Full Version: Leica 100-400 resolution (lenstip)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2


So lenstip tested the olympus 300mm lens and in the review they make comments comparing the two lenses including defending their results for the Leica.


Basically the 300mm is over 70lpm wide open. They also test it with the 1.4 converter.


Unfortunately I had to start a new thread due to some foobars forcing the old thread to be closed; please behave. Btw imaging resource also has a review of the leica 100-400; and while they state the 300-400 range is 'sharp' they show in their 'blur' test that is not nearly the quality you obtain at 100-200mm. My guess is that max aperture of f6.3 @ long end is causing issue and perhaps outdated firmware (there has been report that firmware update actually has a big impact).


In any event while I think the results are a bit low i can't really see the results being spetacular @ 400mm.


Well, over at imaging resource - just compare it to e.g. the Olympus M.Zuiko 70-300mm at the long end.

A comparison with a prime lens is always a bit unfair IMHO since the scopes are different.


It is about as good as the Sigma 150-600mm C, Nikkor 70-400 VR, Tamron 150-600mm and better than the Canon 100-400mm mk I - and these are all "shorter".


Disclaimer - I have no clue at all about IR's test method - just comparing those charts.
SLR=gear/IR is not the most trustworthy, the charts often raise questions...

I'm slightly wondering about the often flat planes in those charts.

Their charts show how many de-centered lenses they test at any rate.

Quote:I'm slightly wondering about the often flat planes in those charts.
Indeed. Or when you don't see resolution go down till or past f11. Or when you see corners get worse when stopping down. Or when you see them say a lens has a high CA from a lens known to have no CA issue, or vice versa.
To be fair: most of the time the I-R results are in line with what I've seen in the other sources: here at Photozone, or at Lenstip, DPReview (when they were testing lenses...), EPZ. There are exceptions, but then again, none of the sites is immune. After all, Markus has found the Nikkor 58/1.4 to be sharp where Lenstip and some other reviews proclaimed it the overpriced failure of the year.

Based on what I read in vlogs by wildlife shooters it is considered a very good lens, although slightly less sharp/contrasty above 300 mm, and obviously not great at AF-ing birds in flight, but that is a camera-thing.


F/6.3 certainly would have an effect, indeed, but at longer FLs, so does air quality etc., heat, haze, and what have you. Since the resulting MTFs are essentially additive, this has a relatively large effect on the system resolution, which is exactly what is shown in the lenstip chart.


As it is a rather extreme long zoom, it will not easily beat a prime anyway, that is to be expected. However, all in all, I reckon it is a great lens.

The 300 F/4 is in a different class alltogether, however. Based on my calculations it looks like it is very close to being diffraction limited from wide open, IOW, it is as sharp as it gets. I'd still have to see how it behaves on a camera wih a newer sensor, with higher resolution, but I do expect it to do as well.


HTH, kind regards, Wim


P.S.: Do note that the readings are done from the RAW-files. I'd expect for processed images to do better.

The 300mm f4 is in a different price league. You could buy a 7d and 100-400 for the same cash!
Quote:The 300mm f4 is in a different price league. You could buy a 7d and 100-400 for the same cash!

That too <ROFL> Smile.


Kind regards, Wim
Pages: 1 2