Resurrecting this thread to ask whether someone has tried this lens with the Canon 500D (+2 diopter) or another achromat close-up lens.
I'm considering the 100-400 to replace both my Nikon 300/4 PF VR and Voigtländer 110/2.5 but have no idea how it would compare.
Anyone?
What magnification are you looking for? I have the 100-400 and find its magnification to be impressive and it is very sharp at close focus. I also own the 500D and haven’t had cause to mount it to the zoom. My guess is it would degrade the IQ. I also own the z 105 MC and it is incredible- best macro I’ve ever owned.
If you wish I can combine the diopter and zoom and see what the combo is like. It will be an informal test and might take a few days to get around to it.
Egg Salad wrote:
Resurrecting this thread to ask whether someone has tried this lens with the Canon 500D (+2 diopter) or another achromat close-up lens.
I'm considering the 100-400 to replace both my Nikon 300/4 PF VR and Voigtländer 110/2.5 but have no idea how it would compare.
Anyone?
The closer to 1:1, the better. Though I could live with 1:1.5.
From what I've gathered, the 100-400 is better on the short than on the long end. Additionally, it performs better at infinity than at MFD.
What makes calculations so hard, it its extreme focus breathing.
At 100mm, there seems to be no focus breathing at all.
This means that adding the Canon 500D results in magnification of 1:5 at infinity to 1:2.3 at MFD.
At 400mm the MFD is 0.97m and it offers 1:2.5. This means that the real focal length is only 198mm!
So it should be smarter to use it at infinity with a diopter lens, resulting in 1:1.25.
I couldn't find anything of magnification levels and MFDs for the 200 and 300mm setting.
But it's probably advisable to use diopters between 100 and 200mm.
If you could test effective magnifications and give a subjective statement how it compares to a real macro lens, that'd be a great help! Your Nikon 105/2.8 MC and my Voightländer 110/2.5 should perform similarily.
Diopters increase magnification with increased focal length. So the maximum magnification should end up occurring at 400mm with the 500D.
Tubes work in the opposite direction, increasing magnification with greater effect the shorter the focal length of the lens. 36mm of extension would add about 0.36x magnification to the base lens’s mag at 100mm. It would only add about 0.09x at 400mm. Have you thought about using tubes if you’re wanting to use the zoom more often at its short end?
Egg Salad wrote:
The closer to 1:1, the better. Though I could live with 1:1.5.
From what I've gathered, the 100-400 is better on the short than on the long end. Additionally, it performs better at infinity than at MFD.
What makes calculations so hard, it its extreme focus breathing.
At 100mm, there seems to be no focus breathing at all.
This means that adding the Canon 500D results in magnification of 1:5 at infinity to 1:2.3 at MFD.
At 400mm the MFD is 0.97m and it offers 1:2.5. This means that the real focal length is only 198mm!
So it should be smarter to use it at infinity with a diopter lens, resulting in 1:1.25.
I couldn't find anything of magnification levels and MFDs for the 200 and 300mm setting.
But it's probably advisable to use diopters between 100 and 200mm.
If you could test effective magnifications and give a subjective statement how it compares to a real macro lens, that'd be a great help! Your Nikon 105/2.8 MC and my Voightländer 110/2.5 should perform similarily....Show more →
With the focus set at infinity, the magnification you get with a 2 diopters close-up lens is F/500, where F is the focal length you set on the zoom, and 500 is the FL (in mm) of a +2 diopters lens.
Therefore, at infinity, you get
1:5 (0.2 X) @100 mm
2:5 (0.4 X) @ 200 mm
3:5 (0.6 X) @ 300 mm
4:5 (0.8 X) @ 400 mm
With the lens focused at infinity, you get a working distance equal to the focal length of the close-up filter. In this case (Canon 500D) you have 50 cm of WD. A quite remarkable value! You'll never have half meter WD with a 100 macro lens at 0.8X!
When you set closer focus distances, the above figures increase but WD decreases.
The aperture of the lens/zoom doesn't change with the close-up filter.
I used my 500D with the Nikkor AF 80-400/4.5-5.6D VR in the film era. Now, I use it with the AF-S ED 70-200/4 when I don't carry my macro lens(es).
Egg Salad wrote:
The closer to 1:1, the better. Though I could live with 1:1.5.
From what I've gathered, the 100-400 is better on the short than on the long end. Additionally, it performs better at infinity than at MFD.
What makes calculations so hard, it its extreme focus breathing.
At 100mm, there seems to be no focus breathing at all.
This means that adding the Canon 500D results in magnification of 1:5 at infinity to 1:2.3 at MFD.
At 400mm the MFD is 0.97m and it offers 1:2.5. This means that the real focal length is only 198mm!
So it should be smarter to use it at infinity with a diopter lens, resulting in 1:1.25.
