Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 08, 2009, 11:57:15 PM
Here are two sets of photos, one full size and one a crop of the head on the photo. The first photo was taken with the 100-400mm lens with my 7D camera. The second set was taken with Tom's 400mm f2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter. The size of the pronghorn in the image was relatively the same and the background was the same. Here are the images:
This is the 100-400 f5.6 at full size. You don't notice much quality difference when you take a full frame image and simply crop it to 800 pixels. A couple things to notice though is the lack of hair detail and the blur of the trees in the background. Notice how the trees are more in focus than the 400mm shot below. This background blur really helps to set the pronghorn off in the image.
(https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/100-400%20full%20size.jpg)
Now here is the crop of the pronghorn in the 100-400 lens. Notice the lack of good hair detail. If you had to crop the image you would lose detail in the animal.
(https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/100-400%20crop.jpg)
Here is the full size image from the 400mm f2.8 lens. This shot was taken with the 1.4x teleconverter so it was at f4. Had the shot been taken with the straight lens it would be even more detailed. The fact that a lens can blow another one away with a teleconverter on is a testament to the remarkable quality you can get with a good prime lens.
(https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/400mm%20f4.jpg)
Here is the crop from the 400mm lens. Notice the hair detail in the picture over the 100-400mm lens crop.
(https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/400mm%20f4%20crop.jpg)
In conclusion, it is obvious the fixed lens blows the zoom away. You don't have the versatility of the zoom but you end up with a much better image. You might wonder what the price difference is and it is significant. The 100-400 is around $1100 and the 400mm f2.8 is around $6000. However, I could have run this test vs the 300mm f4 and I have little doubt the outcome wouldn't have been the same and that lens sells for less than $1000. Even vs the 300mm f2.8 or the 400mm f4, the fixed lenses would blow this lens out of the water. In fact, my old Tokina 400mm f5.6 fixed lens would beat the 100-400mm lens in image quality and it sells for about $100. For those that are sticklers about image quality, the 100-400mm lens may not be for you. It's not a lens that will be in my photo bag until they improve the lens. This is a fun debate and I welcome anyone else to add a different viewpoint on the subject. These are the difficult decisions many here go through when they buy a lens and having information can help the decision making process.
Post by: Timber on October 09, 2009, 06:56:18 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 09, 2009, 02:20:20 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 09, 2009, 02:31:43 PM
It's better than a point and shoot by a long shot.
Post by: Hornseeker on October 09, 2009, 02:48:02 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 09, 2009, 02:57:58 PM
Post by: Tom Reichner on October 09, 2009, 08:41:38 PM
Before I slam the 100-400 too hard, I should show a few nice pictures I've taken with it. I'll post a few when I get a chance.
It's better than a point and shoot by a long shot.
I've gotta say that I agree with you, Shawn. If I were completely happy with my 100-400 I never would've bought my 40 f2.8. Nor would I lug it around with me - it truly is "the battleship".
But I must say that at times the 100-400 can and does produce some very nice images. The problem I have with it (besides not being reliable sharp) is that it will only produce nice background blur when the background is far behind the subject, and also when the background is very even in shade and color. Otherwise, the backgrounds are just not smooth. They get a weird "digitized" effect in which the blurred area looks pixelated (this is different from noise).
All that being said, I will say that there are times when the wide range in focal length is very helpful. And when conditions are near perfect the image quality can be very good. Here are a few examples of times when it performed reasonably well:
Post by: boneaddict on October 09, 2009, 09:00:57 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 09, 2009, 09:32:19 PM
Again, is it tack sharp, no but I would rather see someone using a 100-400 and having fun than someone using a point and shoot wishing they could get better picks.
