200-400 test chart images

[jrw]

Deleting old posts.

[Sean Setters]

Nice catch! The plan is to post the test chart results to the news section on Monday. ;-)

[neuroanatomist]

Pretty sharp. Still, the 600/4L IS II is slightly sharper, and the 600 II + 1.4xIII is noticeably sharper (and 280mm longer) than the 200-400 @ 560mm with the internal TC. Glad I went ahead with the 600 II instead of waiting for the 200-400/4+1.4x to hit the shelves.

[eldarhau]

Pretty sharp. Still, the 600/4L IS II is slightly sharper, and the 600 II + 1.4xIII is noticeably sharper (and 280mm longer) than the 200-400 @ 560mm with the internal TC. Glad I went ahead with the 600 II instead of waiting for the 200-400/4+1.4x to hit the shelves.

+1 The 600 arrives on Friday But a safari trip is coming up and I would think that the 200-400 would be just the right thing to use there.

[Dr Croubie]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=4&APIComp=0

And even at the longest it goes, inbuilt 1.4x and external 2xIII ... the corners are still better than the 70-300 non-L (although marginally worse in the centre).

now the question (which i don't have to answer until I win the lottery):
70-300L + 500/4 or 600/4 OR
70-200L + 200-400L OR
85/1.8 + 100/2.0 + 135L + 200-400L?

[peety3]

now the question (which i don't have to answer until I win the lottery):
70-300L + 500/4 or 600/4 OR
70-200L + 200-400L OR
85/1.8 + 100/2.0 + 135L + 200-400L?

Honestly, I'd like to hear why you would consider buying both the 500/4 and 600/4. Every time I go dreaming through the "product catalog", I find myself "buying" the odd-hundreds first (300/2.8, 500/4), then circling back for the even-hundreds (200/2, 400/2.8, 600/4). The odds are lighter and cheaper by a long-shot. For that matter, I find the 400DO making its way into my list, and fairly high up. That thing is so easy to shoot with, does really well with a 1.4x, though it does need just a little bit of help in post.