Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]

[privatebydesign]

Understanding resolution is not a simple topic. The Rayleigh Criterion in the reference I gave above is the "textbook" example. I got this in a class I took in microscopy decades ago. In this next reference (link at end of this statement) the authors argue that this is not good enough for digital. It is very long but if one scrolls down and looks at the tables (the resolution numbers in the columns go up (apertures decrease in size as one goes down) in each table but the values vary according to criterion - going across in the table (for a given aperture)) it is obvious that the maximum theoretical resolution (i.e., diffraction limited) at f/2.8 is greater than f/5.6
link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

Theoretically that is obvious, from a practical standpoint aberrations and mp limits cut in way before that when wide open for us camera users and the lenses we actually have available. Your assumption earlier was "assuming similar correction for lens aberrations", it is more than four times more difficult, many would say sixteen times, to manufacture a 400 f2.8 than a 400 f5.6 with the same optical aberrations.

Theory ends when "limited" purchasing options are all we have.

 

[fish_shooter]

Theoretical is just that and some of the more expensive lenses do get close. I think that a f/5.6 lens could be made with as good an image quality that a f/2.8 lens (both 400mm) has at f/5.6 for less money (than the f/2.8 lens) because of the smaller pieces of glass used. They would have the same MTF values at f/5.6. There would, however, be more vignetting for the f/5.6 lens because of the smaller pieces of glass.
However, to make the lens cheaper the f/5.6 lens may not be as good as f/2.8 stopped down to f/5.6.

To improve a f/5.6 lens (to the level of the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/5.6) could involve more expensive glass types for example. These expensive types are used in the f/2.8 lens. I suspect an improved (resolution-wise) 400/5.6 lens would involve selecting more expensive glass that would drive up the price. I think this is what we are seeing with many of Canon's lenses as they get updated. They could probably build several different 400/5.6 lenses with different price points according to the types of glass used but this is impractical. The old lens will provide a lower price point option so long as it says in production.

Understanding resolution is not a simple topic. The Rayleigh Criterion in the reference I gave above is the "textbook" example. I got this in a class I took in microscopy decades ago. In this next reference (link at end of this statement) the authors argue that this is not good enough for digital. It is very long but if one scrolls down and looks at the tables (the resolution numbers in the columns go up (apertures decrease in size as one goes down) in each table but the values vary according to criterion - going across in the table (for a given aperture)) it is obvious that the maximum theoretical resolution (i.e., diffraction limited) at f/2.8 is greater than f/5.6
link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

Theoretically that is obvious, from a practical standpoint aberrations and mp limits cut in way before that when wide open for us camera users and the lenses we actually have available. Your assumption earlier was "assuming similar correction for lens aberrations", it is more than four times more difficult, many would say sixteen times, to manufacture a 400 f2.8 than a 400 f5.6 with the same optical aberrations.

Theory ends when "limited" purchasing options are all we have.

 

[privatebydesign]

Theoretical is just that and some of the more expensive lenses do get close. I think that a f/5.6 lens could be made with as good an image quality that a f/2.8 lens (both 400mm) has at f/5.6 for less money (than the f/2.8 lens) because of the smaller pieces of glass used. They would have the same MTF values at f/5.6. There would, however, be more vignetting for the f/5.6 lens because of the smaller pieces of glass.
However, to make the lens cheaper the f/5.6 lens may not be as good as f/2.8 stopped down to f/5.6.

To improve a f/5.6 lens (to the level of the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/5.6) could involve more expensive glass types for example. These expensive types are used in the f/2.8 lens. I suspect an improved (resolution-wise) 400/5.6 lens would involve selecting more expensive glass that would drive up the price. I think this is what we are seeing with many of Canon's lenses as they get updated. They could probably build several different 400/5.6 lenses with different price points according to the types of glass used but this is impractical. The old lens will provide a lower price point option so long as it says in production.

