ef 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II with eos 80D: Issues?

[Mikehit]

If you checked this lens (EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM) on three different EOS 80D bodies and problem still existed there I think that there is no other explanation than problem with diffraction https://photographylife.com/what-is-diffraction-in-photography

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Specifications.aspx?CameraComp=792&Camera=1044

80D - extremly low value of pixel size 3.75µm, diffraction-limited aperture f/6.0

5D Mark III - pixel size 6.25µm, diffraction-limited aperture f/10.1

Someone drinked too much sake on some Canon's engineers integration party or what?

Take a shot with this combo (body plus lens) in RAW, run DPP (Digital Photo Professional) from Canon, download lens data profile and activate Digital Lens Optimizer. Is it better or not? If not I don't know what can help you.

This link below leads to fresh post from our unofficial Polish Canon related forum. Guy who posted it wrote himself that he has almost 10 years experience with aerial photography. He has also problem with sharp pictures from this combo from 250mm and up, especially on right side of the frame so maybe he has also problem with decentered lens but it's only my speculation. There's three example pictures inside.

http://www.canon-board.info/pierwsza-pomoc-awarie-usterki-problemy-56/prawa-strona-kadru-nieostra-rozjechana-zamydlona-canon-ef-100-400-ii-80d-106249/

Diffraction is a quality of the lens and not the sensor so I would say diffraction is not the issue.

 

[Khalai]

Diffraction is a quality of the lens and not the sensor so I would say diffraction is not the issue.

I beg to differ. Diffraction truly occurs on lens iris, but it is also directly bound to pixel size on the sensor. The smaller the pixel size, the lower DLA number is. That's of course for 1:1 pixel magnification. It does not matter for smaller prints, where you effectively downsizing image obviously...

 

[Mikehit]

Diffraction is a quality of the lens and not the sensor so I would say diffraction is not the issue.

I beg to differ. Diffraction truly occurs on lens iris, but it is also directly bound to pixel size on the sensor. The smaller the pixel size, the lower DLA number is. That's of course for 1:1 pixel magnification. It does not matter for smaller prints, where you effectively downsizing image obviously...

Diffraction is a constant. 'Diffraction limiting' does not mean the image gets worse. It means only that the diffraction visibly starts to offset the benefits of either smaller aperture or more pixels. The phrase is much-abused by armchair theoreticians and more so by people who don't really understand what the phrase means.

Are you really telling me that the resolution of a 50MP 5DSR at f8 is less than the resolution of a 8MP 30D (or a 12MP 40D) at f8 when used with the same lens? It is a trade off of two competing factors and I will bet you anything that at the same aperture the blur caused by more identifiable diffraction is nowhere near as bad as the blur caused by lesser resolution.
In fact, I doubt you could tell me which is blur due to refraction and which is blur due to limited resolution.

 

[Khalai]

Diffraction is a quality of the lens and not the sensor so I would say diffraction is not the issue.

I beg to differ. Diffraction truly occurs on lens iris, but it is also directly bound to pixel size on the sensor. The smaller the pixel size, the lower DLA number is. That's of course for 1:1 pixel magnification. It does not matter for smaller prints, where you effectively downsizing image obviously...

Diffraction is a constant. 'Diffraction limiting' does not mean the image gets worse. It means only that the diffraction visibly starts to offset the benefits of either smaller aperture or more pixels. The phrase is much-abused by armchair theoreticians and more so by people who don't really understand what the phrase means.

Are you really telling me that the resolution of a 50MP 5DSR at f8 is less than the resolution of a 8MP 30D (or a 12MP 40D) at f8 when used with the same lens? It is a trade off of two competing factors and I will bet you anything that at the same aperture the blur caused by more identifiable diffraction is nowhere near as bad as the blur caused by lesser resolution.
In fact, I doubt you could tell me which is blur due to refraction and which is blur due to limited resolution.

