Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews
FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell   
Search Used
1   2   3  
4
   5   end
  

Archive 2008 · Canon 400 F5.6
  
 
M Vers
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #1 · Canon 400 F5.6


PetKal wrote:
I wouldn't neccessarily call it a bad assumption, I'd say that we've had precedents for that happening (i.e., 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 300 f/4 IS) so one tends to be cautious. Granted, we also had a recent reversal of that where the 70-200 f/4 IS is probably a better lens optically than the f/4 non-IS.


Precedents are in the past and whats past is past. The future of IS is the 70-200/4IS, it is the 17-55IS and the 200/2IS. That's the point. No lens since the 100-400/300/70-200 2.8 (which I think are great pieces of glass) have shown any negative affects due to the implementation of IS--in fact its just the opposite.

Dec 17, 2008 at 10:06 PM
PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #2 · Canon 400 F5.6


Ahem.








Dec 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM
M Vers
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #3 · Canon 400 F5.6


That's how I feel as well

Dec 17, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Jim Victory
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #4 · Canon 400 F5.6


Colin Key wrote:
M Vers wrote:....never thought I'd be a wanna-be

Why are you Yanks getting so vexed about the term "wanna be"? You defined the term in the first place from the phrase "want to be" (just as you have screwed up most of the English language with your appalling slang.)

Colin


I personally don't like being called a "Yank". I'm a "Texan" and don't like being referred to anything associated to a "Yankee"

I really like the 400 f/5.6L and have gotten good results with it handheld with a 1.4x TC attached but I have gotten good results with a 100-400 using IS as well.

IMOP Keith's examples with the 100-400 are an improvement over any example you have posted so far with the 400 f/5.6L. I'm not saying the 100-400 is better than the 400 f/5.6L but it is in comparison with your examples and his.

Jim


Dec 17, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Johnny Bravo
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #5 · Canon 400 F5.6


Colin Key wrote:
Sanlameer wrote:

I guess, no IS or an update in the in the near future.





Too many "wanna-be's" think that IS is a panacea to better photographs - it is NOT.

Colin


Too many 'wanna-be's' think that they can channel the thoughts of others.

Did you ever consider that some folks would like to see IS in that lens for the same friggin reason we like it in other lenses?

Sheesh.


Dec 18, 2008 at 02:20 AM
astrolucida
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #6 · Canon 400 F5.6


Colin Key wrote:
It is the elegant simplicity of this lens and its lightning fast AF which make it a "winner". Adding IS would, in my opinion, ruin it.

Actually, IS does not make AF any slower. Compare the AF speed of 70-200f2.8L and the IS model. If anything, the IS model is slightly faster.

What would make the AF slower on the 400f5.6L if/when the MFD would be decreased. The two 70-200's have about the same MFD, so no difference there.


Dec 18, 2008 at 12:50 PM
RobertLynn
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #7 · Canon 400 F5.6


The only draw back to IS is the cost.

As for modern IS systems and their "cheaper" cost...why is my stinking 70-200 2.8IS 500+ more than a non IS?

Dec 18, 2008 at 01:06 PM
keithreeder
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #8 · Canon 400 F5.6


Actually, IS does not make AF any slower.

Indeed - nobody complains about the 300mm f/2.8 IS being slow to focus...


Dec 18, 2008 at 03:44 PM
M Vers
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #9 · Canon 400 F5.6


keithreeder wrote:
Actually, IS does not make AF any slower.

Indeed - nobody complains about the 300mm f/2.8 IS being slow to focus...


Or any other current up-to-date IS lens for that matter. Simple truth of it all is that current IS systems only affects one thing negatively--your wallet (and for many its negligible).

Dec 18, 2008 at 05:55 PM
pixNW
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #10 · Canon 400 F5.6


How much difference is there in IQ between a 300 f4 IS with a 1.4x and the 400 5.6?

Dec 18, 2008 at 06:51 PM
 



PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #11 · Canon 400 F5.6


pixNW wrote:
How much difference is there in IQ between a 300 f4 IS with a 1.4x and the 400 5.6?


