The Great 400mm Canon Shootout

I made the change from a 100-400 to 400 5.6 about two weeks before this very interesting thread began. Thanks E.J. I also have a 70-200 2.8 IS and often use it with a 1.4 converter. While the 100-400 is incredibly versatile, I was finding my percentage of "keepers" was much higher with 70-200 or either my 300 or 400 2.8s with or without converters. However, I was wishing I had its IS feature one morning recently when walking with my wife in a local park. I spotted a Saw-whet sitting close to the trail in a spruce tree. I had a 20D and 400 f/5.6 but no tripod. I quickly realized I didn't have enough light (400 ISO 1/60 5.6) for the higher shutter speed I'd need with the 400 mm. I sat down, rested the lens on my knees then used the 20D's pop-up flash and it saved the day. In fact, I returned home then returned with my gear. I was able to find the owl again but those first photos were by far the best due to its perch. So I do miss the IS for situations like this but have resolved to continue carrying my 400 but WITH the my tripod for morning walks with my wife! I don't regret the switch one bit - the 400 5.6 is a great lens.

amirm wrote: My sense is that the canon MTF charts in this specific case is suspect. It is hard to imagine a zoom doing so well against a prime even in center.

That's because Canon's published MTF curves are theoretical, not measured data.

Jim Zipp wrote:Great test E.J.
I'm not at all surprised at the top quality of the 400 f5.6. The one that does surprise me is the results from the 300 f2.8 and 1.4X.

Ditto ... having owned two 400mm's and two 100-400mm's I am frankly ashtonished at how many wax lyrical about the zoom ... flexibility and Is are good but IQ just does not compare when looking at many images over many outings. A nice lucky shot then sure they will be similar, but generally I have been very happy with my primes and just not impressed with the zooms. Anyway, the decision for my next Africa trip looks made ... forget the pricy 300mm IS L and TCon combo and slum it with the 400mm once again.

Many thanks sir. An excellent test and excellent commentary.

As the 400/5.6 L is such a great lens (I used to own one) won't it make lot of sense to redesigh it with IS. This lens is the only lens in the L series telephoto lenses that doesn't have the IS.
Is Canon listening? I think it would be a great idea.

Does anyone tested the Canon 300 mm F/4 IS + 1.4x? I´m planning to buy an 1.4x, but don´t know if photo quality of this combo is good.

Could anyone show me some samples? Could you EJ, send me samples of this combo with your $5.00 bill?

Best regards,

Paulo anjo

paulo wrote:Does anyone tested the Canon 300 mm F/4 IS + 1.4x? I´m planning to buy an 1.4x, but don´t know if photo quality of this combo is good.

The 1.4x works very well with the 300 f4, no hesitation to have.

Hi

Thanks for test!

I had the 500mm f/4 IS and the 400mm DO f/4 IS and sold them because I wanted a even lighter lens that I could easely handhold and walk around with.

So I bought the 400mm 5.6 and use it almost altime with Canon 1.4xtc with my Canon MarkIII and use it handhold and I find it rather good in AF and picture quality.

But I still misses the picture quality and IS from my former 500mm f/4 IS.

The 400mm 5.6 is the right size and weight for me so It would be very nice if Canon could produce a new 400mm 5.6 with IS and little bit better sharpness and AF?

So I made this Petition for a new 400mm 5.6, better than nothing ?? Please sign it

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/pro ... -lens.html

Here are some samples with 400mm 5.6 + 1.4xtc, marked 560mm.

http://www.pbase.com/omar_brannstrom/ma ... s&page=all

more with 400mm 5.6

http://www.pbase.com/omar_brannstrom/40 ... y&page=all

Some 400mm DO f/4 IS pictures

http://www.pbase.com/omar_brannstrom/ca ... y&page=all

Best regards from sunny Sweden

Omar Brännström

After testing my 1-4 and 400 5.6 lenses together I can honestly say they were so close I wouldn't call it, certainly my 100-400 was very sharp...I had to sell it because it couldn't focus worth a darn, but still, it shows there is alot of variation in quality from Canon.