I couldn't find anything of magnification levels and MFDs for the 200 and 300mm setting.
But it's probably advisable to use diopters between 100 and 200mm.
If you could test effective magnifications and give a subjective statement how it compares to a real macro lens, that'd be a great help! Your Nikon 105/2.8 MC and my Voightländer 110/2.5 should perform similarily....Show more →
Just tested my 100-400 with the 500D. At 400mm you get almost 1:1 (0.92x) with working distance of 28cm from the front element. At 300mm you get 0.73x magnification with a little extra working distance. Haven't really tried it in the field but my previous experience with an F mount 70-200 f2.8 is you don't take a significant hit in image quality. Personally I would find the weight of the 100-400 a bit unwieldy in the field and so I think the 300 f4 is a more practical option if you are shooting handheld.
Just out of interest I also tried the 24-120 f4 with the 500D It gave a magnification of 0.54x with about 6-7cm working distance from the front element
I finished my tests on a flat subject (a plastic ruler with different sediment grain types printed on it). All images shot at f/8 and at as close to mfd as I could achieve on a tripod and manually focused.
As expected the 105mm MC is best across the frame at 1.0x. If I want macro I’m using that lens.
The zoom at 400mm with 500D looked nice in the center with a bit of softening towards the corners. I was pleasantly surprised by how good this looks overall and would use it if I don’t have the MC with me. Magnification was 0.92x.
The zoom at 300mm with 500D seems to improve the corners slightly over the combo at 400mm. Mag was about 0.54x. This is probably how I’d be most inclined to use this combo if that result holds up after some field testing. It is closer to the IQ of the 105mm but not quite there.
The 100mm 500D combo did not result in serious magnification at only 0.35x, which the bare lens can achieve at 400mm with higher IQ.
I also tested combinations of 36mm extension with the 500D at 100mm and 400mm. The 100mm Frankenstein achieved 0.78x but was a bit soft and showed chromatic aberration none of the other images showed. The 400mm Frankenstein was acceptable in the center but softened considerably in the corners and provided a whopping 1.29x mag. I’d not use either of these combos.
Bottom line is I’m glad you asked the question and going to start using my 500D sometimes with the zoom at 300 to 400mm when I’m absent the MC (wife uses it a lot) and want some macro or near macro shooting and am not looking to make a gargantuan enlargement that relies on super sharp corners.
woodstork wrote:
The zoom at 300mm with 500D ....Mag was about 0.54x.
Did you measure the magnification with the focus ring set at infinity, i.e., the "minimum" magnification?
With the zoom at 300 mm & focused at infinity, mag with 500D should be 0.6X (see my post above). By focusing closer, magnification does increase. @LMT1972@ reported a 0.73X value, which is in line with what should be expected.
Therefore, at 300 mm magnifications are in the 0.6-0.73 X range (if @LMT1972@ measured 0.73X at the minimum focusing distance).
If you measured 0.54X, this means that - with your zoom set at 300 mm - the actual focal length is slightly shorter (270 mm).
@woodstork
It's not that I want to use the 100-400 at its short end but rather that I fear its image will fall apart at higher FLs. Your test somewhat confirms that. What is very surprising are the low magnification numbers for 300mm and 100mm (as @Ripolini wrote). Was this at infinity or somewhere near MFD?
With my Nikon 300/4, I get 0.58x at inifnity and 0.83x for MFD (real FL 215mm).
Before reading your newer comment, I already wrote a response to your earlier comment saying that in all my tests, results with extrnsion tubes were always weaker than with an achromat lens for exactly the reasons you mentioned.
@LMT1972
The Nikon 300/4 is super easy to handhold but as a macro lens, it's impractical. +2 is the weakest achromat lens I'm aware of and that only gives you a very narrow window of magnification (see above).
The Voigtländer is the same weight (amazing, really) and obviousl ymuch better but handheld it's a challenge at high magnifications.
Big thanks to all contributors! So, magnification is close to 1:1, image quality better than expected. This is valuable info!
It is more likely I didn’t push the lens to its mfd. I was testing a bunch of scenarios and probably didn’t get it as close to subject as I could have on the 300mm with diopter shot.
Ripolini wrote:
Did you measure the magnification with the focus ring set at infinity, i.e., the "minimum" magnification?
With the zoom at 300 mm & focused at infinity, mag with 500D should be 0.6X (see my post above). By focusing closer, magnification does increase. @LMT1972@@ reported a 0.73X value, which is in line with what should be expected.
Therefore, at 300 mm magnifications are in the 0.6-0.73 X range (if @LMT1972@@ measured 0.73X at the minimum focusing distance).
If you measured 0.54X, this means that - with your zoom set at 300 mm - the actual focal length is slightly shorter (270 mm).
It gave a magnification of 0.54x with about 6-7cm working distance from the front element