• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / Lens screening testing / Examples / Good 100-400 zoom

Good 100-400 zoom

A reader sent me raws captured with a Sony 100-400 zoom on an a7RIII, at 100, 200, and 400 mm focal length. He kept the target distance the same for all of the series.

Here are the 100 mm shots, cropped, scaled up to 200%, and placed in a composite image that shows the orientation of the target in each of the nine captures.

The apparent exposure differences between the captures are unusual. I checked the EXIF, and the ISO, shutter speed, and f-stops are the same for each capture, so that’s not it. I think there may have been some high cloud cover that attenuated the sunlight in some of the shots. 

Except for some astigmatism in the upper left and lower right corners, the lens looks just great. We always knew this lens was good at 100 mm and this proves it. I wouldn’t have any concern about the astigmatism, but it is a departure from radial symmetry.

At 200 mm:

The lens doesn’t do quite as well at 200mm as it did at 100, but it is more symmetric.

At 400 mm:

This looks pretty symmetric, too, but the captures point up a difficulty in performing this test at such long focal lengths. The reader included an extra copy of the on-axis capture in each set, and in the 400 mm set, the second shot was markedly softer than the first, and indeed softer than any of the others. Probably camera motion, not a focus shift, because the second on-axis capture was in the middle of the series. But if camera motion could affect one image in a series, it makes me a little suspicious of the others, and any variations could be at least partially caused by such motion. But there couldn’t be much, with all the aliasing we’re seeing.

I’d call this lens a keeper.

June 2025
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  
« May    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • NiceDays on Do Raw Developers Use the Embedded JPEG as a Color Reference?
  • Christer Almqvist on Diffraction and the Airy disk diameter
  • Paul R on Price and Performance: Hasselblad X vs. Fujifilm GFX
  • JimK on Do Raw Developers Use the Embedded JPEG as a Color Reference?
  • Jack Hogan on Diffraction and the Airy disk diameter
  • Jack Hogan on Do Raw Developers Use the Embedded JPEG as a Color Reference?
  • Štěpán Kaňa on A Modest Proposal
  • John Vickers on Mitigating lighting banding in GFX ES images
  • JimK on A Modest Proposal
  • K on Hasselblad XCD 38/2.5 on X2D 100C, LaCA

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.