and camera are now in the bag but hopefully when I come back next week, I will have some bird pictures taken with 100-400 to share. Hopefully Hume's pheasant will show up and Z7 ii should be able to handle that ok.
Loving the minimum focus distance on this thing. Will make for one amazing sidearm. Don't mind the shot not being lined up, test shot I wasn't planning on doing anything with this but the black and white was cool so here it is
If it’s anything like the Sony you’ll need around f/10 at mfd to get any appreciable depth of field.
Kasper6188 wrote:
Loving the minimum focus distance on this thing. Will make for one amazing sidearm. Don't mind the shot not being lined up, test shot I wasn't planning on doing anything with this but the black and white was cool so here it is
Kasper6188 wrote:
Loving the minimum focus distance on this thing. Will make for one amazing sidearm. Don't mind the shot not being lined up, test shot I wasn't planning on doing anything with this but the black and white was cool so here it is
