- Messages
- 2,162
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
After learning the other day these were supposed to be used for taking photographs, I thought I would compare the two in a situation that is roughly how I normally use them.
Didn't have a tame partridge in a pear tree, so a tame Chrisa in a half dead pear tree had to do.
It was 20m from the camera.
Both cameras G9, and taken as near to the same time as possible (just put down one camera and pick up the other) both RAWs processed with the same settings on Affinity, both cropped as near as I could to the same points on the image, and then all images here resized to 1200 on the long side to post on here.
The 100-400 is better, but there is not a lot in it. Of course the difference would become more noticeable at a greater distance, but these are already cropped quite hard, so to me it is a fairly good illustration of the difference.
100-300 whole frame
100- 400 whole frame
100-300 crop
100-400n crop
Didn't have a tame partridge in a pear tree, so a tame Chrisa in a half dead pear tree had to do.
It was 20m from the camera.
Both cameras G9, and taken as near to the same time as possible (just put down one camera and pick up the other) both RAWs processed with the same settings on Affinity, both cropped as near as I could to the same points on the image, and then all images here resized to 1200 on the long side to post on here.
The 100-400 is better, but there is not a lot in it. Of course the difference would become more noticeable at a greater distance, but these are already cropped quite hard, so to me it is a fairly good illustration of the difference.
100-300 whole frame
100- 400 whole frame
100-300 crop
100-400n crop