Prime vs. Zoom speed
Apr 12, 2018 14:12:40 #
I just did a test comparing my Canon 100-400 MkII (21 elements, multicoated) at 400mm f5.6 to my 400 mm f/5.6 Novoflexar (3 elements, old coatings).
The zoom was actually about 1/4 stop brighter. Shows how good the new coatings are.
The zoom was actually about 1/4 stop brighter. Shows how good the new coatings are.
Apr 12, 2018 14:17:44 #
Dik wrote:
Easy enough to run your own test.
Easy enough to run your own test.
Indeed it is, and I can post the results of my test as soon as I'm at a different computer. And you're right - the Ex MkIII may be an improvement over the MKII, but I probably won't upgrade - I don't use it that often, but the 70-200 (about 3 lbs) was getting heavy shooting indoor sports, and I decided to try the combination of the 135 + extender. I was surprised at the IQ (considering the extender) and the difference in actual light transmission even though both combinations were supposedly f2.8
Apr 12, 2018 14:32:02 #
I just tested the MkII vs Mk III 1.4x tele-extenders on the 100-400 and found:
MkIII 142 162 167
MkII 141 160 164
No significant difference in brightness.
MkIII 142 162 167
MkII 141 160 164
No significant difference in brightness.
Apr 12, 2018 15:36:05 #
Dik wrote:
The MkIII converter has newer coatings, I wonder if it might yield a tiny bit more light...
I've got both, so I guess I'll try My 100-400 MkII with both and compare, before I sell the 1.4x MkII.
I've got both, so I guess I'll try My 100-400 MkII with both and compare, before I sell the 1.4x MkII.
The MIII converter is specifically matched to the MII lens. Stick with it.
Apr 12, 2018 15:39:21 #
Architect1776 wrote:
The MIII converter is specifically matched to the MII lens. Stick with it.
'Twas never in question.
Nice to find that the MkII is no dimmer than the III. Might help sell it.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.