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

[gruhl28]

Diffraction is a constant.

Diffraction is related to aperture alone, not sensor or pixel size.

For a same sized output a smaller sensors output is enlarged more so the same amount of diffraction is more apparent.

Diffraction is not related to pixel size.

Take two sensors the same size, one with 10MP one with 50MP, both will be impacted by diffraction the same amount. Exactly the same amount.

Diffraction will degrade the output of both sensors the same amount.

A sensor with more pixels will always have more detail (assuming anything is in focus).

Smaller pixels reaching a Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA) at wider apertures is not a bad thing and is not a limitation.

An f5.6 DLA sensor will resolve more detail at f10 than an f10 DLA sensor.

This is correct, but let me clarify one thing for people who are still confused. A sensor with more, and smaller, pixels is capable of showing more detail. Therefore, when diffraction starts to occur, it is capable of showing it earlier. Detail that would have been visible at larger apertures starts to blur. With the sensor that has fewer and larger pixels, that detail would not have been visible in the first place. So you simply do not notice the diffraction. Diffraction is blurring detail that the sensor with larger pixels was not capable of resolving at any aperture.

Also, when you enlarge a photo to 100% from a sensor with more pixels, you are enlarging it more, and enlarging the image as a whole to a larger size, than a photo taken with a sensor with fewer pixels.

So the fact that a sensor with more and smaller pixels shows diffraction at smaller apertures in no way makes the sensor "worse" in showing detail related to diffraction - it is just that because it is capable of showing more detail, so when diffraction causes a loss of detail you see it sooner.

 

[Mikehit]

So the fact that a sensor with more and smaller pixels shows diffraction at smaller apertures in no way makes the sensor "worse" in showing detail related to diffraction - it is just that because it is capable of showing more detail, so when diffraction causes a loss of detail you see it sooner.

Or to put it another way, putting cheap tyres on both a Subaru Impreza and a Ford Focus, may bring performance of the Subaru closer to the Focus, but at no point is the Impreza ever worse than the Focus.

 

[LesC]

I have the 80D & 100-400 myself. Only really used it once to date an an airshow but had no problems with sharpness or CA. I did notice quite a bit of noise at 100% but it was a dull day & this is with RAW files. So I don't see that there's a problem with this combo.

Having said that, I can't see much/anything wrong with the picture you've posted?

 

[Pippan]

Diffraction is a constant.

Diffraction is related to aperture alone, not sensor or pixel size.

For a same sized output a smaller sensors output is enlarged more so the same amount of diffraction is more apparent.

Diffraction is not related to pixel size.

Take two sensors the same size, one with 10MP one with 50MP, both will be impacted by diffraction the same amount. Exactly the same amount.

Diffraction will degrade the output of both sensors the same amount.

A sensor with more pixels will always have more detail (assuming anything is in focus).

Smaller pixels reaching a Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA) at wider apertures is not a bad thing and is not a limitation.

An f5.6 DLA sensor will resolve more detail at f10 than an f10 DLA sensor.

This is correct, but let me clarify one thing for people who are still confused. A sensor with more, and smaller, pixels is capable of showing more detail. Therefore, when diffraction starts to occur, it is capable of showing it earlier. Detail that would have been visible at larger apertures starts to blur. With the sensor that has fewer and larger pixels, that detail would not have been visible in the first place. So you simply do not notice the diffraction. Diffraction is blurring detail that the sensor with larger pixels was not capable of resolving at any aperture.

Also, when you enlarge a photo to 100% from a sensor with more pixels, you are enlarging it more, and enlarging the image as a whole to a larger size, than a photo taken with a sensor with fewer pixels.

So the fact that a sensor with more and smaller pixels shows diffraction at smaller apertures in no way makes the sensor "worse" in showing detail related to diffraction - it is just that because it is capable of showing more detail, so when diffraction causes a loss of detail you see it sooner.

Thank you for these patient explanations. I think I understand it now. Unfortunately doesn't seem to be of assistance for YeungLinger's issue.

