Canon 400mm 5.6 vs 100-400mm vs Sigma 70-200mm DG II + 2x TC

[micloi]

It's been a long time since I did some lens testing so I thought I post a quick comparison of my, ultra sharp, 100-400mm with the 400mm and, for fun, a Sigma 70-200mm + 2x TC (this Sigma, without the TC, is almost as sharp as the Canon 70-200mm f4 I had before, one of the sharpest Sigma lenses I owned).

All wide open (f5.6) and 100% crops.



First the 2 canons:

 

[micloi]

And all 3 lenses.

 

[Buttkicker]

some rather noisy images here fella
am I missing something in this because they dont look very sharp at all (any of them)
my 2p

 

[digitalfailure]

Why the high ISO's?, I can't really make out the results of your testing, what was your conclusion?

The flower images are different crops and image sizes which makes direct comparison difficult and the 3 below of the cooker switch, the center image taken with the 400mm has better colour rendition and is much sharper than the siggy and a tad sharper than the 100-400.

With so much digital noise in there though it's difficult to draw a real conclusion on any of the images though.

I'm a big fan of the 400 L 5.6 (which is good because I have one) and I also own the Siggy 70-200 albeit with the 1.4 converter and in terms of real sharpness when the image is properly taken the 400 gets the nod.

The Siggy is a great lens too though and it's IQ is an equal for the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS we also have.

 

[micloi]

Used high iso as I had to hand hold the lenses and did not want blurry images because of movement.

Taking the noise out of the equation I find the 100-400 and 400 to be equally sharp and the 70-200 more than acceptable for 100% crops

Will do more tests with a tripod when I have the time

 

[Buttkicker]

I have a 400mm prime and the 100-400mm and the zoom was not nearly as sharp so got shut of it
never used the sigma 70-200mm (newest offering) but the old one was not great after spending an afternoon shooting with it would not of bought it

 

[Greywolf]

Canon prime
Every time

 

[Roy C]

It is difficult/impossible to get accurate comparisons when hand holding. Also the last three are at ISO 6400?. It would be an interesting test if all three were shot on a tripod with a remote release.

TBH if this was the best these lenses could do I would sell the lot - but I know they can do better, here is a test shot I took yesterday with my newly acquired 400/5.6. Hand held, wide open from 76 metres (according to Bridge), no processing whatsoever apart from conversion from RAW and resizing

 

[Granarystudio]

I only have the 400 5.6 L bought the prime as it was supposed to be the sharpest as recommended by members of TP.
So here is my simple test just taken pics few mins ago.

1st pic 3:1 oil can lens wide open 5.6 approx 18-20m away. No cropping.

Same image cropped to just the oil can.

and the small print

I think that is fairly sharp!

Regards Neil.

 

[Buttkicker]

That is blisteringly sharp

 

[Granarystudio]

Thanks,

Glad I got the prime!

Neil.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I had tried 400mm prime ages ago and was well impressed, but sadly no IS.

Rupert click through for full size

To be honest OPs pictures do a disservice to that lens, sorry.

100-400 is much softer, and although I hadn't tested a good copy, I certainly wouldn't expect prime results.

Sigma results speak for itself here - softest and lowest contrast of the three. 200mm is the weakest link of the lens - and adding a 2x will make the matter much worse.

 

[Gary Coyle]

I dont see the point in posting a set of crappy noisy images and make comparissons.

 

[micloi]

Comparisons can still be made with high iso images if all lenses are used at the same iso, do not see the problem there. Also do not forget that these are 100% crops without any noise reduction.

The 100-400 copy I have is as sharp as the prime open wide and that was what I was looking at. The sigma is obviously not as sharp with the 2x attached but by itself it is very sharp.

If anyone has a better comparison please do post your results. Will do some testing using a tripod when I have free time.

 

[Buttkicker]

Michael
if these images were even remotely sharp some kind of comparison might be made but harsh as it may seem all the images posted would of been heading straight to the recycle bin on most Togs on here

as they are - as some kind of samples they just dont work because they are ALL terrible
and as such serve as a good advert to never buy any of the mentioned Lenses

 

[micloi]

Fair enough. The flower looks pretty sharp to me for an 100% crop (you can make out the fly on it) but maybe it is because I saw the full frame and know how small the flower was in the whole frame.