Shoot-Out at the OK "Canon" Corral Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

Shoot-Out at the OK "Canon" Corral

Dec 7 2005 Tested here are 5 popular long tele-lenses:

Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM
Sigma 80-400 f4.5-5.6 EX OS
Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM
Canon 300 f4 L IS USM
Canon 400 f5.6 L USM

My PRIMARY desire was to shoot them at the "400mm" focal length, which meant the use of 1.4x and 2x TCs (for some of the lenses). Questions about these lenses and how they fare against one another are asked DAILY on forums EVERYWHERE (especially DPR, Photo.net, and POTN). I had the great opportunity of using all 5 (concurrently over a 2 week span), and shooting/handling EACH of them during this time helped me make my decision on which one I would add to my bag (in addition to my Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM). I was not only looking at their respective optical performance, but also how each lens handles, feels, and functions in EVERYDAY USE. Apart from the actual "test shoot", I spent 2 days with EACH lens, assessing its optics, build, handling, ergonomics, AF speed and accuracy, low-light performance, MFD, etc. Each lens has its pros and cons (albeit some more than others). The decision on which lens I would keep was largely influenced during this time.

I want to mention that testing these particular lenses is NO easy task. It's hard enough testing 6-7 standard zooms, but these guys are bigger, heavier, and longer. Lugging them around, making sure AF is accurate, eliminating motion blur (especially at these focal lengths), keeping exposures consistent, among other things, can make for stressful testing. But in the end, I believe my findings are representative and fair.

To ensure accurate and consistent results for ALL test shots, the following apply: Canon 20D + BG-E2, tripod/ballhead-mounted, mirror lock-up (MLU), wired shutter release, "IS" off, best AF taken of 5 for EACH setting (though some combinations required MF), no UV filters used (but hoods on), teleconverters were Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 and Kenko 2x Pro 300.

As for the lenses, the 70200 was mine beforehand, the 100400 I've kept, the primes have been sold, and the 80400 returned (actually I ordered the new "DG" version but the company sent me the older version; no big deal).

See my specific comments at each page, and feel free to leave your own comments/questions on any of these pages. I hope this is helpful to you.

All 5 Lenses

Sigma 80-400 f4.5-5.6 EX OS and Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM

Canon 300 f4 L IS USM and Canon 400 f5.6 L USM

Main Tests

comment |

lightrules		17-Dec-2005 16:15
The AF on the prime is extremely fast (albeit more noisy). The zoom is very fast still. Especially with the focus limiter set on each, it's hard to discern much difference. But in terms of AF speed per se, the prime is a little faster.

Guest		17-Dec-2005 15:43
How did the AF compare btw the 400prime and the 100-400?

Michael Morgan		09-Dec-2005 23:40
Excellent and informative tests. Lucky you - your 100-400 is fantastic. I also sent back the prime and kept the 100-400. See results here: http://www.pbase.com/tough_dog/more400mm . My prime was slightly sharper than the zoom when both were wide open but the zoom caught up at just f6.3. Thanks to Canon's sloppy (non-existent?) QA on image quality there seems to be a wide range of IQ performance even with the high-price lenses. My prime had pristine IQ wide open but yours seemed to have worse performance. I also sent back a 70-200mm f2.8 IS which was really soft at all but 200mm. The replacement seems to be working great over the whole range once it is stopped down to f4. Some of your photos show that the Sigma may be consistently front-focusing (since you take the best of 5 shots). I returned a Sigma 30mm f1.4 for that same reason and have decided to stay away from Sigma. Nice work!

David		09-Dec-2005 05:06
Wish you could have tested the 200 2.8L w/2x. Maybe next time.

lightrules		09-Dec-2005 03:48
Thanks Tom. I must say of all these lenses the one I WANTED MOST to like and keep was initially the 300f4IS. You are right that the IS and MFD is fantastic. I shot with it for 2 days (by itself, as I did with each other lens) and thought to myself, "This lens rocks." But my main goal was getting the best optical lens for 400mm and beyond (using TCs). And at day's end, it was the 400f5.6 and 100-400IS that stood out. But without the TC, the 300f4 was truly stellar, simply a lovely piece of glass. I'm glad you're enjoying yours...enjoy the light and merry Christmas.

Tom Wilk		09-Dec-2005 03:27
Thanks for the great test. Your 100-400L looks like an excellent copy. Mine is close, though my 300/4 seems to have an edge even with the Canon 1.4X TC. Maybe. Sometimes. More often than not. :) It's hard to test these longer focal lengths as everything must be perfect. The long length amplifies any tripod vibration or movement that might occur. You did very well here. BTW, I love the 300/4's manual focus, bokeh, and close-focusing distance enough that despite owning the very versatile 100-400, I have chosen to also keep the redundant prime. I use the 100-400 more, though. Tom W.

click on thumbnails for full image