Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM

[AlanF]

I really liked the shrike and the tern. Very impressive with a 2xTC on a 7DII. The bokeh behind the blue wren is a bit rough, but maybe other lenses would have the same problem with such a background.

 

[AlanF]

Bo
Are they 100% crops or are they reduced in size and cropped? If reduced, by how much.

 

[ejenner]

I really liked the shrike and the tern. Very impressive with a 2xTC on a 7DII. The bokeh behind the blue wren is a bit rough, but maybe other lenses would have the same problem with such a background.

The blue wren in summer colors? Yes, that's not the kind of background you want with this lens.

 

[Bo]

Bo
Are they 100% crops or are they reduced in size and cropped? If reduced, by how much.

Alan,

They are both reduced in size one-dimensionally by a factor of 3 (4800 to 1600) for the shrike and a factor of 2 (3200 to 1600) for the tern.

I attach two 100 % crops of the shrike from DPP only converted from RAW to JPG. One with no sharpening in the RAW- or JPG-file. The other with a sharpening in the JPG-file of 200 outof 500 with the only purpose to show that the file has some potentional to be sharpenend. The name of the last file contains a "Sh200".

For the tern I Think the crop-IQ is mostly affected by my own handling and therefore of minor interest to the forum.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Bo, interesting to see the effect of sharpening side by side. While there is an apparent appeal of sharpness improvement, the more I looked the less it seemed to really have benefited. Just me??

I really appreciate these various CR threads.

Jack

 

[Bo]

Bo, interesting to see the effect of sharpening side by side. While there is an apparent appeal of sharpness improvement, the more I looked the less it seemed to really have benefited. Just me??

I really appreciate these various CR threads.

Jack

When I compare the sharpened file I uploaded as shown in CR to the same file in my PC as shown in DPP they are not the same. I usually dont make adjustments in the final JPG-file but this time i did. Although I saved it, it seems that the sharpening is not there. Let me try again.

Here are the unsharpened and the sharpened files again, this time the sharpened file has the sharpening in the RAW-file according to the Picture style standard (strength 3, fineness 7, threshold 1). After that the file is converted o JPG with no further Changes. The sharpened file contains Sh3 in the filename.

Again the only purpose to show the sharpened file is to show that the crop-IQ can be sharpened. I have experienced that some soft picture are hard to sharpen at all.

 

[AlanF]

Bo
Thanks for the info. I'd be interested in seeing crops of birds further away, where the bird occupies about 800x800 pixels^2 in the original.
Alan

 

[Bo]

I´d like to show a couple of pictures from a shooting session with European sparrow Hawks hunting along a sand reef. covered by reed and some small water puddles and low bushes. The hawks were mostly flying just above the reed or ground/water. In order to stay hidden I was sitting down and could only se the hawks during e few seconds the last 20 meters as they passed me.

To me this foto event showed the very good AF function with the 7Dmk II and the lens. It wasn´t possible to use a tripod nor to use anything else but automatic selection among all the AF Points. A bit like shooting trap! Still I got my best Hawk pictures ever.

The two first are with the 400DO alone and the two last with 1.4 ext III.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks Bo, very nice shots.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Bo, you've managed to impress me given the description of the situation!!

I now see the obvious impact of sharpening, FWIW, Thanks.

Jack

 

[candc]

I´d like to show a couple of pictures from a shooting session with European sparrow Hawks hunting along a sand reef. covered by reed and some small water puddles and low bushes. The hawks were mostly flying just above the reed or ground/water. In order to stay hidden I was sitting down and could only se the hawks during e few seconds the last 20 meters as they passed me.

To me this foto event showed the very good AF function with the 7Dmk II and the lens. It wasn´t possible to use a tripod nor to use anything else but automatic selection among all the AF Points. A bit like shooting trap! Still I got my best Hawk pictures ever.

The two first are with the 400DO alone and the two last with 1.4 ext III.

Most excellent

 

[candc]

this is wide open with the 1.4xiii on a sony a7rii. It's about a 2/3 frame crop. straight dxo conversion, no extra sharpening or adjustments. the detail in the feathers is incredible.

 

[Jack Douglas]

this is wide open with the 1.4xiii on a sony a7rii. both are about a 2/3 frame crop. straight dxo conversion, no extra sharpening or adjustments. the crisp detail in the feathers is incredible.

Can't ague against that! Lovely.

Jack

 

[scyrene]

I figured out quickly when investigating 'big whites' though that using a x2 TC is really not something you want to have to do on any regular basis. Is seems that getting a lens to use primarily with a x2 TC is not a great idea (if not for IQ, then definitely for AF). If I thought I was going to need to use a x2 on the DO a lot, I'd probably suck it up and get a 500 f4 to use with a 1.4. Both size and weight of the DO really appeal to me though - I will be hiking with it.

I have to sound a note of disagreement. I use the 2xiii (and occasionally the 2xii) on the 500LII and it works fine. Not as fast or as sharp as with the 1.4x but still very good (albeit not fast/erratic subjects like BIF). It's worth stopping down from f/8 to f/10 to have optimal sharpness (on the 5DIII at least).

