I have had a number of people ask me to compare the 150/2 against the 300/4 and I am sure what they really want is a comparison using the EC-20 on the 150/2. I will confess that I tried over the weekend but was not able to get any great comparison images because for most of the day the light was terrible. There was a brief time when the sun poked out that corresponded with finding a baby gator on the bank, which allowed me to compare the lenses resolution with similarly framed photographs.
Baby gators are lot more nervous when on land compared to in the water, so I was not sure how close this guy would let me get. I had the 300/4 in my hands, so I took some photos and moved closer, took some more photos and moved closer again and again and again and he never once seemed nervous. He didn’t even mind when I put on the MC-14 or when I took it off or put it on again or when I took it back off again. So I slowly moved away and went back to the Jeep to grab the other EM1 with the 150/2 attached. When approaching with the 150/2 and 300/4 I would take some photos with both lenses, move closer, take more photos, move closer again……….hoping that when it was over I would have some shots between the two cameras with similar framing. This was also when I got the closest, so was shooting some really close-up shots with the 300/4 in between the 150/2 shots. Because it was a young gator (about 2 years old) I had to assume that mama was somewhere around, so I didn’t waste time looking at photos on the back of the camera to try and exactly match framing. I took the shots and got out as fast as I could to keep from scaring the baby gator or becoming its mama’s lunch. But I was able to get shots with each lens that lined up pretty close to identical framing.
While shooting the photos I was also switching between wide-open and stopped down one stop since both lenses are sharper stopped down. For some reason the set of images from the 300/4 that matched framing with the 150/2 I didn’t shoot any images at f5.6. I have no idea how this happen because I was being very conscious about taking comparison images, but it doesn’t really effect the comparison so it’s all good.
Data on the images taken……………………………………
- All taken handheld
- All processed identically
- No crop except going to 16:9 aspect ratio
Data on the 300/4 from Lenstip
- Center MTF 50 = ~69 @ f4.0
- Center MTF 50 = ~74 @ f5.6
- Edge MTF 50 = ~62 @ f4.0
- Edge MTF 50 = ~68 @ f5.6
Data on the 150/2 from Lenstip
- Center MTF 50 = ~49 @ f2.0
- Center MTF 50 = ~52 @ f2.8
- Edge MTF 50 = ~45 @ f2.0
- Edge MTF 50 = ~47 @ f2.8
I include the MTF data for several reasons. The first is because this comparison is about resolution or what people tend to call sharpness. Another reason is I have been doing a lot of lens testing the last couple of years and when testing my lenses I look up their MTF data. This information gives me a good idea about how much detail I can expect from a lens, or how sharp images will appear at 100%. I have also learned that the higher the MTF the farther away you can shoot or the more you can crop and still maintain acceptable levels of detail. Now when a new lens is released I can look at the MTF data and know if it’s a lens I should consider buying since I have done so much testing of various lenses with very different MTF numbers. But resolution is not everything when it comes to images that a lens creates (it is the one thing that can be measured though) and that’s why I like shooting the same subject at the same time for comparisons. Doing that allows me to compare the aspects of an image other than sharpness.
I should also point out that I included the edge MTF numbers because that is a concern of mine when looking at lenses. I don’t use the center focus point and crop for composition like a lot of people do, I hate cropping so I get close and shoot with composition in mind. That means that the eye of my subject is never at center and is typically somewhere close to one of the vertical and horizontal rule of thirds line. So for wildlife shooting a lens that has serious sharpness drop off towards the edge is not something I want to shoot with. Why people tend to think edge sharpness is only important for landscape photographers has always baffled me.
Data on the 300/4 shot
- ISO 250, 1/400 @ f4.0
- Taken from a distance of 10.4 feet
- DoF = 0.5 inches
Data on the 150/2 shot
- ISO 200, 1/800 @ f2.0
- Taken from a distance of 6.4 feet
- DoF = 0.4 inches
Data on other 150/2 shot
- ISO 200, 1/320 @ f2.8
- Taken from a distance of 6.4 feet
- DoF = 0.5 inches
Ok………………………so here are the wide-open shots. The framing is not perfectly identical, but it’s close enough to compare the lenses.
View attachment 598283
Baby Gator 005 by
RRcoleJR Photography, on Flickr
View attachment 598284
Baby Gator 006 by
RRcoleJR Photography, on Flickr
I am fine with you posting what lens you think took what shot, but if you click thru to Flickr I ask that you wait a few days before posting the truth. Gives everyone who comes a chance to guess without any spoilers.
Since Flickr only displays just over 2000px I have uploaded full resolution images to DPR and at the end will include links to them so you can pixel peep until your eyes bleed.