Another Arches National Park shot.
Printable View
Another Arches National Park shot.
I am being a total technical photo nerd this week so, while these photos are nothing amazing, I have been staring at them for hours. These are 2 test shots between the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L at 400mm and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L USM II combined with the Canon 2x II at 400mm.
One thing I have learned, or at least confirmed, is that no 2 lenses of the same focal length are exactly the same. One lens at 400mm may actually be a tad bit more zoomed in then another lens at 400mm. In my testing, the 70-200 with the 2x was just a tad bit more zoomed in than the 100-400. Because of this, the images aren't 100% the same, but they were taken from the exact same spot, same tripod, and exact same difference. The only difference is the focus spot may have been ever so slightly different, but these were taken at f/16, so DOF shouldn't have been a problem. at all.
I am not going to say which shot was taken with which lens. Can anyone tell a difference at all or are they pretty much near identical? Ever more so, these are roughly 100%, so at almost any normal print size, the minor differences wouldn't even show. I will also include a slightly cropped versions to see if it is even noticeable at that size.
Would love to hear back if anyone can tell a major difference, or even a little difference.
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
They are for sure different, but I can't tell you which lens is which.
It looks like the 2nd lens is letting in more light.
EDIT: 2nd is Cannon 100-400
Lets cheat and check the EXIF data!
Explain. What do you see that is different?Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
This is true, the histograms are near identical, but they are off by a hair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
The main thing I am looking for is sharpness here. The 100% cropped images had to be aligned, so because of this, you are not looking at the exact same spot of the lens, which could explain why some areas are the same sharpness while others are not. Looking at the entire images at 100%, both cameras showed about equal sharpness, but not necessarily in all the same spots.
Also of note, the 70-200 had the Canon 2x II on it, but they are coming out with a 2x III supposedly by March which is supposed to improve image quality even more.
I want to say this one has a shallower depth of field than the other one, maybe?
I agree with Doc. The blacks and highlights on the second photo is stronger in contrast than the first photo. I would assume the 100 - 400 is a higher end model than the 70 - 200 so I say it's #2.
EDIT: Whoops didn't see Capichans response.
That is possible. If it is, it is shallower by a hair. It could also be that the lens was technically closer than the other. I did some research, and even though both lenses should be at 400mm, they could be different. I think the 70-200 with 2x was about 405-410 (very rough estimate) because if I wanted to fill the frame exactly as the 100-400 did, I had to back up. Because of this, I used PS to align the images, which could have also added a little distortion to one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
I wish I could show the full res images, cause when you look at them both at 100% at different parts of the image, it is very tough to say if the DOF is very much different at all.
The 70-200 is higher end (at 70-200), but when adding the 2x, you do lose some image quality. The only thing I did in post for these versions is sharpness. Because they were taken in RAW, some minor post in RAW can easily fix the contrast. I haven't used the original 2x, but I have heard it improved greatly on IQ, and I don't see a loss in quality as much as maybe not as much contrast (which is something super easy to fix and actually isn't a downside at all). The 2x III is supposed to improve upon the IQ even more. Can't wait for that to come out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
By the way. thank's for all the responses. The 100-400 should be better then the 70-200 with 2x at 400, but as far as sharpness goes, in a majority of my test shots, I am having trouble seeing much of a difference, At normal size, you can't tell much of a difference in sharpness. While the 70-200 is more expensive (even more so with the 2x) it is unbelievable at 70-200 (considered the BEST zoom lens by many) and with the 2x you are getting two lenses in one.
Yeah, I mean, if it's really there it is slight enough that 99% of the heads out there aren't ever going to notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapichan
