Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2014 · High ISOs and f/4 vs f/5.6

  
 
rprouty
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · High ISOs and f/4 vs f/5.6


With examples of super high ISO pics, most recently Tony Markle, is one of the reasons I decided on the 100-400 over the 400 DOII. For me I can't justify the price of the 400 DO when it looks like the new 100-400 can almost everything the DO can do plus have the zoom capability. My decision for my needs I'm sure others have different views and needs.


Dec 22, 2014 at 06:41 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · High ISOs and f/4 vs f/5.6


For me, this realization came when I bought a 1DX, and I no longer needed my 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L. So I sold them. Turns out, I only used them at f/1.4 when I needed a higher shutter speed in low light, and rarely if ever used f/1.4 for DOF control (at 35mm and wider focal lengths). I still have the 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L II, because I use them wide open for DOF control.

For me, the 100-400L IS II will be a major step forward in usability, with significantly better sealing, AF, and IS than the Mk I that it's replacing. The slightly better resolution and apparent increase in contrast are also very welcome improvements, but not the main drivers for buying it.

The 100-400L IS II won't replace my 300/2.8L IS or 500/4L IS for most situations, but it will replace the 300/2.8L IS + Extenders for travel by air, when I want a long lens, but won't bring the 500/4L IS.



Dec 22, 2014 at 08:01 AM
Alan321
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · High ISOs and f/4 vs f/5.6


Who knows for sure, but you might change your mind if you ever get to use a 30-40MPx full frame sensor. Until then, seems like you made wise choices.


Another aspect of high ISO shooting is that you don't always want minimum depth of field just because the scene is dark, in which case maximum aperture isn't always appropriate. If you *need* f/5.6 or f/8 for the extra DOF then even an f/2.8 lens offers little advantage except perhaps to AF performance compared with a decent f/5.6 lens, at least when the lenses are both in a comparable price class.

- Alan



Dec 22, 2014 at 11:08 AM
John Caldwell
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · High ISOs and f/4 vs f/5.6


The 4 vs. 5.6 question makes me wonder about the 200-400 sales with the new 100-400 lens' price point
quite a bit.



Dec 22, 2014 at 11:24 AM
dhphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · High ISOs and f/4 vs f/5.6


I think the fact the new cameras have such phenomenally good high ISO performance is one reason why Canon have made a 'trinity' of f4 lenses.

Unless you need f1.4, f2 or f2.8 the f4 lenses do the job just as well and are generally smaller and cheaper.

I find myself routinely shooting at 800ISO now, even for subjects where I require a high level of detail because these sensors are just so good.



Dec 22, 2014 at 11:26 AM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · High ISOs and f/4 vs f/5.6


I shot a wedding with my zooms, instead of my primes. (Not sure why I made that judgement call).

I was at 6400 1/25 f/2.8.
f/4 would've given me even less keepers.
By way of comparison though, I could have gotten even more with the fast primes (but would've had shallow DOF to contend with).

I think we are at a really great time in photography and a lot of folks take that for granted. I can get usable prints from my 5D3s at ISO 6400/12800. I am able to shoot in environments that were previously only able to be shot in via flash. I have a flash on my camera that controls a wide group of other flashes...reliably, in large environments. (though I haven't seen a way to change zoom on the 600exrts from my camera, but still being able to do anything at all...amazing).

Our cameras can write to 2 cards, focus in low light conditions, hell focus at all, have gyros and things in them that allow us to use shutter speeds that are completely ridiculous for the focal length (I have hand held my 70-200 2.8ISII at absurd speeds). I'm able to resolve detail in situations that were previously unfathomable...

I mean we are at a time where we are able to consider dropping the f/2.8 lenses in lieu of slower aperture- because the cameras are just that good. Granted, I will never underestimate the benefit of having the fast glass that we do- there's just times when f/2.8 is better than f/4, and conversely vice versa.

It's a good time to be a photographer.



Dec 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM
rattlebonez
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · High ISOs and f/4 vs f/5.6


I used the Canon 400mm F5.6 L for many years. I also on occasion tried a 100-400 from a friend.

My thoughts were that I am at 400mm 99.9% of the time. So I did not need the zoom. What was more important was being able to get past 400mm when required with excellent quality. I found that F5.6 lenses caused me to be at higher ISO's. This is most noticeable in winter or overcast days. That did not work well with the 7D as F5.6 forced ISO's that were noisy. The F5.6 with a tele-converter (F8) was noting to get excited about. I found F8 did not provide good focusing or bokeh.

Now, I much prefer having the Canon 400mm F4 DO IS. I am able to get nice bokeh and subject isolation at F4. I can also use lower ISO in the winter and overcast days. The lens is very sharp at 560mm F5.6 with good bokeh. Focus is fast at 560mm F5.6 and usable for BIF.

Some people will prefer the 400 DO option and some will prefer the new 100-400.
Good to see Canon producing high quality lenses.



Dec 22, 2014 at 11:37 AM
brimull
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · High ISOs and f/4 vs f/5.6


For some the f/4-f/5.6 difference is important. With the newer camera bodies, the 400mm DO II still allows reasonably fast autofocusing and multiple features in servo mode using a 1.4x extender, and the autofocus still functions with a 2x extender. In a pinch you can get out to 800mm with autofocus.

I use the 1.4x extender the majority of the time so I think of the 400mm DO f/4 as a 560mm f/5.6.

Having said that, I can't disagree that for the quality, flexibility (zoom), compactness, and price point, the 100-400mm II f/5.6 is terrific and a lens I love having!

Brian M.



Dec 22, 2014 at 12:12 PM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · High ISOs and f/4 vs f/5.6


Unless there is a big change in sensor technology, iso 3200 will still be better than iso 6400 for example. So if you are taking picture of animals in low light (me) and you can afford it and carry the extra weight, the faster lens will be better.

I looked at the digitalpicture 100-400 (that I have v1 of) vs 200-400 (that I have) and concluded - 200-400 is still f4 and has a built in 1.4x, so still the best zoom going. I am not sure the market will agree. New purchases of 200-400 will likely decline because of 100-400 vs 200-400 price differences. Now the only reason is twice as fast. It used to be twice as fast and better quality.



Dec 22, 2014 at 03:57 PM
rprouty
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · High ISOs and f/4 vs f/5.6


And how many times the $$$$


Dec 22, 2014 at 08:32 PM
RobAmy
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · High ISOs and f/4 vs f/5.6


I agree on the price point of the 100-400 vs the 200-400 but that 200-400 is just a special lens, amazing in fact. If you just base it on price then you have your answer already. It is kind of like the 7d II vs 1dx if you only use price as a factor then it is a no brainer but you are kidding yourself if you honestly think they are the same and consistently you will get the same results. Do not get me wrong, it is an amazing time to me a photographer. We have amazing choices today and some good options at different price points.


Dec 23, 2014 at 07:03 AM
KasperJ
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · High ISOs and f/4 vs f/5.6


Re IQ comparison of 100-400 vs 200-400, I would say that the 2-4 has a noticeable lead in the center at 400, whereas they seem about even in mid and corner frame.

5.6 vs 4.0:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

5.6 vs 5.6:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

Where the 2-4 pulls ahead the most is when you compare them at 560 (with a 1.4 extender). Already at 5.6 the 2-4 is sharper than the 1-4 at 8.0. Stopping down the 2-4 to the 1-4 ( or even just 1/2 stop) and there is no match between them

8.0 vs 5.6
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

8.0 vs 8.0:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3

That said I do admire the IQ results from the new 1-4. If I didn't own the 2-4 I would be mighty tempted to go with that (and add a 500 fixed for the same amount of money as the 2-4)



Dec 23, 2014 at 07:41 AM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.