Understanding resolution is not a simple topic. The Rayleigh Criterion in the reference I gave above is the "textbook" example. I got this in a class I took in microscopy decades ago. In this next reference (link at end of this statement) the authors argue that this is not good enough for digital. It is very long but if one scrolls down and looks at the tables (the resolution numbers in the columns go up (apertures decrease in size as one goes down) in each table but the values vary according to criterion - going across in the table (for a given aperture)) it is obvious that the maximum theoretical resolution (i.e., diffraction limited) at f/2.8 is greater than f/5.6
link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

Theoretically that is obvious, from a practical standpoint aberrations and mp limits cut in way before that when wide open for us camera users and the lenses we actually have available. Your assumption earlier was "assuming similar correction for lens aberrations", it is more than four times more difficult, many would say sixteen times, to manufacture a 400 f2.8 than a 400 f5.6 with the same optical aberrations.

Theory ends when "limited" purchasing options are all we have.

Clearly you didn't look at my earlier link.

My bet is that Canon could design and build a 400 5.6L IS that could produce images every bit as good as the 400 2.8L IS (stopped to 5.6), of course much lighter and cheaper. Light and cheap means you're more likely to have it with you.

Easily:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=327&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

 

[Don Haines]

Theoretical is just that and some of the more expensive lenses do get close. I think that a f/5.6 lens could be made with as good an image quality that a f/2.8 lens (both 400mm) has at f/5.6 for less money (than the f/2.8 lens) because of the smaller pieces of glass used. They would have the same MTF values at f/5.6. There would, however, be more vignetting for the f/5.6 lens because of the smaller pieces of glass.
However, to make the lens cheaper the f/5.6 lens may not be as good as f/2.8 stopped down to f/5.6.

To improve a f/5.6 lens (to the level of the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/5.6) could involve more expensive glass types for example. These expensive types are used in the f/2.8 lens. I suspect an improved (resolution-wise) 400/5.6 lens would involve selecting more expensive glass that would drive up the price. I think this is what we are seeing with many of Canon's lenses as they get updated. They could probably build several different 400/5.6 lenses with different price points according to the types of glass used but this is impractical. The old lens will provide a lower price point option so long as it says in production.

Understanding resolution is not a simple topic. The Rayleigh Criterion in the reference I gave above is the "textbook" example. I got this in a class I took in microscopy decades ago. In this next reference (link at end of this statement) the authors argue that this is not good enough for digital. It is very long but if one scrolls down and looks at the tables (the resolution numbers in the columns go up (apertures decrease in size as one goes down) in each table but the values vary according to criterion - going across in the table (for a given aperture)) it is obvious that the maximum theoretical resolution (i.e., diffraction limited) at f/2.8 is greater than f/5.6
link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

Theoretically that is obvious, from a practical standpoint aberrations and mp limits cut in way before that when wide open for us camera users and the lenses we actually have available. Your assumption earlier was "assuming similar correction for lens aberrations", it is more than four times more difficult, many would say sixteen times, to manufacture a 400 f2.8 than a 400 f5.6 with the same optical aberrations.

Theory ends when "limited" purchasing options are all we have.

The 400F5.6 is SHARPER in the corners than the 400F2.8...

There is theory, and then there is practice... Yes, in theory, a F2.8 lens could be made sharper than a F5.6 lens, but given the limited precision of manufacturing (it is not perfect and you can not polish off fractions of atoms) and the aberrations in glass, in the real world the problem becomes how to make that F2.8 lens as sharp as an f5.6 lens.

When we are comparing the two, you have to be comparing similar materials and similar designs. The 400F5.6 is a 20+ year old design and used UD elements. The 400F2.8II lens is just a few years old and uses fluorite elements... it was designed with better software and it is manufactured to higher tolerances. If you used that same level of technology/materials on a new 400F5.6 it will be noticeably sharper than the F2.8 version.

Also, with the same design, because of the larger elements, there is much more thickness of glass for the light to pass through in the F2.8 lens. This has the effect of both reducing light and increasing the odds of hitting an aberration. In theory, the glass is perfect. In the real world, it has flaws.