 

[Snzkgb]

Hi, all. I finally made peace with the 80D and think it's great for family, street, still life/food photography. (And I swear, one of these days I'm going to take videos!)

However, the one lens it does not behave well with is the ef 100-400mm II. Other lenses work great on it after AFMA'ing, and the 100-400mm works great on my 5DIII.

It is only this specific combination that produces consistently poor IQ, usually with what seems to be the type of CA you'd see with a poor tele-extender, and a lack of sharpness throughout the image.

Neither lens nor body have firmware updates available at this time.

If anybody else is using this same combination, could you please tell me your experience? Thanks!

It may be that the AFMA is not set correctly.
Tele-zooms as well as any zooms, tend to get different focus distances on different positions of zoom. I mean that you can manually tweak it to focus at 10 meters on the short end, but on the long end it may become even less accurate.
Those situations could be fixed only by tuning the body and the lens in Canon service centre.

 

[YuengLinger]

Hi, all. I finally made peace with the 80D and think it's great for family, street, still life/food photography. (And I swear, one of these days I'm going to take videos!)

However, the one lens it does not behave well with is the ef 100-400mm II. Other lenses work great on it after AFMA'ing, and the 100-400mm works great on my 5DIII.

It is only this specific combination that produces consistently poor IQ, usually with what seems to be the type of CA you'd see with a poor tele-extender, and a lack of sharpness throughout the image.

Neither lens nor body have firmware updates available at this time.

If anybody else is using this same combination, could you please tell me your experience? Thanks!

It may be that the AFMA is not set correctly.
Tele-zooms as well as any zooms, tend to get different focus distances on different positions of zoom. I mean that you can manually tweak it to focus at 10 meters on the short end, but on the long end it may become even less accurate.
Those situations could be fixed only by tuning the body and the lens in Canon service centre.

1) Even if all other lenses work fine on this body, and the 100-400 is working fine on other bodies?

2) Have you used this combo yourself?

I remember reading 100 times that Sigma 50mm Art & 5DIII owners needed to better understand AFMA.

This is the THIRD 80D I've used the 100-400mm on. Same results.

I'm going to do a thorough comparison of the lens on a FF body, and on the 80D, and then a comparison of the 70-200mm f/4 on the 80D to check IQ.

As for sending in a 100-400mm that is 100% fine, exquisitely sharp on my 5DIII, no way. Simply isn't worth the (modest) risk of shipping a healthy lens out and back.

 

[bluenoser1993]

Hi, all. I finally made peace with the 80D and think it's great for family, street, still life/food photography. (And I swear, one of these days I'm going to take videos!)

However, the one lens it does not behave well with is the ef 100-400mm II. Other lenses work great on it after AFMA'ing, and the 100-400mm works great on my 5DIII.

It is only this specific combination that produces consistently poor IQ, usually with what seems to be the type of CA you'd see with a poor tele-extender, and a lack of sharpness throughout the image.

Neither lens nor body have firmware updates available at this time.

If anybody else is using this same combination, could you please tell me your experience? Thanks!

It may be that the AFMA is not set correctly.
Tele-zooms as well as any zooms, tend to get different focus distances on different positions of zoom. I mean that you can manually tweak it to focus at 10 meters on the short end, but on the long end it may become even less accurate.
Those situations could be fixed only by tuning the body and the lens in Canon service centre.

1) Even if all other lenses work fine on this body, and the 100-400 is working fine on other bodies?

2) Have you used this combo yourself?

I remember reading 100 times that Sigma 50mm Art & 5DIII owners needed to better understand AFMA.

This is the THIRD 80D I've used the 100-400mm on. Same results.

I'm going to do a thorough comparison of the lens on a FF body, and on the 80D, and then a comparison of the 70-200mm f/4 on the 80D to check IQ.

As for sending in a 100-400mm that is 100% fine, exquisitely sharp on my 5DIII, no way. Simply isn't worth the (modest) risk of shipping a healthy lens out and back.