You misunderstand. I was not saying diffraction is a problem (well, as long as you keep your aperture below f/13-16 I guess). But I disagree that it's not entirely unrelated with the sensor. There is secondary relation, quanitified by DLA number. Now, DLA is not a hard wall, where suddenly all image goes sour, I'm not saying that. But diffraction affects resolution sooner on high MPix cameras than on low MPix ones. Not that it mattered much. I was simply correcting a claim that sensor has nothing to do with diffraction. It actually does, although indirectly. If you look at e.g. Photozone reviews with 5Dsr, then diffration kicks sooner, around f8, while on 5D2 reviews, there is not a reduction of resolution until f/11. And that's all I wanted to convey.

 

[Mikehit]

This is the problem in that there are so many variables and people rarely state the conditions they are assuming.

My original comment was meant to say that the resolution of the sensor does not change the amount of diffraction it merely makes it easier to recognise. Semantics? Maybe - but when you do not get the correct understanding and language you get all sorts of myths bouncing around and Lord knows there is enough BS spoken about camera technology without myths and misunderstandings adding to it! (same in hifi)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

This is the problem in that there are so many variables and people rarely state the conditions they are assuming.

My original comment was meant to say that the resolution of the sensor does not change the amount of diffraction it merely makes it easier to recognise. Semantics? Maybe - but when you do not get the correct understanding and language you get all sorts of myths bouncing around and Lord knows there is enough BS spoken about camera technology without myths and misunderstandings adding to it! (same in hifi)

Yes, diffraction is constant, that circle of confusion from the lens does not change no matter what sensor. As pixels get smaller and closer together, the circle of confusion covers more pixels, so you can't resolve all those pixels, but resolution is always equal or better with a high mp body. It is somewhat a red herring, in that other factors tend to be bigger issues unless you have a very small aperture. I'll use f/16 when the situation calls for a small aperture.

 

[nc0b]

I shot some children on the Bay of Fundy at 400 yards with the 100-400mm II and a 5DsR at f/8. I was sitting on the ground with the camera stabilized with my elbows on my knees. I was stunned at the detail of a 70 kb crop from a 15 mb JPG. So much for too many megapixels or defraction limited. The previous technical discription of diffraction being independent of the sensor was very informative. Thanks.

 

[Desiree Vie]

I have the Canon 80D and the Canon EF 100-400 L IS II, and I have not experienced any issues with the IQ other than those I have created. Such as ISO, Focus Points, AF Modes and such. I got the camera Oct 11, 2016, and the lens May 19, 2017.

My biggest issue on lost shots has been my knowledge of both pieces of the whole.

I gripped the 80D and went Watkin Glen for the Six hours of the Glen on July 2, 2017 and shot 1192 photos, 39 videos. Shooting both raw and jpg, this used portions of two 64 gig cards and one 32 gig.

I tried various settings on single point focusing, and all the metering options. I used less than 50% battery and over 500 of those where photos I am proud of. High speed drive wasted 300 or more. I set up back button focus, but had I chosen AI Servo, less would have been wasted.

In my yard, I have studied and prepared feeding for the birds and have captured several species and I also live near a nature preserve where I have captured Eagles, Osprey, Heron, Egrets and Deer. When I enlarge them and/or edit them in Adobe products or Canon's, to this day, I can honestly state, the only flaw in ANY of them was the with the owner and how to to use this combo to it's maximum quality.

This my 7th Canon camera, from film to digital, and my 9th lens. I bought the Tamron 150-600 SP, and with my T3i, thought I had the world at my finger tips. A friend of mine had the 100-400 II and said, IQ, IQ, IQ, you will not regret it. You may never take the lens off the camera. He was right, I rarely have.

Every issue I can find with the quality of the photos has been down to how I used it, not the quality of the products themselves. None of the issues discussed here. Sorry if I am also a supporter of Canon but for what this cost, nearly $5000, I have taken 5000 photos with the 80D and 2000 with the 100-400 II, and the only problem with the photos has been knowledge of the use of said equipment, i.e me.

 

[Desiree Vie]

Red Bellied Woodpecker With Canon 80D and Canon EF 100-400 IS II