Post by: huntnphool on October 09, 2009, 09:38:32 PM
Post by: Ricochet on October 10, 2009, 07:12:33 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 10, 2009, 08:18:20 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 10, 2009, 08:19:31 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on October 10, 2009, 09:12:40 AM
Can you guys recommend a third lens to add to my wife's camera setup? I bought her a Digital Rebel XTi. She has the cheapy kit lens (EFS 18-55) and the cheap, plastic f/1.8 50mm prime lens. I would like to buy one that I could take and shoot pics of wildlife at a distance. I dont' need an all around lens, just one for this specific purpose. Obviously it would have to be decent at low light without a flash. I'd like to keep it under $500, and I'm willing to buy used. What's the best lens I can get in that range? How about that 75-300mm with IS @ Costco for $550ish? Thanks.
:jacked:
Post by: Jesse Jaymes on October 10, 2009, 10:53:36 AM
Most know I am relocating to WA. Will be in Chewelah on the 25th of this month(damn it's cold up there already).
Always had a camera with me, as I am out and about in a professional capacity a majority of the time. Have gotten some decent shots (by mortal standards) that people can actually see some of the critters I've run into. Nothing compared to the above.
With a new EOS DSLR camera for a BD gift in August, I am a semi new interest and hobby. Starting to read as much as I can and give it a go.
And it is exactly threads like this that I enjoy. Being able to pool from the masses with actual experience is a fantastic resource. And as stated, as a hobbyist, who is also pretty broke at this time, a $6000 lense to see if I like the whole photography thing is a bit out of reach.
Just read about primes vs zooms and the benefits of both.
I would like to ask:
I hate mm as a designator of "power" as a lifetime shooter, why can't they just make it an "X"? Point being, with a prime of 300 or 400, what is the approximate range that a decent shot can be made? If a moose is grazing in a meadow or clear cut, and I can get to within 80 yards, is a 300mm lense going to do much for me?
Post by: huntnphool on October 10, 2009, 03:02:30 PM
The 400mm 2.8 IS is a nice lens but at that size and weight packing it into the hills will require a sherpa unless you are built like Bone, but even he uses his point and shoot way too often because of the bulk. The 400mm DO is half the weight, half the price and I believe just as sharp. It makes spending the extra money on the 2.8 out of the question for me. By the way, most of those Canada picks Pope has been posting are with the 400mm DO. :twocents:
Back on topic though, until you are ready to spend the coin on the 400 DO, the 100-400 will get you in the game. :twocents:
Post by: boneaddict on October 10, 2009, 05:05:18 PM
If you shoot a sharp image, then its amazing what you can crop.
Post by: Timber on October 10, 2009, 05:33:11 PM
Quote
When Timber was considering his new 400, I think my quote to him was "If you can wait until you can afford it, you'll never get it."That quote from bone was the final straw for me. My only regret about buying the 400 2.8 is that I wish I had bought it sooner.
Here are a few random examples of what the 100-400 f5.6 lens can do given decent light. Two of these pics wouldn't have worked with a fixed power lens, because the animal was too close.
Post by: Hornseeker on October 10, 2009, 08:20:05 PM
Post by: Timber on October 10, 2009, 08:44:54 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 11, 2009, 06:14:08 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 11, 2009, 06:52:06 PM
I hate mm as a designator of "power" as a lifetime shooter, why can't they just make it an "X"? Point being, with a prime of 300 or 400, what is the approximate range that a decent shot can be made? If a moose is grazing in a meadow or clear cut, and I can get to within 80 yards, is a 300mm lense going to do much for me?
The "x" designation just doesn't work well for photography. Suppose you had a 25mm lens, then you would have to say you have a 1/2x lens. Or 12mm, that would be a 1/4x. What if you had a 17mm? It would get confusing on the wide angle.
300mm will get you good shots from 50-20 yards. 400mm will get you to 70-30 yards. 300 is fine with a crop camera with animals that can get easy to approch but wild animals require 400mm+. 400mm is the perfect all around focal length for mammals, IMO.
Post by: e55komp on October 27, 2009, 07:35:34 PM