If your only concern is image quality, save yourself $5650 and get the venerable 400 f/5.6. There is nothing wrong with its image quality (see Roger's data).
If you need (want) an f/4 lens and IS and have an extra $5650 burning a hole in your pocket, the 25+ year newer f/4 DO lens with IS is a hell of a lot better lens in lots of ways. Looks like IQ might be a shade better, too.
Spikey131 wrote:
If your only concern is image quality, save yourself $5650 and get the venerable 400 f/5.6. There is nothing wrong with its image quality (see Roger's data).
If you need (want) an f/4 lens and IS and have an extra $5650 burning a hole in your pocket, the 25+ year newer f/4 DO lens with IS is a hell of a lot better lens in lots of ways. Looks like IQ might be a shade better, too.
Yes, image quality is what I'm after... I already have the 400 5.6 and was wondering if I should just sell it to go with the 400 DO II... if the image quality is that much better. I have the 500 F4 II and there is a big differance between it and the 400 F5.6. If the 400 DO ii is similar in IQ to the 500, then I will get one.
I had the 400 5.6 and the 300 2.8 L IS at the same time. The 300 (not mk II) with a 1.4X TC was equal to the 400 5.6. I think that pretty well describes the IQ of the 400 4.6. It is pretty good, but not stellar. It is like always having a 1.4x TC on a stellar prime.
According to Roger's data, upgrading to the 400 DO II will give a resolution increase (average over the frame) similar to upgrading from a 36 MP to 50 MP camera.
Remember this is with the 400 (420) mm lenses at F/4. Stopped down to F/5.6 the DO II will pull even more ahead of the 400 5.6
alundeb wrote:
I had the 400 5.6 and the 300 2.8 L IS at the same time. The 300 (not mk II) with a 1.4X TC was equal to the 400 5.6. I think that pretty well describes the IQ of the 400 4.6. It is pretty good, but not stellar. It is like always having a 1.4x TC on a stellar prime.
Anders, roughly speaking I agree with the description of 400 f/5.6 IQ as "pretty good", but I'd tighten that qualifier a bit: I think it is VERY good, and if we factor in the lens price, then its IQ/$ is ratio is one of the highest of all Canon long lenses.
Now, for your reference and future use, 300 f/2.8 IS MkII + 1.4xTC MkIII has a clearly better IQ than 400 f/5.6. That doesn't mean 400 f/5.6 is bad, that means 300 f/2.8 IS is one "non plus ultra" lens.
PetKal wrote:
Anders, roughly speaking I agree with the description of 400 f/5.6 IQ as "pretty good", but I'd tighten that qualifier a bit: I think it is VERY good, and if we factor in the lens price, then its IQ/$ is ratio is one of the highest of all Canon long lenses.
Now, for your reference and future use, 300 f/2.8 IS MkII + 1.4xTC MkIII has a clearly better IQ than 400 f/5.6. That doesn't mean 400 f/5.6 is bad, that means 300 f/2.8 IS is one "non plus ultra" lens.
I agree that "pretty good" is too weak a term, and "very good" is a better description of the 400 5.6
In my mind, and I don't know if that approach makes sense for others, I rate the central sharpness of lenses in classes based the largest aperture they are similar to a lens limited by diffraction only. Each class can theorethically, on a very high pixel density sensor, resolve about 1.4 times more lp/mm than the class below.
In that scale, the 400 f/5.6 would be similar to an ideal f/8 diffraction limted lens.
The 300 f/2.8 IS mk II + 1.4x TC mk III would be similar to an ideal f/5.6 diffraction limited lens.
The bare 300 f/2.8 IS mk II would be similar to an ideal f/4 diffraction limited lens.
From What I have seen online, and not based on personal experience, the 400 DO II is at least similar to an ideal f/5.6 diffraction limited lens, perhaps better.
David Garcia wrote:
Has anyone done an image quality comparison between these two? Your opinions please...
Yes, TDP has done this comparison.
Based on my eyes(YMMV), the 400 DO II only slightly betters the IQ of the 400 f5.6. Would you see this very slight difference in real world situations.....probably not. So based soley on sharpness, is the 400 DO II worth the extra $5,700? Don't think anyone here can tell you that and the decision is yours alone.
If I had unlimited funds, which I don't, I'd have both and the 400 f2.8 II. Do I decide which to buy based on IQ alone, no. Best bang for the buck...400 f5.6. Best new cool 400 prime....the 400 DO II.
alundeb wrote:
In my mind, and I don't know if that approach makes sense for others, I rate the central sharpness of lenses in classes based the largest aperture they are similar to a lens limited by diffraction only. Each class can theorethically, on a very high pixel density sensor, resolve about 1.4 times more lp/mm than the class below.
I can buy that. However, I believe that any lens resolution tests in the lab are only valuable as a supporting kind of information at best, or they are near useless at worst.
My approach to this is from a practical photography viewpoint. Consider "image quality" as a function of several independent variables, one of them is resolution lines/mm, then there is light on the subject, operator skill, camera performance etc. Then we do a little sensitivity analysis by perturbing each of those variables and observing the effect that has on the function "image quality". So we describe the function behaviour by the strength of its dependence on each variable.
I think we will find that the "image quality" is a very week function of "lens resolution" if that variable is perturbed from 400 f/5.6 to say 400 DO. We are also likely to find out that there is a very strong dependence of "image quality" on the "operator skill" as well as a few other variables. Therefore, when describing the function "image quality" behaviour in a real photography setting, we may disregard "lens resolving power" variable in the first approximation, as long as the variable doesn't change drastically, like going from 400 DO II to an Opteka mirror lens.
What does that all mean ? Well, that means that Ole Bull would have sounded like Ole Bull even when he would have played a $5 violin.
alundeb wrote:
I have visited his home at Lysøen .....
It's good that you have stated that because on a largely American forum, members might think that we are talking about a relative of a native tribal chief known as Sitting Bull.
Anders, roughly speaking I agree with the description of 400 f/5.6 IQ as "pretty good", but I'd tighten that qualifier a bit: I think it is VERY good, and if we factor in the lens price, then its IQ/$ is ratio is one of the highest of all Canon long lenses.
_______
I second that. People have to remember that one costs $1339 (currently at B&H) vs a $6899 400 DO IS II. Everything is relative. We can compare these two lenses as we can compare apples and oranges. Both taste good, but their prices vary. What's your preferred taste?