 

[Etienne]

Theoretical is just that and some of the more expensive lenses do get close. I think that a f/5.6 lens could be made with as good an image quality that a f/2.8 lens (both 400mm) has at f/5.6 for less money (than the f/2.8 lens) because of the smaller pieces of glass used. They would have the same MTF values at f/5.6. There would, however, be more vignetting for the f/5.6 lens because of the smaller pieces of glass.
However, to make the lens cheaper the f/5.6 lens may not be as good as f/2.8 stopped down to f/5.6.

To improve a f/5.6 lens (to the level of the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/5.6) could involve more expensive glass types for example. These expensive types are used in the f/2.8 lens. I suspect an improved (resolution-wise) 400/5.6 lens would involve selecting more expensive glass that would drive up the price. I think this is what we are seeing with many of Canon's lenses as they get updated. They could probably build several different 400/5.6 lenses with different price points according to the types of glass used but this is impractical. The old lens will provide a lower price point option so long as it says in production.

Understanding resolution is not a simple topic. The Rayleigh Criterion in the reference I gave above is the "textbook" example. I got this in a class I took in microscopy decades ago. In this next reference (link at end of this statement) the authors argue that this is not good enough for digital. It is very long but if one scrolls down and looks at the tables (the resolution numbers in the columns go up (apertures decrease in size as one goes down) in each table but the values vary according to criterion - going across in the table (for a given aperture)) it is obvious that the maximum theoretical resolution (i.e., diffraction limited) at f/2.8 is greater than f/5.6
link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

Theoretically that is obvious, from a practical standpoint aberrations and mp limits cut in way before that when wide open for us camera users and the lenses we actually have available. Your assumption earlier was "assuming similar correction for lens aberrations", it is more than four times more difficult, many would say sixteen times, to manufacture a 400 f2.8 than a 400 f5.6 with the same optical aberrations.

Theory ends when "limited" purchasing options are all we have.

The 400F5.6 is SHARPER in the corners than the 400F2.8...

There is theory, and then there is practice... Yes, in theory, a F2.8 lens could be made sharper than a F5.6 lens, but given the limited precision of manufacturing (it is not perfect and you can not polish off fractions of atoms) and the aberrations in glass, in the real world the problem becomes how to make that F2.8 lens as sharp as an f5.6 lens.

When we are comparing the two, you have to be comparing similar materials and similar designs. The 400F5.6 is a 20+ year old design and used UD elements. The 400F2.8II lens is just a few years old and uses fluorite elements... it was designed with better software and it is manufactured to higher tolerances. If you used that same level of technology/materials on a new 400F5.6 it will be noticeably sharper than the F2.8 version.

Also, with the same design, because of the larger elements, there is much more thickness of glass for the light to pass through in the F2.8 lens. This has the effect of both reducing light and increasing the odds of hitting an aberration. In theory, the glass is perfect. In the real world, it has flaws.

Very good points!

There are such a great many considerations. At the end of the day, I would love an updated, light weight 400 5.6L IS at $1999 or less! It's a lens I could afford, and carry with me.

 

[fish_shooter]

Actually I did read your previous post. I am clearly not disagreeing with you.

Theoretical is just that and some of the more expensive lenses do get close. I think that a f/5.6 lens could be made with as good an image quality that a f/2.8 lens (both 400mm) has at f/5.6 for less money (than the f/2.8 lens) because of the smaller pieces of glass used. They would have the same MTF values at f/5.6. There would, however, be more vignetting for the f/5.6 lens because of the smaller pieces of glass.
However, to make the lens cheaper the f/5.6 lens may not be as good as f/2.8 stopped down to f/5.6.

To improve a f/5.6 lens (to the level of the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/5.6) could involve more expensive glass types for example. These expensive types are used in the f/2.8 lens. I suspect an improved (resolution-wise) 400/5.6 lens would involve selecting more expensive glass that would drive up the price. I think this is what we are seeing with many of Canon's lenses as they get updated. They could probably build several different 400/5.6 lenses with different price points according to the types of glass used but this is impractical. The old lens will provide a lower price point option so long as it says in production.

