Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Well well!
Thanks for the update, Romy - very interesting stuff.
Thanks for the update, Romy - very interesting stuff.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
100-400 or 400 5.6 ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Paul McNelis
- Start date
nigelblake
don't re member
The number of blades that make up the aperture does have some effect, but it is whether the aperture blade edges are straight or curved that makes the difference when there are fewer blades because Bokeh (pronounced like 'Bloke' without the L as I understand) is related to the effect of 'circles of confusion' and spherical aberation.
The more circular the aperture when no aberation is present, whether lots of blades or curved edges are employed, then the more even toned the C of C is and therefore the better the bokeh, when there are fewer and/or straight edged blades combined with some aberation the C of C is less even toned, usually bright at the edges, and gives a less pleasing Bokeh. This effect is really exagerated when you look at the doughnut effect halo's bokeh of a mirror lens that has dark centred C of Cs (due to the mirror in the front element)
The more circular the aperture when no aberation is present, whether lots of blades or curved edges are employed, then the more even toned the C of C is and therefore the better the bokeh, when there are fewer and/or straight edged blades combined with some aberation the C of C is less even toned, usually bright at the edges, and gives a less pleasing Bokeh. This effect is really exagerated when you look at the doughnut effect halo's bokeh of a mirror lens that has dark centred C of Cs (due to the mirror in the front element)
Robert L Jarvis
Robert L Jarvis
:h?::h?: Is there an English translation Nigel? Surely it was a simple question of choice between two lenses?:t:
nigelblake
don't re member
It is however a valid technical reply to points raised within this thread regarding aperture blades!
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Many thanks Nigel - that makes things a lot clearer, and also confirms that my limited understanding isn't far off the mark.
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
Some useless information about Bokeh...I understand that it comes from the Japenese verb bo-ke-ru, meaning to fade out or dull. Bo-ke can also mean slow or senile...so careful how you use it, you may cause offence.
I always thought it was pronounced 'bow-keh', so had to do some digging when Nigel thought otherwise...and based on the Japenese origins, think I am at least nearly right
The most interesting read I found on the subject was an article by Mike Johnston on Luminous Landscape: Bokeh in Pictures
I always thought it was pronounced 'bow-keh', so had to do some digging when Nigel thought otherwise...and based on the Japenese origins, think I am at least nearly right
The most interesting read I found on the subject was an article by Mike Johnston on Luminous Landscape: Bokeh in Pictures
Last edited:
nigelblake
don't re member
I always thought it was pronounced 'bow-keh', so had to do some digging when Nigel thought otherwise...and based on the Japenese origins, think I am at least nearly right
The most interesting read I found on the subject was an article by Mike Johnston on Luminous Landscape: Bokeh in Pictures
Yes I read this, its interesting that Johnston lays claim to adding the H on the end.
My first memory of the word dates back to about 1978/9 when I was working on 'Superman 2' with the late Derek Meddings visual effects team, although then the word (used by one of the camera crew) with the same meaning as 'Bokeh' was pronounced as "Bock" and used in reference to the effect of it being able to be used to help disguise the wires that suspended Superman on film, thus saving the cost of removing them optically........... now its done at the touch of a few buttons on a keyboard!
In these digital days the Bokeh of a lens is really of far less interest than when shooting film, as you can select and change it at the touch of a keyboard too...........
Last edited:
websurfer
Well-known member
I am in the same boat as you with all the same LONG consideratons. First I thought the EF 400 f/5.6 would be the best choice for me - but now I am leaning more against the EF 100-400, cos I think it is the best lens at 400mm and it has IS. I think my shooting style will demand IS. That´s why the EF 100-400 is on my wish list and as you mentioned, some people in here do mange to get great shots with this lens. My only main concern is to get bad copy.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
I have seen many hundreds of post's that claim the 400 f5.6 is better/sharper than the 100-400 at the 400 end (not that I necessarily agree) but this is the first time I have seen a post to say that the zoom is better than the prime at 400mm - maybe this will start a trend
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
I have seen many hundreds of post's that claim the 400 f5.6 is better/sharper than the 100-400 at the 400 end (not that I necessarily agree) but this is the first time I have seen a post to say that the zoom is better than the prime at 400mm - maybe this will start a trend
Romy Ocon is on record as saying that he owns a 100-400mm that's just as sharp as his 400mm prime, so equal sharpness + IS might well put the zoom on top in the Real World..!
