What do you think of the 400 DO outresolving a 600 f/4 L?
I don't believe I said I thought it would. From when I looked at TDP comparisons, the series 1 600mm looked very poor at f/4, compared to the series 2 at f/4. But I don't think I did a direct comparison...I will now. Also, the one comparison I do recall, is that his center crops of the chart of the 600 ii vs the 500 ii, the 500 looked slightly sharper to me, in the center, wide open. I suspect there's still sample variation, even with these series 2 lenses, so it would be hard to say (without someone like Lensrentals doing a test comparison with a lot of samples...like say 40 of each lens or something), to say which of these lenses is "generally" sharper than which.
However, from the above, if that is typical, then wouldn't that conflict with Canon's own published MTF charts of the 500 and the 600 version 2 lenses? I thought I saw that Canon's chart for the 600 ii, looked the best of all the version 2 superteles, even the 300 f/2.8. But is this chart of Canon's, "reality"? I don't own any of these, and I don't claim to know. Even if I owned one of each, that wouldn't really be enough to state what "most" of the samples produced of all these lenses, are like.
Ok I'm looking at TDP now. If you're asking which is better, the 400 DO + 1.4 iii TC, vs. the 600 version one, both wide open (f/5.6 at 560mm, and f/4 at 600mm)...the 600mm lens is better
, even in the center. But in the center it's not night and day
, like it is at the borders and corners.But in this test, clearly the 400 DO is sharper across the frame at 400mm and f/4, than the version 1 600mm f/4 is, at its wide open f/4.
I suspect the sample he tested for the 600 version one here, might be a bad sample. But I have no idea. It looks like Bryan only tested one sample. I know my cousin still has his version 1 600 f/4, and his shots with it seem pretty sharp. He's owned it since like 2005. Of course I don't think I've ever seen any of his shots at f/4...they're always closed down a little. I guess he's shot some wide open, but I've not seen them. Lately he's become obsessed with collecting guns and shooting target practice; he never wants to talk about cameras anymore! I hope it's a passing phase, lol.
One more thing. I still say, that such resolution tests, don't mean as much, unless the focus distance of the test, is at what would be typical for its use.
Now, it seems to me, that most of the great bird images posted on here, are filling the frame pretty good. That means the camera is really closer than what might be the average distance for shooting birds. So in a way, for these types of very close images, such tests like what Bryan does, are very relevant, because the distance is similar.
But at 100 feet, or 200 feet distance?? That's a whole other can of worms...that's the true test of resolving power of the camera, the lens, the system...the ability of the photographer...because you're forced to crop heavily to get a nice gigantic picture of a bird.
One thing I keep noticing though...it seems possible that all lenses get sharper at closer distance, than at, or close to...infinity focus. There's probably a term for this, and no doubt you know it, and will school me on it! (Not referring to atmospherics, either).