Even though they are putting in a lot of effort, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with PhotoZone's testing procedure. Note that the maximum resolution they measure is somewhat inversely proportional to the minimum focusing distance. It is hard to believe that the resolution figures they are getting for 400 f/5.6L is less than some of the Canon zooms with shorter focal length. IMHO, longer telephoto primes are the lenses that push the limits of the sensor resolution. Given that lots of people are able get very decent shots with a 1.4x or even 2x TC using the 400L prime, I am forced to believe that the PhotoZone test is not an accurate indication of resolution, at least for longer telephoto lenses.
-
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.
This qualifies as "interesting"... (400 zoom vs 400 prime) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Keith Reeder
- Start date
There is only one solution to this debate.
Go to Birdfair this year, armed with a memory stick and go and play with the lenses and record the results for yourself.
If you can't decide on the results, post them on a new thread and start a new debate on colour, quality, enlargement and reproduction.
Go to Birdfair this year, armed with a memory stick and go and play with the lenses and record the results for yourself.
If you can't decide on the results, post them on a new thread and start a new debate on colour, quality, enlargement and reproduction.
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
Arrrrggghhhh...losing...
...the will...
...to...
...live
One day everyone will realise that they are basically the same in image quality for what 99.9% of people need...which is all this test really proves. Maybe people should spend as much time using their lens as they do arguing about it...they may find they actually enjoy photography rather than just trying to find pleasure in owning the whitest lens!
BTW, before anyone gets upset, that comment is not aimed at anyone in particular, just some Canon (100-)400/5.6 users on photography forums in general.
PS. Yes, I have a 400/5.6 amongst my white collection and no I don't think it is better than the 100-400...
...the will...
...to...
...live
One day everyone will realise that they are basically the same in image quality for what 99.9% of people need...which is all this test really proves. Maybe people should spend as much time using their lens as they do arguing about it...they may find they actually enjoy photography rather than just trying to find pleasure in owning the whitest lens!
BTW, before anyone gets upset, that comment is not aimed at anyone in particular, just some Canon (100-)400/5.6 users on photography forums in general.
PS. Yes, I have a 400/5.6 amongst my white collection and no I don't think it is better than the 100-400...
Last edited:
JohnZ
Well-known member
Mark, For whatever reason Keith appears to have a bee in his bonnet when it comes to comparison between the 100-400mm and the 400mm prime lenses. In times gone by it was always the case that due to the more complex arrangement of the elements in a zoom lens a prime lens would always produce a sharper image. Whether this is still the case I do not know.
However one only has to look at some of Keiths piccies to realise that the zoom lens suits him perfectly. He has taken some fantastic shots with the zoom lens and should not bother himself worrying about whether one lens is better than the other. Hence my earlier comment about this being a wind up.
Although I do not own both lenses I too have used both and I am very happy with the one I chose to buy. Both Art Morris and yourself are in a different league, photographically, to me but that which I have bought suits me perfectly.
I believe the saying goes "You will have to prise it from my cold dead fingers".
However one only has to look at some of Keiths piccies to realise that the zoom lens suits him perfectly. He has taken some fantastic shots with the zoom lens and should not bother himself worrying about whether one lens is better than the other. Hence my earlier comment about this being a wind up.
Although I do not own both lenses I too have used both and I am very happy with the one I chose to buy. Both Art Morris and yourself are in a different league, photographically, to me but that which I have bought suits me perfectly.
I believe the saying goes "You will have to prise it from my cold dead fingers".
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
oh yes ;-)
gmax
Sontium Dweller
Arrrrggghhhh...losing...
...the will...
...to...
...live
PS. Yes, I have a 400/5.6 amongst my white collection and no I don't think it is better than the 100-400...
Probably because you don't own a sharp copy ...
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
Probably because you don't own a sharp copy ...
"a good image is a good image, and while an expensive lens may have made it a bit sharper the reality is most viewers would never know the difference"
from a recent Guy Tal essay (Guy's website: http://www.scenicwild.com).
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Probably because you don't own a sharp copy ...
But Max, it's a prime - surely they're all sharp, aren't they?
That's what I keep hearing..!
gmax
Sontium Dweller
But Max, it's a prime - surely they're all sharp, aren't they?
That's what I keep hearing..!
That's the harsh, crude reality you keep hearing shouted aloud
From the Cannon website:
• [04/17/07] - Canon have released a firmware update for the EOS cameras. You can download it HERE. According to Canon it fixes the lack of sharpness when using certain zoom lenses, by fooling the camera into believing that it is connected to a prime lens; different cameras may be selected when connecting with a zoom and this fix improves the reliability of communication with the other Canon photographers using a prime.
Last edited:
gmax
Sontium Dweller
Sorry Mark, but I do not agree.
As you can see, this image, taken with a zoom is clearly ...
while this second image, taken with a prime is ...
I think I have given enough evidence to cease this useless talk.
Kind regards,
Max
Attachments
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
Sorry Mark, but I do not agree.
As you can see, this image, taken with a zoom is clearly ...
while this second image, taken with a prime is ...
I think I have given enough evidence to cease this useless talk.
Kind regards,
Max
LOL, Max.
That Sigma was always had the potential to be a bit special though - they really should reintroduce it (with IS and HSM) and watch Canon squirm!
Hi John,
no, I don't suggest that anyone should sell their prime for the zoom - but if this has any effect on the number of silly, unsupportable "my lens has to be sharper than yours because it's a prime" posts, I'll be happy enough..!
I agree. There is a thing known as "manufacturing tolerances" that would allow a good zoom to be equal to a good prime. Of course all things being equal (which they almost never are) a prime should be better. But with the computer controlled machinery we have today, the distinction is minimal at best. And almost never visible to the naked eye, which is what we always want to please.:'D
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
I like that sentiment.
Stuff MTF charts, does the picture look good?
Mark makes same point further up too.
I was going to get all scientific last night and produce a light wave chart through glass from what some will call the ‘dark old days’ of pre digital, but I couldn’t find this ancient book of knowledge. So, I thought stuff it, you pays your money, you takes the choice.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
I just don't see the point or the need, Steve.
I get images which are more than sharp enough for my needs and expectations and which stack up very favourably against what I see from other lenses (including pictures taken with the prime), so I have no anxieties about what might be if I get a different lens.
Where does it stop? Testing one copy of the prime against another copy of the same lens to make sure you've got the sharpest of those two? Then doing it again to make sure that that copy is sharper than another prime?
That's not for me!
As I've said loads of times, to me a lens is more than just how sharp it is: I really appreciate IS (IS will get you a sharp picture at shutter speeds where the prime will struggle) and I like the ability to zoom - the fact that I also get sharp pictures, including when I'm using a Kenko 1.4x (560mm that I can handhold!) means that there's no "upside" to the prime for me.
But the point of this thread is that someone has done a definitive comparison between the two lenses and come out in favour of the zoom. Last time, the same test favoured the prime.
So what to tests prove?
Nowt, probably!
To re-quote Guy Tal:
And to re-quote me:
I really don't care about the rest, but it does bother me to see "a prime is always sharper than a zoom" thrown out there again and again as "fact" without any compelling proof to back it up, because this might put someone off buying the 100-400mm for the worst of reasons.
My Nikon stuff is still about, with buyers lined up for some of it - I just took it out of my sig to reduce the size of it.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
I think this is just your Imagination Keith - for every one who says the prime is sharper than the zoom I see at least ten who claim the zoom is better/sharper than the prime. But at the end of the day, what does it matter as long as you are happy with your set-up. Surely you do not resent anyone who happens to have different gear from you. I happen to have a Canon 1.4 tc which I have no doubt is far inferior to your Kenko but I am happy with it - live and let live is what I say. Life is too short so get out there and enjoy your photography.Keith Reeder;891915 but it does bother me to see "a prime is always sharper than a zoom" thrown out there again and again as "fact" without [i said:
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Indeed I don't resent other folks' choices, Roy - I think you might be misreading me.
All I'm saying is that this constant "prime is best" propaganda could put people off the zoom for the wrong reasons because, great though the prime is, it clearly isn't the only player in town where IQ - including sharpness - is concerned.
That really is all I'm saying.
All I'm saying is that this constant "prime is best" propaganda could put people off the zoom for the wrong reasons because, great though the prime is, it clearly isn't the only player in town where IQ - including sharpness - is concerned.
That really is all I'm saying.
Last edited:
