[to Photo Page] [to Baden's Home Page]

400 mm Lens Comparison (20090824)

I have pondered for awhile, how my 400 mm setup, which uses my 200 mm 2.8L lens and a 2× Extender, would compare with an integral 400 mm lens, especially for surfing shots. To this end, I recently rented a 400 mm 5.6L lens from Leo's, and took it out for the weekend. I had some fun with it, especially with the 2× Extender attached. After taking many shots, few which turned out as fine as those from my 200 mm lens, I decided to use a controlled situation in my apartment, where I shot my speaker screen. Right away, I found the 400 mm lens was front focusing badly, so I continued my testing manually focusing using "Live view".

Essentially, the 400 is inherently a bit better, and showed ultimate sharpness and contrast right from f5.6, where the 200 + 2× was notably softer at f5.6, and only started to get close by f8.0. Remember that the following images are 2:1, so in reality, the difference would be mostly imperceptible. Some detracting issues were that the 400 is a lot longer and heavier, and the minimal focusing distance was 3.5 m, where it is about 1.5 m with the 200 + 2×. If I needed a lens for dedicated long shots and surfing, the 400 would be better, but I was thinking that for only 5 bills more, I could get a real 400 (2.8 with IS) that would probably blow them both away. {:-)

These are all 200 x 300 pixel 2:1 crops, without any linked files, shot with the 400 mm 5.6L and my 200 2.8L with a 2× Extender on my 50D with mirror lockup and a timed remote release on a tripod, saved as "Large-fine", doubled in size, and then cropped.

Canon 400 mm 5.6L
f-stop 5.6
f-stop 6.3
f-stop 7.1
f-stop 8.0
Canon 200 mm 2.8L + 2× Extender
f-stop 5.6
f-stop 6.3
f-stop 7.1
f-stop 8.0


[to Photo Page] [to page top]