photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
lightrules | profile | all galleries >> Lens Tests by LightRules >> Shoot-Out at the OK "Canon" Corral >> Main Tests tree view | thumbnails | slideshow

Main Tests

What is posted here is about 1/10th of what I have, but it is VERY representative. I've tried to post tests that seem the most interesting. I have a lot of other captures and comparisons, but as many of you know, this stuff is very time-consuming, especially the Photoshop work. I hope what you see here is helpful/useful to you, and feel free to leave comments or questions on any of these pages.
Test400mm
Test400mm		 Test560mm/600mm
Test560mm/600mm		 Test800mm
Test800mm		 Test100400v300
Test100400v300
TestOSvISRange
TestOSvISRange		 TestOSvIS400WideOpen
TestOSvIS400WideOpen		 TestOSvIS100mmEdge
TestOSvIS100mmEdge

post a comment
lightrules 21-Nov-2008 20:04
Brian, I think the 300 fits your needs better, based on your comments. It's the more versatile lens of the two in question. Optically they're close, at least with the units I've used. If I were mainly shooting birds in flight, I'd probably take the 400. Otherwise, the 300 gives you the flexibility of having IS, a much closer focusing distance (and higher magnification), the ability to add a 1.4x when you need it to get 420mm (and still have AF), and of course, a very sharp and contrasty 300mm f4 lens. Both are tremendous lenses though with slightly different purposes. But I've personally kept the 300 because it fits my needs better. Enjoy the light!
Brian 21-Nov-2008 19:51
which lens would you say is sharper? 300mm f/4 IS or 400mm f/5.6 from your experience. Is the 400mm f/5.6 AF much faster then the 300mm f/4 IS? I was thinking about using the 300mm f/4IS lens for tracking birds in flight. Would it work? The reason I don't want to get the 400mm is simply because I would like to use the 300mm for other things other then wildlife.
Matt 26-Dec-2007 06:13
Anyone notice how the 300 f4 IS just has much better tonal separation than 100-400? The color in the 100-400 images looks smeared,with a red tint over most of sign. 300 F4 IS with very creamy look and separation.
lightrules 03-Dec-2007 07:13
That's a nice price for a 80-400 OS. I really liked the build quality of that lens. Nice and large tripod mount/grip too. I am sure you'll enjoy it very much. Feel free to report back to this page on your experience with it and how it fares for you. Enjoy.
Don 03-Dec-2007 07:05
I just bought a Sigma 80-400 on ebay and should receive it in a few days. I paid $621 for it while the used Canon 100-400's were still at $1000 or more. It looks like the key to good images w/ sigma is shoot in center. I was into astronomy before switch to photography and this is like getting back there a little. Still, not the same as a Vixen 114 f/5.3 ed refractor (focal length @ 600mm) but should be able to shoot the moon again. Big thanks on the reviews. I read the 80-400 should vignette quite a bit more w/ 5d than cropped sensor. Hopefully not. Cheers.
lightrules 29-Nov-2006 23:52
Lee, I recommend either the Tamron "SP", Kenko "Pro", or Kenko "Pro DG" TCs. The Kenko "Pro DG" is the newest version and is the one sold at most places these days, but if you can locate any of the other (older) two for cheaper, they are optically the same really. I use the Kenko "Pro" (white) ones (1.4x/2.0x) as I got them on eBay used (but in brand new condition), and I like how they match the color of my "L" teles. But optically they perform about the same and right there with the Canons. The perk of these Tamron or Kenkos is that they will work on ANY lens while the Canon TCs limit your lens uses; they're also less costly. Hope this helps.
Lee 29-Nov-2006 21:51
Thanks for the info - I am using a 30D, and I don't have a 1.4x or 2x yet (Still new to this whole thing). If money is not an issue, which 1.4x and 2x would you buy. My local camera shop says only use Canon TC's with the 30D (best performance and only ones guaranteed to work). The Kenko and Tamron seem like they woudl be great choices... Thanks again for your insight and tests. This is an awesome resource!
lightrules 27-Nov-2006 23:23
Here's where you can learn more about taping the pins http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/14xtctest
lightrules 27-Nov-2006 23:22
Lee, it depends on what body and what TC you're using. Assuming it's a 1.6x body (like the 30D), and assuming you're using a Kenko Pro TC, if you tape a 1.4x TC it will work fairly well with AF; using a 2x TC MF will be much better as the lens will "hunt" quite a bit. I'd stick to using a 1.4x though mostly, if at all. Best wishes and enjoy the light.
Lee 27-Nov-2006 22:45
Thank you for the information - this is excellent! I am about to step into the 400mm club, and the 100-400L is the way I am leaning. I do a good bit of wildlife imaging, and the quality of the 100-400 seems exceptional. Just to make sure I understand - when you add the 1.4x or 2x to the 100400, you have to shoot in MF, correct?
Thanks again for the help!
lightrules 31-Dec-2005 06:42
Steve, both the 70200IS and 100400IS are excellent; as you know their reputations speak for themselves. Your question about the AF quality is a very good one and rarely asked. In every test I do, no matter which lens, I always take AT LEAST 3 frames (usually 4-5 frames) where I force a re-focus (stick hand in front of lens). You'd be surprised at how many lenses render the majority of the frames OOF or slightly misfocused upon tripping the shutter. But I am confident I get the best focus from at least one of them once viewed at 100%. As for the 100400IS, this lens produced some of the MOST accurate focusing of all the long lenses. I'd say I got roughly 80% perfectly focused in my testing with it and the other 20% close. None were OOF. That is something not many of the lenses can do. The 70200IS delivers top AF too.
Steve Miles 30-Dec-2005 23:10
I have the 20D and I purchased the 17-40L lens and love it. I am glad to see these tests that you have done as I am planning on buying one of these lenses very soon. For a long time I was pretty sure that I would get the 70-200 IS lens but I started to lean towards the 100-400 which looks VERY good in these tests. You mention that you took the best shot of 5 autofocus shots, do you recall how many of the 5 were good on the various lenses, more specifically the 100-400.
Thanks for the great tests

Steve
lightrules 30-Dec-2005 19:58
Greetings Dustin, long time no talk. I haven't been around Steves Forums for a while but just recently posted some comments there. Anyway, you're welcome to post your comments here. Take care.
Hards80 30-Dec-2005 19:47
i can confirm that these are representative of the differences between the sigma 80-400 and canon 100-400.. i have done similar tests with my 80-400 vs a friends 100-400 and the canon has a very slight edge optically.. our results were a little closer than these, esp at 100mm but not far off.. the sigma is not a great action/sports lens, the lack of USM kills it there.. but for my purposes which are mostly wildlife photos, i find it to be plenty fast and quiet enough.. esp if you use it intelligently and prefocus if you are expecting something to be moving fast, etc. i highly recommend the sigma if you are not shooting sports/action as i just love the build and optics of my lens.. the DG should be slightly better as well.. -Dustin
Stefano Di Domizio 28-Dec-2005 13:23
Wow. Canon 100-400L seems to give better results than 400L f5.6.
click on thumbnails for full image