I have owned/tested two 400 f/5.6 and three 300 f/4 IS lenses. In that sample, the 400 f/5.6 was decidedly a sharper lens. Once you mount a TC on the 300 f/4 IS, the "sharpness distance" between the two increases even further.

However, speaking in more practical terms, if you can't have sufficient shutter speed and/or a stable support, then the 300 f/4 IS +1.4xTC combo might in fact give you better results. If you plan on shooting zoo animals or bugs and such, the 300 f/4 IS might give you better results again because of its exceptional MFD of 1.5m.

Dec 18, 2008 at 07:37 PM
pixNW
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #12 · Canon 400 F5.6


Was the 300 at 5.6 less sharp than the 400 at 5.6? With the 1.4TC and the 300, you're really at 5.6 aren't you? If so, how much shutter speed advantage will the 300/1.4TC have over the 400?

Dec 18, 2008 at 10:16 PM
GeneO
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #13 · Canon 400 F5.6


pixNW wrote:
How much difference is there in IQ between a 300 f4 IS with a 1.4x and the 400 5.6?



It is not only the sharpness you need to consider, but the AF with a TC is significantly slower.

- Gene


Dec 19, 2008 at 01:28 AM
pixNW
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #14 · Canon 400 F5.6


Yes, I'm aware that the AF slows down. I sometimes use a 1.4TC on my 70-200 2.8, and it doesn't work near as well for action shooting with the TC attached for sure.

I've been thinking about getting a 300 f4 mostly for some sports shooting, but thought with a TC it might work okay for some birds (not in flight type shots) and other somewhat still wildlife. I have a feeling I may kick myself though, and should probably pony up for the 300 2.8 IS.

Dec 19, 2008 at 02:32 AM
astrolucida
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #15 · Canon 400 F5.6


PetKal wrote:
pixNW wrote:
How much difference is there in IQ between a 300 f4 IS with a 1.4x and the 400 5.6?


I have owned/tested two 400 f/5.6 and three 300 f/4 IS lenses. In that sample, the 400 f/5.6 was decidedly a sharper lens. Once you mount a TC on the 300 f/4 IS, the "sharpness distance" between the two increases even further.


A lot of people say that the 400f5.6L is clearly sharper than the 300f4L IS + 1.4x TC. However, photozone.de has actually measured that the 300+TC is sharper in the center (1796.5 lines per picture height) already wide open at f5.6 (vs the 1657 of the 400). Though losing in the corners about the same amount as winning in the center. And considering that the 300+TC is 420mm, that adds 5% more to the resolution, bringing it to an effective 1886 (with a fixed camera position)!

My own experience also support this, having tried a friend's 400f5.6L and owning a 300f4L IS + 1.4xTC myself. In fact, I don't ever hesitate to use my 300f4L IS with the 1.4x TC when the need arises. True, it does not take the TC as gracefully as the Sigma 300f2.8 EX DG or the 400f2.8L II, but still well enough for it not to be a real issue.

Though, as others have said, AF is clearly slower - although that has not prevented me from taking successful BIF images with the combination. In fact, with the 40D, more than 90% of blurred images are because I was not able to keep the focus point on the bird. When you follow a bird, AF only needs perform small adjustments all the time, so AF speed is actually not that big an issue. Only when you see a bird and quickly try to grab it, then AF speed really matters. Or when you lose the bird and need to recatch the focus.

The only place where the 400f5.6L clearly wins in image quality is astrophotography. Aberrations are almost unnoticeable throughout the image area (1.6x crop at least) while even the plain 300f4L IS shows oddly-shaped bright stars even in the center.


Dec 19, 2008 at 07:33 AM
pixNW
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #16 · Canon 400 F5.6


astrolucida wrote:
PetKal wrote:
pixNW wrote:
How much difference is there in IQ between a 300 f4 IS with a 1.4x and the 400 5.6?