 

[scyrene]

A 2xIII extender example. A young red-backed shrike at 5-10m with a 7Dmk II. 1/400 sec, ap 9. Hand-hold with some support from a fence-pole.

Beautiful

 

[Jack Douglas]

I figured out quickly when investigating 'big whites' though that using a x2 TC is really not something you want to have to do on any regular basis. Is seems that getting a lens to use primarily with a x2 TC is not a great idea (if not for IQ, then definitely for AF). If I thought I was going to need to use a x2 on the DO a lot, I'd probably suck it up and get a 500 f4 to use with a 1.4. Both size and weight of the DO really appeal to me though - I will be hiking with it.

I have to sound a note of disagreement. I use the 2xiii (and occasionally the 2xii) on the 500LII and it works fine. Not as fast or as sharp as with the 1.4x but still very good (albeit not fast/erratic subjects like BIF). It's worth stopping down from f/8 to f/10 to have optimal sharpness (on the 5DIII at least).

While there is no doubt the X1.4 is preferable if reach isn't needed the X2 III is well worth owning. There are many CR examples. The only time for me that the AF with the 6D was too slow was if focus was lost completely and it had to recover. If a bird is identifiable within the viewfinder it snaps virtually instantly. Not the best for BIF for sure but that's what I used for my pretty acceptable eagle shots this spring on the 1D4 (300 2.8 II X2 III). Loose the bird for a moment and the shot would be lost due to searching, so the trick was to not hit back button focus unless the bird was under the focus point.

One thing that is hard to come to grips with is the reality that IQ keeps climbing with each generation. Take the 7D for example, since it was a very popular birding camera. Should all the 7D shots be canned because the 7D II is significantly better. It's tough if you tend to be a perfectionist and look at the technical details more than the artistic merit. My head says no we should not denigrate shots that are not up to the latest highest technical level and yet there I am focusing on sharpness just like everyone else, I guess.

Think of paintings. Are the only good ones those that have every feature displayed to the utmost degree of sharpness? So what gives?

Jack

 

[scyrene]

I figured out quickly when investigating 'big whites' though that using a x2 TC is really not something you want to have to do on any regular basis. Is seems that getting a lens to use primarily with a x2 TC is not a great idea (if not for IQ, then definitely for AF). If I thought I was going to need to use a x2 on the DO a lot, I'd probably suck it up and get a 500 f4 to use with a 1.4. Both size and weight of the DO really appeal to me though - I will be hiking with it.

I have to sound a note of disagreement. I use the 2xiii (and occasionally the 2xii) on the 500LII and it works fine. Not as fast or as sharp as with the 1.4x but still very good (albeit not fast/erratic subjects like BIF). It's worth stopping down from f/8 to f/10 to have optimal sharpness (on the 5DIII at least).

While there is no doubt the X1.4 is preferable if reach isn't needed the X2 III is well worth owning. There are many CR examples. The only time for me that the AF with the 6D was too slow was if focus was lost completely and it had to recover. If a bird is identifiable within the viewfinder it snaps virtually instantly. Not the best for BIF for sure but that's what I used for my pretty acceptable eagle shots this spring on the 1D4 (300 2.8 II X2 III). Loose the bird for a moment and the shot would be lost due to searching, so the trick was to not hit back button focus unless the bird was under the focus point.

One thing that is hard to come to grips with is the reality that IQ keeps climbing with each generation. Take the 7D for example, since it was a very popular birding camera. Should all the 7D shots be canned because the 7D II is significantly better. It's tough if you tend to be a perfectionist and look at the technical details more than the artistic merit. My head says no we should not denigrate shots that are not up to the latest highest technical level and yet there I am focusing on sharpness just like everyone else, I guess.

Think of paintings. Are the only good ones those that have every feature displayed to the utmost degree of sharpness? So what gives?

Jack

Well exactly. Many many excellent reference shots of birds on Wikipedia were taken with the original 7D, and most are still top notch - getting close to the subject, a nice creamy background, good light, good pose - these are all as important as sharpness, and none of them rely on having the newest gear (I suppose a faster burst means you have more poses to choose from, but otherwise...)

 

[candc]

this is taken with the 2xiii on a 7dii. cropped and resized with dxo

 

[tron]

this is taken with the 2xiii on a 7dii. cropped and resized with dxo

This looks perfectly sharp even if it was shot at f/8 so fully open. Did you sharpen it on post? I also see that you used relatively low (1/250) speed although you shot at 800mm with 7DII. Did you used a monopod or very steady hands ? (I guess the IS is very good but up to now I do not rely on it very much - this will have to change...).

 

[candc]

this is taken with the 2xiii on a 7dii. cropped and resized with dxo

This looks perfectly sharp even if it was shot at f/8 so fully open. Did you sharpen it on post? I also see that you used relatively low (1/250) speed although you shot at 800mm with 7DII. Did you used a monopod or very steady hands ? (I guess the IS is very good but up to now I do not rely on it very much - this will have to change...).

No extra sharpening, just dxo default conversion. Resizing does sharpen the output but it was plenty sharp to begin with.

It was handheld. 1/250 is what I generally like to use for perched, stationary birds and wildlife. The "is" has no problem eliminating minor camera shake and vibrations at that speed and you can keep your ISO nice and low.

The lens is really excellent with converters.