The Great 400mm Canon Shootout

Ed Erkes wrote:Bob, Before you decide to sell your 100-400, check out past winners of the Nature's Best and other magazine contest winners. You'll find that there are a lot of winnining images made with the 100-400. It is a very good lens and you have the advantage of zoom capability.

Actually, I don't think that proves it's a good lens. It proves you can make great images without great glass. Many factors other than sharpness are involved.

amirm wrote:Finally, on the point regarding contrast, yes you can boost the DO images in software. However, I find a big issue with this. After a day of shooting thousands of images, I go through them to sort and find the best. The DO images not only lack contrast but because of that, tend to also have less color saturation. This means that I pass on images which could look better otherwise. This is not a problem with non-DO lenses.

Wow. If you want images that look good right of the camera, you should be shooting film. I would never pass on a good RAW image because of weak color--they all have weak color. Besides, if you want, you can boost color globally on all your images before you edit them. I do. I then fine tune the ones that deserve more effort.

Great test E.J.!

Thanks for taking the time and effort to do this, I know it takes a long time - especially with four lenses.

Although I've read a lot about it, the 400 5.6 looks just spectacular in this test. I guess this just corraborates all the other tests.

Wow, thanks for all of your hard work and time EJ. This is making me question purchasing the 300 2.8 though

I have the 400 5.6 and have been happy with it. Primarily as a lightweight long lens to carry when hiking or times when I just don't want to carry my 500. I've been thinking that the 300 2.8 +/- TC's might be a better option with the IS, though I know it's heavier. Based on this test and your experience with both lenses do you have any thoughts regarding the 300 2.8 for this use in comparison with the 400 5.6?

I realize the 300 2.8 will have much better IQ when used without the TC, but I don't find myself needing less reach than a 400 very often.

Thanks,

The 300/2.8 with a 2x is better than a 400/5.6+1.4x and AF's MUCH faster. Personally I never thought that the 300/2.8+1.4x would be as sharp or sharper than the 400/5.6 based on personal experience however it is probably the very best lens in the Canon lineup with TC's but TC's always degrade the image quality some.

One thing I didn't quantitatively test but was really apparent was that the 300/2.8+1.4x was MUCH faster to autofocus than any other in the test, including the 400/5.6 which is a fast AF lens. It was very much noticeable - qualitatively I would guess at least 50% faster. The DO and the 400/5.6 were approximately equal for AF speed.

Lets not get too discouraged, there is a lot more that goes into a lens choice than just sharpness. The 300/2.8 is a much faster lens optically too plus it has IS. There are many factors to consider but this again proved what many have long known - the 400/5.6 is a gem of a lens and excellent used copies can often be found around $900. Similarly, as was pointed out in this thread, many award winning photos have been taken with the 100-400. Also realize that no sharpening was applied and with proper sharpening, some of the differences can be overcome.

If you always use 400 or longer than selling both the 400/5.6 and 300/2.8 and picking up the 400/2.8 might be a good choice, or perhaps a 500 f/4.

Cliff Beittel wrote: Wow. If you want images that look good right of the camera, you should be shooting film.

Boy, I didn’t know folks could get so rough around here . I didn't say anything about the images being ready to present out of camera. I don’t know if you have a DO lens and know what I am taking about. As a long time owner of both that are made, I can tell you that side by side, the images can often be so dull and cool in color, that I am more likely to pass on am image than I would be otherwise. If you can see through that, then more power to you. But for me, when scanning through thousands of images quickly to tag the ones that are keepers, this is important.

And yes, I know I can pre-process images to boost color and contrast but again, that is not the point. I don’t want to sit there waiting for that to happen, just to pick the images I am interested in. Why would anyone pay so much money for a lens and then have to do that? Besides, it is not clear how much you would need to boost/process them to get the same image as the L lens. And I may be likely to pass on the image because of the processing.

All in all, I keep my DO lens for applications where no other lens would do. For all the rest, I highly recommend traditional technology.

E.J. Peiker wrote:The 300/2.8 with a 2x is better than a 400/5.6+1.4x and AF's MUCH faster. Personally I never thought that the 300/2.8+1.4x would be as sharp or sharper than the 400/5.6 based on personal experience however it is probably the very best lens in the Canon lineup with TC's but TC's always degrade the image quality some.

One thing I didn't quantitatively test but was really apparent was that the 300/2.8+1.4x was MUCH faster to autofocus than any other in the test, including the 400/5.6 which is a fast AF lens. It was very much noticeable - qualitatively I would guess at least 50% faster. The DO and the 400/5.6 were approximately equal for AF speed.

Lets not get too discouraged, there is a lot more that goes into a lens choice than just sharpness. The 300/2.8 is a much faster lens optically too plus it has IS. There are many factors to consider but this again proved what many have long known - the 400/5.6 is a gem of a lens and excellent used copies can often be found around $900. Similarly, as was pointed out in this thread, many award winning photos have been taken with the 100-400. Also realize that no sharpening was applied and with proper sharpening, some of the differences can be overcome.

If you always use 400 or longer than selling both the 400/5.6 and 300/2.8 and picking up the 400/2.8 might be a good choice, or perhaps a 500 f/4.

