Canon EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
4. Image resolution
The picture below shows a graph of the MTF50 function values, measured by us.
Please Support UsIf you enjoy our reviews and articles, and you want us to continue our work please, support our website by donating through PayPal. The funds are going to be used for paying our editorial team, renting servers, and equipping our testing studio; only that way we will be able to continue providing you interesting content for free. |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The best results the lens presents at 200 mm, a bit weaker at 100 and 300 mm, the weakest at 400 mm. We should add straightaway that the differences between particular focal lengths are not big and, what’s very important, the maximum relative aperture performance really deservers a lot of praise – it stands out from the maximum results just slightly.
The range of 100-300 mm fares similar or a tad worse than in the case of the Sigma 100-300 mm, which even by f/4.0 gave very sharp images and for some focal length/aperture combinations significantly exceeded the level of 40 lpmm, a result unattainable for the Canon. The Sigma, although faster, doesn’t have the 400 mm focal length. Canon has it and at an excellent level, achieving significantly better results than e.g a Tokina 80-400 mm.
We can say roughly the same about the frame edge performance, which is shown in the picture below.
We don’t observe here any records but you should take your hat off to a very nice and even behaviour at all focal lengths. What’s more, once again at the maximum aperture we get a picture quality which is difficult to fault. The performance of the Canon differs from that of the Sigma 100-300 F/4.0. The Sigma is significantly better in the 100-200 mm range but it’s slightly worse at 300 mm.
At the end we traditionally present our test chart crops as JPEG files conventionally sharpened.
 |
