04-18-2011, 08:37 AM
[quote name='robbert100' timestamp='1303114529' post='7714']
Hi Klaus,
Thank you very much for testing the 100-400, 400-5.6 and 300-4.0L lenses within such a short period. As a satisfied 100-400 user (on both APSC and FF) there was always the feeling that other lenses in the same category (size, price, reach) might be better, esp. if one reads the user reviews on the Internet. Now I know the 100-400, at least for me, is the better lens, far more versatile without sacrificing to much image quality. Only if Canon comes up with a real successor for the 100-400 (better IS, weatherprotection) I will be interested (no, not the new 200-400 4.0L or the 300-2.8L mkII).
Best regards,
Rob
[/quote]
I think the primary issue is centering quality. The 400L has, by far, the best quality here so it's more even across the image frame compared to all others. The 300L IS and 100-400L IS show "dips" here and there which is typical for zooms as well as IS/VR lenses.
Hi Klaus,
Thank you very much for testing the 100-400, 400-5.6 and 300-4.0L lenses within such a short period. As a satisfied 100-400 user (on both APSC and FF) there was always the feeling that other lenses in the same category (size, price, reach) might be better, esp. if one reads the user reviews on the Internet. Now I know the 100-400, at least for me, is the better lens, far more versatile without sacrificing to much image quality. Only if Canon comes up with a real successor for the 100-400 (better IS, weatherprotection) I will be interested (no, not the new 200-400 4.0L or the 300-2.8L mkII).
Best regards,
Rob
[/quote]
I think the primary issue is centering quality. The 400L has, by far, the best quality here so it's more even across the image frame compared to all others. The 300L IS and 100-400L IS show "dips" here and there which is typical for zooms as well as IS/VR lenses.