Understanding resolution is not a simple topic. The Rayleigh Criterion in the reference I gave above is the "textbook" example. I got this in a class I took in microscopy decades ago. In this next reference (link at end of this statement) the authors argue that this is not good enough for digital. It is very long but if one scrolls down and looks at the tables (the resolution numbers in the columns go up (apertures decrease in size as one goes down) in each table but the values vary according to criterion - going across in the table (for a given aperture)) it is obvious that the maximum theoretical resolution (i.e., diffraction limited) at f/2.8 is greater than f/5.6
link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

Theoretically that is obvious, from a practical standpoint aberrations and mp limits cut in way before that when wide open for us camera users and the lenses we actually have available. Your assumption earlier was "assuming similar correction for lens aberrations", it is more than four times more difficult, many would say sixteen times, to manufacture a 400 f2.8 than a 400 f5.6 with the same optical aberrations.

Theory ends when "limited" purchasing options are all we have.

Clearly you didn't look at my earlier link.

My bet is that Canon could design and build a 400 5.6L IS that could produce images every bit as good as the 400 2.8L IS (stopped to 5.6), of course much lighter and cheaper. Light and cheap means you're more likely to have it with you.

Easily:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=327&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

 

[fish_shooter]

If one compared the Mark II version of the 400/2.8 IS to the 400/5.6 the corners are too close to tell apart at 5.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

 

[mrsfotografie]

If one compared the Mark II version of the 400/2.8 IS to the 400/5.6 the corners are too close to tell apart at 5.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

At the moment my thinking is that if Canon comes out with a 400mm f/5.8 IS, I would happily trade in my 100-400 for it; I use 400 mm almost exclusively for motorsports, usually at f/8 and upwards to get enough DOF.

I need a lens which works well in back lit situations because at the track where I take my pictures, the light is often from behind and bouncing off the cars and motorcycles. My 100-400 gives a lot of glare at 400 mm in these conditions, causing the image quality to deteriorate.

 

[AlanF]

To put it into perspective, there is not much difference between the 400/5.6 L at f/5.6 and the Tamron 150-600mm at 400mm f/5.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

 

[mrsfotografie]

To put it into perspective, there is not much difference between the 400/5.6 L at f/5.6 and the Tamron 150-600mm at 400mm f/5.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

There's a lot more more to lenses than can be expressed by MTF charts. Among optical qualities like flare resistance, contrast, color, distortion, and what have you, there's more subjective qualities like handling ergonomics, weight etc.

So having owned the Sigma 150-500, and having sold it in favor for the 100-400 for a number of reasons (most notably ergonomics ie weight and the focus ring being near the body on this long lens), I'm reluctant to invest in another f/* to f/6.3 zoom that at least physically, reminds me so much of the Sigma 150-500.

 

[AlanF]

The TDP tests above are done on full frame sensors. It is a different story on crop, which shows up the deficiencies on the less-than-tack-sharp lenses. On the 60D, for example, there is clear daylight between the 400 mm f/5.6 L at f/5.6 and the 400 mm f/2.8 L II at f/5.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=741&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

and also the 300 mm f/2.8 II at 420mm with a 1.4xTC at f/5.6 has similar superiority:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

It's not just the TDP site that shows this and it is confined to the 60D, but also DxOmark in its tests on a variety of bodies, and as found by me in my use of the 100-400, 150-600 and 300/2.8 on the 5DIII, 7D and 70D.

Whether you prefer the Tamron to the 100-400 or vice versa is your decision, but I sold my 100-400 for the 150-600mm and am very happy with it on FF. I wouldn't recommend either on a crop body for the highest quality images, but they are both more than adequate for more general use.

(The DxO tests are done on the 100-400, not the 400 prime, but they are consistent with TDP)

 

[Lee Jay]

The TDP tests above are done on full frame sensors. It is a different story on crop, which shows up the deficiencies on the less-than-tack-sharp lenses. On the 60D, for example, there is clear daylight between the 400 mm f/5.6 L at f/5.6 and the 400 mm f/2.8 L II at f/5.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=741&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Especially with a 2xTC:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=741&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=5