iamso78 wrote:
a9+100400GM+1.4x as good as naked in AF and sharpness, you find other members with similar assessment (sony a9 image thread). 2x for small birds/erratic movement BIF eg welcome swallow, burst hit-rate (culling for critical sharp images) isnt as high vs 1.4x/naked even though the green AF boxes on screen/EVF is tracking. For big birds BIF eg cormorant/ibis hit-rate is good as 1.4x/naked. Moreover, 2x hunts more close to minimal focus distance, and there is sharpness degradation, but Capture One 12 sharpness 1 preset will fix that. Any further question just PM, since is getting unrelated to this thread.
Based on the BIF shots on this page, I find them no sharper than what I get with the A9 + 100-400GM + 2xTC.
Just a couple from last nights game. All at 2.8...something the 100-400 can't do, no matter how skilled the photographer. I've got the 100-400. It's a fantastic lens for what it can do, but frankly it can't do 2.8 and sometimes you need 2.8. I didn't start the thread and I wonder why folks feel the need to post non-400 2.8 images in it. Just like I wouldn't post my Sony 400 images in the Canon 400 2.8 III thread. It's not helpful for folks looking for images from said lens and it's a bit passive aggressive.
I've only had the 400 for about a week now. There is a lot to love about it, especially mated to the a9.
timgangloff wrote:
I didn't start the thread and I wonder why folks feel the need to post non-400 2.8 images in it. Just like I wouldn't post my Sony 400 images in the Canon 400 2.8 III thread. It's not helpful for folks looking for images from said lens and it's a bit passive aggressive.
Really.
Then maybe read all the previous pages and you will come across members asking for a comparison. And what makes you think it is not helpful for other members to see comparison images with other lenses?
Maybe you should start a Sony 400 f2.8 Forum.
And I am pretty sure there are members who have posted shots from the Sony 400 in a Canon 400 thread, and vice-versa.
Perhaps they are just being passive aggressive though.
i gave up..you think FB is bad? FM is worst. FM compress the shit out of the image quality. Even i post from external link, it still looks crappy. It wasn't like this before.
Alex Phan wrote:
i gave up..you think FB is bad? FM is worst. FM compress the shit out of the image quality. Even i post from external link, it still looks crappy. It wasn't like this before.
The basketball shots above look pretty damn sharp to me.
Imagemaster wrote: The basketball shots above look pretty damn sharp to me.
Thanks, but I think Alex has a point. They are sharp, but they are much sharper "in real life." They look much better on FB, on my website and a few other places. Of course, they look great in Lightroom and are as sharp as with any lens I've ever used, but the sharpness just doesn't translate here. I know some upload to their website or Flicker or something similar and link to them here and they do look better. I've tried for a couple of years now to figure out how to process my images for FM, but have been largely unsuccessful in conveying the sharpness in my images here.
While they do look pretty good here, I'm not satisfied with the sharpness so I find myself trying to be less critical of sharpness issues when folks post images here because I do think it is the site sometimes, and not the photographer.
I can say the Sony 400 2.8 is as sharp or sharper than my Canon 400 2.8 IS v1. But heck, it better be as it's a much newer lens technologically and age wise and costs a lot more. I think it may focus faster too, but more time will be needed to say definitively. I have no idea how it compares to the new Canon 400s.
Anyway, you can see more Sony 400 2.8 images here on my FB page (mixed in with some non-400 shots).
And you can see them on my website here (hosted by SmugMug, whose sharpening algorithm I try to emulate as I think they do a really nice job of presenting images).
timgangloff wrote:
Thanks, but I think Alex has a point. They are sharp, but they are much sharper "in real life." They look much better on FB, on my website and a few other places. Of course, they look great in Lightroom and are as sharp as with any lens I've ever used, but the sharpness just doesn't translate here. I know some upload to their website or Flicker or something similar and link to them here and they do look better. I've tried for a couple of years now to figure out how to process my images for FM, but have been largely unsuccessful in conveying the sharpness in my images here.
While they do look pretty good here, I'm not satisfied with the sharpness so I find myself trying to be less critical of sharpness issues when folks post images here because I do think it is the site sometimes, and not the photographer.
I can say the Sony 400 2.8 is as sharp or sharper than my Canon 400 2.8 IS v1. But heck, it better be as it's a much newer lens technologically and age wise and costs a lot more. I think it may focus faster too, but more time will be needed to say definitively. I have no idea how it compares to the new Canon 400s.
Anyway, you can see more Sony 400 2.8 images here on my FB page (mixed in with some non-400 shots).
And you can see them on my website here (hosted by SmugMug, whose sharpening algorithm I try to emulate as I think they do a really nice job of presenting images).
...Show more →
I got my 400 GM a week ago but not have had a chance to try it yet but am getting another a6500 today for more reach naked until the a7000 comes out.
Question does anyone have any thoughts about when using with the 2x TC with all other things being equal if there would be an advantage with the 42MP sensor on my a7rIII vs my A9 before and after post?
Can anyone please comment on the bokeh of 400 GM? Debating between GM and Canon III for birding. From the images I saw online (here, flickr, dpreview), 400 GM's bokeh seems a bit harsh when the background is busy and highlights in the background are quite distracting, foreground objects also have hard edges.
NIH NSF wrote:
Can anyone please comment on the bokeh of 400 GM? Debating between GM and Canon III for birding. From the images I saw online (here, flickr, dpreview), 400 GM's bokeh seems a bit harsh when the background is busy and highlights in the background are quite distracting, foreground objects also have hard edges.
Are you planning on adapting the 400III? If so, I wouldn't even consider it. I haven't seen any reports on how it works but the 600III won't focus at MFD adapted and therefore I'd be very cautious about buying a $12K lens to adapt at least until there are some more reports of adapting it. If you are going to shoot the 400III on Canon then there are a lot of other things to consider because of how different the bodies and technology are between the A9 and 1DX2.