Thanks EJ,
I may not have been clear. I have the 500 f4, and I have the 400 5.6, but am thinking about getting the 300 to replace the 400 5.6 as a "walk around" long lens, mainly to use when hiking. Since the 300/2.8 has better IQ with the 2xTC than the 400/5.6 with the 1.4xTC I think the better choice is the 300/2.8 based on your comments.

amirm wrote: . . . I don’t know if you have a DO lens and know what I am taking about. . . . it is not clear how much you would need to boost/process them to get the same image as the L lens. And I may be likely to pass on the image because of the processing.

I have owned the 400 DO, but no longer do, having essentially replaced it with both the 300 2.8 and 500 f4, partly because of all the bad publicity and fearing the resale price (quite high) might plummet (doesn't seem to have happened), partly because I found 400mm not quite enough even for places like Antarctica and the Galapagos. When I owned the 400 DO, I was still shooting film, and no, I did not see the color and contrast differences you describe versus my other lenses (600 f4, 400 f4.6, etc.). Doesn't mean it isn't there in some degree, but at least with Velvia and Provia, the difference is so small as to be unnoticeable to me. I never look at a slide and think, "Agh, 400 DO." More typically, I look at a slide, think "Beautiful," then, after looking at the caption, "Forgot that was made with the DO." As with the 100-400, it's the light and the situation that make an image more than having a certain letter (L versus DO) on the glass.

I have a feeling there might be a focus issue in the 300+1.4x pic here, otherwise this lens is HUGELY overrated.

I have shot with both, the 400 5.6 and 300 2.8 (owned the 300 for a long time before selling it for 500 f4) and I have to say the sharpness of your 300 + 1.4 @ 5.6 resembles more the results I've gotten with my 300 + 2x wide open.

Thank you E.J.

I just sold my 100-400 and obtained the 300 2.8 IS with 1.4xII. I've not had a chance to use it yet but for spring moose, I am hoepful to be happier with image quality.

upnorthfar wrote:I have a feeling there might be a focus issue in the 300+1.4x pic here, otherwise this lens is HUGELY overrated.

Again, these are 100% crops unsharpened - most people never even look at an image like that. rest assured that there is no focus error and that the 300 by itself is the sharpest and fastest to focus lens I own. You might argue that the 1.4x has an issue but I don't believe that to be true based on its performance with the 500 f/4.

I realize that whenever one posts something like this, you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism and all sorts of comments based on emotion due to the fact what different people already own and have spent their hard earned dollars on. For this reason I don't do more of this type of testing because you always make somebody unhappy and always take pot shots (no so much here as some of the other sites where rudeness is the norm).

The 300+1.4x at 100% without sharpening here is actually quite good. Anybody that thinks adding a teleconverter to any lens and still having it outperform a pro level prime lens does not have realistic expectations IMHO. Teleconverters degrade image quality, period. The only question is how badly. In this case, not very bad at all. Everything is relative...

E.J. Peiker wrote: A tripod was set up 15 feet from the subject.

Did you move back the tripod a little to compensate for the slightly longer FL of the 300 + 1.4? (sorry I even dare to ask )

Yes I did but I missed slightly, as you can see the magnification on the 300mm samples is slightly larger.

Thanks for all of your work on this E.J.

Thanks for taking the time to do this test.

I know my 100-400 is barely adequate at 400. Too bad, because it is such a convenient lens otherwise.

Ron Niebrugge wrote:Thanks for taking the time to do this test.

I know my 100-400 is barely adequate at 400. Too bad, because it is such a convenient lens otherwise.

Just drop it--then send it to Canon to be fixed--Mine came back so much better !

E.J. Peiker wrote: Also realize that no sharpening was applied and with proper sharpening, some of the differences can be overcome.

Thanks for a very nice effort. This is exactly what I was thinking. Can you elaborate on the point or even better, show maybe the best and worst sharpened examples to give us a much better idea of what we might be trading off?

Thanks for information EJ. There are lots of us out here who greatly appreciate all the work that you put into a task like this. I've owned all the lenses involved and it sure was interesting to see how they stacked up in a controlled test.

amirm wrote:... Last time I did this though, I found the AF mechanism to be totally inadequate for this kind of evaluation. The peak focus simply cannot be achieved to the degree required to test lenses that are close to each other. I used a focusing rail and moved the whole setup forward one millimeter at a time, while evaluating the results on my computer screen shot by shot.

I've found similar results, the point of peak focus is a critical parameter to control in these type of tests. One can't rely on generalities since a lens focus that is spot on at 60 feet may be off at 15 feet (for example) and only a few millimeters of error changes the results when done at such close focus distances.

Unfortunately, the work was so tedius and boring which I have not wanted to repeat. I do have a 1DsIII though and own all the lenses EJ used so if there is motivation for more testing, I could blow a day and test them.

Given all the talk surrounding the 400 F5.6 prime versus 100-400L, it would be very interesting to see your results for just these two.

Thanks for taking the time to carry out this test EJ.

I've often wondered about the upgrade from 400/5.6 to 300/2.8, and whether it would represent good value. There are obviously other factors such as af speed & accuracy to take into account, but for now this reassures me I am right to stay where I am.