To be fair, Websurfer simply said "best at" 400mm - that's not just sharpness - and as you know, I have a bit of sympathy for that view myself!
Last edited:
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
I do not think you actually read my post Keith - I do not make any comparison one way or the other (how could I as I do not have both lenses to compare). I assume you have tried both lenses, but I have not.Romy Ocon is on record as saying that he owns a 100-400mm that's just as sharp as his 400mm prime, so equal sharpness + IS might well put the zoom on top in the Real World..!
To be fair, Websurfer simply said "best at" 400mm - that's not just sharpness - and as you know, I have a bit of sympathy for that view myself!
I stick by my observation that this is the first time I have ever seen a post which claims that the zoom is actually better than the prime at 400mm.
The way I read it, this did not take into account I.S. because the poster stated after claiming it was better that it also had I.S.
Even the post that you quote only says it is as sharp as the prime - maybe if you scan the forums for a few days you will find another post which claims it is sharper/better but I have never seen one. :t:
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Yeah, I read it, Roy - you said:
and I'm just responding to that comment (with smileys!) - as I keep saying, there's more to sharp pictures than just a sharp lens...
and I'm just responding to that comment (with smileys!) - as I keep saying, there's more to sharp pictures than just a sharp lens...
Last edited:
websurfer
Well-known member
I have seen many hundreds of post's that claim the 400 f5.6 is better/sharper than the 100-400 at the 400 end (not that I necessarily agree) but this is the first time I have seen a post to say that the zoom is better than the prime at 400mm - maybe this will start a trend
if it´s the first time - then you´ve the second time here. I know which one I find to be best performing of these at 400mm in the test belove. and remember it´s a zoom with advantage in terms of versatility amd IS. Due to the fact that this lens is performing so good at the long end, it´s a very fine lens indeed. For my shooting style this lens will be the best performing lens at 400mm for sure. Simply because it has IS. I like wandering around as well - I hate sitting with a tripod waiting most of the time.
Link for test
Last edited:
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Where did the tripod come into it.I also would hate sitting with a tripod waiting most of the time which is why I do not use one - as I have said many times before, the 400 5.6 is easily hand holdable. Where people get the idea that you must have a tripod I do not know. In fact I would say most people who have this lens do not use a tripod.
I would add that I have used a tripod on the rare occasions when I stack both the 1.4 and 2x converters with the lens but we are talking about 1120mm which would be very difficult to hand hold even with a 4 stop IS system let alone the 2 stops that the 100-400 has.
It is funny how all the 100-400 users go on about the versatility of the zoom and yet they almost all dream of upgrading to a prime at sometime. e.g. 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 400 f4, 500, f4 or 600 f4. I never hear the guys with these big prime lenses dreaming of a zoom lens (unless Canon come up with, say a 200-500 'L').
The main thing is that whichever lens you have - enjoy it, they are meant to be used not argued over.:t:
Last edited:
nigelblake
don't re member
Probably because they already have the zoom as well!
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Could be Nigel, I thought you had got rid of yours !
nigelblake
don't re member
Yes but only one of them, I replaced it with 70-200 f2.8 IS
websurfer
Well-known member
A. q from Arthur Morris:
" If you want an everyday bird photography lens, the EF 400mm f/5.6L lens is still the better choice (unless you absolutely refuse to use a tripod)."
Link
According to the words of a great bird photographer I just cannot ignore the usage of a tripod. That´s why I mentioned it.
Last edited:
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
I was thinking specifically about the 100-400 which I knew you had for sale a while back. I have nothing against zoom lenses - I have three of them myself.
nigelblake
don't re member
Yes I still have one of the two 100-400mm lenses that I had.
It is a very good lens and I personally think that there is a lot of tosh about its quality on the net, and that much of the problems of sharpness that are expressed is down to user error rather than lens problems, I have even proved this to a couple of people by shooting images with their lenses that are, to their surprise, sharper than what they get themselves! Long lenses do take some getting used to and lots of people are all to willing to blame the kit rather than themselves.
Last edited:
