At 11:02 AM -0800 2/23/06, Ken Durling wrote:
Anyone have personal experience comparing the 400/5.6L with the
100-400 IS at the long end in terms of critical sharpness? I'd
expect the prime to be sharper, and have seen some soft images from
the 100-400, but there are so many intervening factors that I'm not
sure how to judge.
Thanks
Ken
I've used quite a variety of 400's since the 60's. I tried the
400/5.6 against the 100-400, and while the 400 is definitely, but not
hugely better, the IS on the 100-400 means that under most conditions
I'll get better results with the 100-400. I got one right after it
came out, and used it for a number of years on an EOS3 all over the
world, including S.Africa, the Galapagos and in the Amazon basin. I
dropped it and Canon never repaired it properly, so I have now
replaced it. Both examples performed similarly.
There are sharper 400's, such as the 400/5.6 Nikkor from 1975 that I
still have, and the 400/2.8 EF's, but unless you need the 2.8 speed
the 100-400 is the most practical solution.
For digital use the 100-400 is even more of a good choice as post
processing brings its performance even closer to that of the 400/5.6.
If Canon came out with a 400/5.6 IS, I might reconsider.
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
