From my experience, the 100-400 needs very careful handling to get good results. It can be very sharp indeed, but doesn't seem to like being used "quickly". I suspect the IS needs time to settle as I've had quite a few shots which show a kind of "shimmering" effect. It also varies throughout its zoom range, being noticeable sharper at the shorter end.
It's obviously not a patch on the 300/2.8, but then it's much cheaper and you don't need to be a weight-lifter to operate it!
I'll try to post some examples at 100% on my blog for comparison, as the 100-400 with no extender is certainly capable of some excellent results. Watch this space. :-)
Comparison pictures now on my blog, so see what you think. It would also be interesting to pit the 300/2.8 against the 300/4, while you have both in your possession!
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Oh dear, that sounds expensive!
ReplyDeleteMartinB
Phil agrees with Martin! Brian's 300mm f/2.8 Canon lens is just brilliant.
ReplyDeleteFrom my experience, the 100-400 needs very careful handling to get good results. It can be very sharp indeed, but doesn't seem to like being used "quickly". I suspect the IS needs time to settle as I've had quite a few shots which show a kind of "shimmering" effect. It also varies throughout its zoom range, being noticeable sharper at the shorter end.
ReplyDeleteIt's obviously not a patch on the 300/2.8, but then it's much cheaper and you don't need to be a weight-lifter to operate it!
I'll try to post some examples at 100% on my blog for comparison, as the 100-400 with no extender is certainly capable of some excellent results. Watch this space. :-)
Comparison pictures now on my blog, so see what you think. It would also be interesting to pit the 300/2.8 against the 300/4, while you have both in your possession!
ReplyDelete