Great Test...I did something quite equivalent when I have to choose my "longer" solution. Here was my set up: XTi on tripod, lens fixed on tripod by their collar, JPG + RAW shooting, MLU + timer, AF. I compared 100-400, 400 5.6 and 70-200 f4 +1.4x (I know it was not 400mm but then I used photoshop to "extend" the image to get the same resolution than what I have at 400mm). No surprise, the 70-200 can not compete! However, I can not tell the difference in picture quality between the 100-400 and 400 5.6 (as Neilyb mentionned). By any chances do you recall the date code of the 100-400...I've tested 4 lenses and I've noticed that the older the worse they were (is that because Canon improve their quality or that the lens start to detoriate on usage?)...
Xavier (Date code of my 100-400 is UU = 2006)

EJ,

Thx very much for the postings.

In addition to the 400 shoot out I learmed here, I decided to do my lenses with TCs tests for my other lenses. I used the same old $5 bill. Now I really appreciate how thoughtful you are. Well chosen target.

Eric.

I did not read all 8 pages, but for those that might feel discouraged about the 100-400 v the 400 prime, my story involved moving from the 400 prime to the 100-400 recently. At 56yrs, I'm definitely not as steady as I once was. I'm convinced steadiness is inversely proportional to the number of hairs on one's head . While the 400 prime continues to be a great lens with tripod or in really good light, I was able to shoot across the room inside my house at 1/30 (sitting and well braced) and get a nice sharp shot of my grandson with my 100-400. I could never have done that with my prime. Shooting soccer games has become so much more productive with the zoom and I am convinced my rate of keepers at the upcoming airshow will be much higher with my new zoom. I may sell the prime. Time will tell. If I were a birder then the prime would be all I needed, but in spite of the 400 prime being sharper, I know I'll still get more, better shots for most of my hand held work with the zoom and IS.
Knowing that web images never prove sharpness per se...here's one of my first shots of a moose with my new 100-400.
http://www.pbase.com/image/99065211/large

EJ, I am a proud owner of 400/5.6 for 7 years. It is a great lens and it is nice to confirm that I did a good choice. One photographer from Czech republic uses EF 200/2.8L with 2x teleconverter and swears it is comparable to 400/5.6. Seems like a good alternative when travelling. Would be nice to add to your comparison too.

Interesting stuff, EJ. Not really surprising, either, given that the 400/5.6 is the least optically complex lens of the batch as well. I suspect that your sample of the 100-400 is pretty average. I have owned nearly all of these except the 400/5.6, including the 400/2.8. The 400/2.8 would definitely lead the pack here, but its a colossal lens. I sold mine as it was just too heavy for a 400mm lens, no matter how sharp. I love my 400mm DO, and my results mirror yours--it's incredibly sharp, and suffers only from a slight loss in contrast. The big plus for the DO is the super light weight. I have seen the specular highlight issue in one image, but generally I am not using it near water.

I do think that live view focusing would have helped here, as even in a calibrated lens, the tolerances of the AF system are pretty small. I have a 100-400mm, 300/2.8 and 400/DO, but not the 400/5.6, so I can't repeat your test quite as well. Maybe I will have to pick up a used 400/5.6. I have thought of it in the past, but figured I would really miss the IS; I like to shoot regularly at lower shutter speeds with my other long lenses.

Jeff

Fero wrote:EJ, I am a proud owner of 400/5.6 for 7 years. It is a great lens and it is nice to confirm that I did a good choice. One photographer from Czech republic uses EF 200/2.8L with 2x teleconverter and swears it is comparable to 400/5.6. Seems like a good alternative when travelling. Would be nice to add to your comparison too.

The 200/2.8 is a great lens, but its absolutely no comparison. Just about anything with the 2x TC is degraded, and this is no exception. In my experience, the 100-400 is much better than the 200/2.8+TC.

Jeff

Hi...
While I am certainly not an expert on these work but it looks that the 70-200 produces worse results than the prime one.Is there any possibility to improve the results of it?
Thanks a lot E.J. for making this interesting thread.

lararefaeli wrote:Hi...
While I am certainly not an expert on these work but it looks that the 70-200 produces worse results than the prime one.Is there any possibility to improve the results of it?
Thanks a lot E.J. for making this interesting thread.

Not really sure what you're asking here Lararefaeli. The 70-200 has a 2X converter attached to get it to 400mm. That is going to degrade the image some, and there's nothing you can do about it. Beyond that, all of the lenses were subjected to the same conditions. So anything you could do to "improve" results from the 70-200+2X could also be done to the others, which should give the same relative results. A 70-200+2X combo is probably never going to be able to compete with primes, and really isn't designed to.

Every image I take with 400 F5.6 convinces me that I did the right thing in replacing my 100/400 with the prime. Your tests confirm my in field results. Thanks for the tests!