I have owned/tested two 400 f/5.6 and three 300 f/4 IS lenses. In that sample, the 400 f/5.6 was decidedly a sharper lens. Once you mount a TC on the 300 f/4 IS, the "sharpness distance" between the two increases even further.


A lot of people say that the 400f5.6L is clearly sharper than the 300f4L IS + 1.4x TC. However, photozone.de has actually measured that the 300+TC is sharper in the center (1796.5 lines per picture height) already wide open at f5.6 (vs the 1657 of the 400). Though losing in the corners about the same amount as winning in the center. And considering that the 300+TC is 420mm, that adds 5% more to the resolution, bringing it to an effective 1886 (with a fixed camera position)!


Thanks astrolucidia, very helpful post.

My own experience also support this, having tried a friend's 400f5.6L and owning a 300f4L IS + 1.4xTC myself. In fact, I don't ever hesitate to use my 300f4L IS with the 1.4x TC when the need arises. True, it does not take the TC as gracefully as the Sigma 300f2.8 EX DG or the 400f2.8L II, but still well enough for it not to be a real issue.

Though, as others have said, AF is clearly slower - although that has not prevented me from taking successful BIF images with the combination. In fact, with the 40D, more than 90% of blurred images are because I was not able to keep the focus point on the bird. When you follow a bird, AF only needs perform small adjustments all the time, so AF speed is actually not that big an issue. Only when you see a bird and quickly try to grab it, then AF speed really matters. Or when you lose the bird and need to recatch the focus.

The only place where the 400f5.6L clearly wins in image quality is astrophotography. Aberrations are almost unnoticeable throughout the image area (1.6x crop at least) while even the plain 300f4L IS shows oddly-shaped bright stars even in the center.



Dec 19, 2008 at 04:30 PM
keithreeder
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #17 · Canon 400 F5.6


M Vers wrote:for many its negligible.
Indeedy - and more importantly, for many it's money very well spent.


Dec 19, 2008 at 04:57 PM
M Vers
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #18 · Canon 400 F5.6


keithreeder wrote:
M Vers wrote:for many its negligible.
Indeedy - and more importantly, for many it's money very well spent.

Well Put

Dec 19, 2008 at 05:17 PM
bob_wfmc
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #19 · Canon 400 F5.6


astrolucida,

I'm not sure you can compare the two results between the 400 and the 300 + 1.4x since the IMATEST results are sensitive to the distance between the target and sensor. Photozone.de did not normalize this distance in his test, and so the much greater MFD of the 400 put it at an unfair disadvantage vs the 300 + 1.4 as the 300 is much closer to the target. As such, the comparison is, at best, very relative. Another example of this unfortunate limitation of such analysis software can be seen in the recent review of the 800mm F/5.6L IS by slrgear.com. They completely missed the boat and drew, IMHO, the wrong conclusions about the optical performance of the lens. When I get an 800, I plan to compare it using imatest to my 500 and show how when the MFDs are normalized, the results change.

Dec 19, 2008 at 07:51 PM
skid00skid00
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #20 · Canon 400 F5.6


astrolucida wrote:
A lot of people say that the 400f5.6L is clearly sharper than the 300f4L IS + 1.4x TC. However, photozone.de has actually measured that the 300+TC is sharper in the center (1796.5 lines per picture height) already wide open at f5.6 (vs the 1657 of the 400). Though losing in the corners about the same amount as winning in the center. And considering that the 300+TC is 420mm, that adds 5% more to the resolution, bringing it to an effective 1886 (with a fixed camera position)!


Here! Astro! Comeon, boy! (Sorry, I momentarily flashed back to the Jetsons! )

I was about to thorougly thrash you with facts, when my Lenswork II stunned me by indicating that the 300 + 1.4x is indeed sharper than the bare 400 5.6!
But then I noticed that the 400 + 1.4x is sharper yet! Guess I'll have to yell a the wife, instead...


Dec 20, 2008 at 03:51 AM
1   2   3  
4
   5   end




FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell

1   2   3  
4
   5   end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

  Username   Password  
Lost your password?