Thanks for pointing out the III series adapter issue , I was going to adapt Canon long teles on A9 like Alex Phan did. Sold 1DX Ii a while back , no Canon bodies at the moment. It seems to be a good time to pick up a 400mm II or 600mm II but the shaved weight of the III series is so attractive for hiking.
arbitrage wrote:
Are you planning on adapting the 400III? If so, I wouldn't even consider it. I haven't seen any reports on how it works but the 600III won't focus at MFD adapted and therefore I'd be very cautious about buying a $12K lens to adapt at least until there are some more reports of adapting it. If you are going to shoot the 400III on Canon then there are a lot of other things to consider because of how different the bodies and technology are between the A9 and 1DX2.
NIH NSF wrote:
Thanks for pointing out the III series adapter issue , I was going to adapt Canon long teles on A9 like Alex Phan did. Sold 1DX Ii a while back , no Canon bodies at the moment. It seems to be a good time to pick up a 400mm II or 600mm II but the shaved weight of the III series is so attractive for hiking.
Have you tried adapting any of the Canon lenses yet? I've adapted the 600II and 400DOII...I have now sold my 600II but still keep the 400DOII around to adapt for the extra stop of light over my 100-400GM. The performance of adapted lenses is very good but it still is not the same experience as shooting even the slow aperture native 100-400 zoom.
You can certainly do BIF with it but only to a point as it isn't easy to drive focus quickly to react to a surprise flight situation, it also isn't ideal for say chasing warblers in bushes, if focus gets off course you often need to MF it back to an appropriate distance before reliable AF takes over. That said, for a lot of birding it does work. However, I still wouldn't be buying a 400III or 600III with the intention of only adapting it. I would maybe consider buying a used Mk II lens but then you loose the weight savings. If I didn't already own the Canon primes, I personally wouldn't be buying more Canon primes to adapt.
I may not have as a discerning eye for the bokeh issues and harsh edges but I really haven't seen anything obviously troubling with all the 400GM images posted on this thread and on Flicker etc. I've seen horrible looking bokeh and specular highlights out of my best Canon primes and great looking bokeh out of slow zooms. I always find these sort of bokeh issues are way more dependant on the aperture choose and the distance to the background. TCs start to create wonky highlights quickly. I think that without a controlled direct comparison between the 400GM and 400III to specifically look at these possible differences it would be really hard to say if the 400GM has some inherent short coming. But if you don't like the look of the images being posted then I also wouldn't be plopping down $12K for the 400GM. Also should be noted that almost all the 400GM bird images in this thread have the 2xTC on for them. Of course if I was using the 400GM (or 400III) for birding I'd probably need the 2xTC on the lens most of the time also.
What a coincidence, the only Canon white that I still own is 400 DO II ! I’ll give it a try with MC11 + 2X III extender. I’ve also got 100-400 GM, which is a great lens , but sometimes it is not long enough for small birds, even on R3. As to 400 GM, it’s a very sharp lens for sure , but personally I find the out of focus area rendering different from the usual long tele lens from Canikon.
arbitrage wrote:
Have you tried adapting any of the Canon lenses yet? I've adapted the 600II and 400DOII...I have now sold my 600II but still keep the 400DOII around to adapt for the extra stop of light over my 100-400GM. The performance of adapted lenses is very good but it still is not the same experience as shooting even the slow aperture native 100-400 zoom.
You can certainly do BIF with it but only to a point as it isn't easy to drive focus quickly to react to a surprise flight situation, it also isn't ideal for say chasing warblers in bushes, if focus gets off course you often need to MF it back to an appropriate distance before reliable AF takes over. That said, for a lot of birding it does work. However, I still wouldn't be buying a 400III or 600III with the intention of only adapting it. I would maybe consider buying a used Mk II lens but then you loose the weight savings. If I didn't already own the Canon primes, I personally wouldn't be buying more Canon primes to adapt.
I may not have as a discerning eye for the bokeh issues and harsh edges but I really haven't seen anything obviously troubling with all the 400GM images posted on this thread and on Flicker etc. I've seen horrible looking bokeh and specular highlights out of my best Canon primes and great looking bokeh out of slow zooms. I always find these sort of bokeh issues are way more dependant on the aperture choose and the distance to the background. TCs start to create wonky highlights quickly. I think that without a controlled direct comparison between the 400GM and 400III to specifically look at these possible differences it would be really hard to say if the 400GM has some inherent short coming. But if you don't like the look of the images being posted then I also wouldn't be plopping down $12K for the 400GM. Also should be noted that almost all the 400GM bird images in this thread have the 2xTC on for them. Of course if I was using the 400GM (or 400III) for birding I'd probably need the 2xTC on the lens most of the time also....Show more →
NIH NSF wrote:
Can anyone please comment on the bokeh of 400 GM? Debating between GM and Canon III for birding. From the images I saw online (here, flickr, dpreview), 400 GM's bokeh seems a bit harsh when the background is busy and highlights in the background are quite distracting, foreground objects also have hard edges.
I find it very pleasing for my personal taste. When I can shoot at a distance that gives me the bokeh I'm happy with, it's just icing on the cake. You can stop it down to f/8 and still have a nice blown out background if that's what you're looking for.
Well, I got lucky (and very tempted), my local had both the 400GM and the 600GM in stock for several days and although I was waiting for a 300 2.8, I decided to give the 400GM a try, and now I almost want to go back and get that 600
Here's a shot from my first test session, a little long at 400mm and I know the framing isn't the best but wow I am impressed!!! The A9 did really well as well.
The basketball shots above look pretty damn sharp to me.