Focus can behave strangely with different combinations, just because its superb on one body doesn't meen it will behave the same on another. I just ran my lenses through FoCal last night on my new body and got a strange result with my 100-400. The 100-400 only required -3 and -1 correction at W and T, similarly my 135 only required +2. Adding the 1.4x iii to the 135 brought it back to 0 AFMA, not very different than lens alone, however, added to the 100-400 made a big swing to -7 and +6 W and T.

Slightly different scenario, but I'm just trying to point out that you can't rely on logic such as body B works perfect with every other lens, 100-400 works perfect on body A, so it must be perfect on body B.

 

[Snzkgb]

Hi, all. I finally made peace with the 80D and think it's great for family, street, still life/food photography. (And I swear, one of these days I'm going to take videos!)

However, the one lens it does not behave well with is the ef 100-400mm II. Other lenses work great on it after AFMA'ing, and the 100-400mm works great on my 5DIII.

It is only this specific combination that produces consistently poor IQ, usually with what seems to be the type of CA you'd see with a poor tele-extender, and a lack of sharpness throughout the image.

Neither lens nor body have firmware updates available at this time.

If anybody else is using this same combination, could you please tell me your experience? Thanks!

It may be that the AFMA is not set correctly.
Tele-zooms as well as any zooms, tend to get different focus distances on different positions of zoom. I mean that you can manually tweak it to focus at 10 meters on the short end, but on the long end it may become even less accurate.
Those situations could be fixed only by tuning the body and the lens in Canon service centre.

1) Even if all other lenses work fine on this body, and the 100-400 is working fine on other bodies?

2) Have you used this combo yourself?

I remember reading 100 times that Sigma 50mm Art & 5DIII owners needed to better understand AFMA.

This is the THIRD 80D I've used the 100-400mm on. Same results.

I'm going to do a thorough comparison of the lens on a FF body, and on the 80D, and then a comparison of the 70-200mm f/4 on the 80D to check IQ.

As for sending in a 100-400mm that is 100% fine, exquisitely sharp on my 5DIII, no way. Simply isn't worth the (modest) risk of shipping a healthy lens out and back.

It is not the problem of combo, it is the problem of a lens.
I always go to Canon service centre to tune any new lens I buy to my bodies. It costs me like 30$ per lens, but I know that I will get no problems with AF.

 

[tron]

Hi, all. I finally made peace with the 80D and think it's great for family, street, still life/food photography. (And I swear, one of these days I'm going to take videos!)

However, the one lens it does not behave well with is the ef 100-400mm II. Other lenses work great on it after AFMA'ing, and the 100-400mm works great on my 5DIII.

It is only this specific combination that produces consistently poor IQ, usually with what seems to be the type of CA you'd see with a poor tele-extender, and a lack of sharpness throughout the image.

Neither lens nor body have firmware updates available at this time.

If anybody else is using this same combination, could you please tell me your experience? Thanks!

It may be that the AFMA is not set correctly.
Tele-zooms as well as any zooms, tend to get different focus distances on different positions of zoom. I mean that you can manually tweak it to focus at 10 meters on the short end, but on the long end it may become even less accurate.
Those situations could be fixed only by tuning the body and the lens in Canon service centre.

1) Even if all other lenses work fine on this body, and the 100-400 is working fine on other bodies?

2) Have you used this combo yourself?

I remember reading 100 times that Sigma 50mm Art & 5DIII owners needed to better understand AFMA.

This is the THIRD 80D I've used the 100-400mm on. Same results.

I'm going to do a thorough comparison of the lens on a FF body, and on the 80D, and then a comparison of the 70-200mm f/4 on the 80D to check IQ.

As for sending in a 100-400mm that is 100% fine, exquisitely sharp on my 5DIII, no way. Simply isn't worth the (modest) risk of shipping a healthy lens out and back.

It is not the problem of combo, it is the problem of a lens.
I always go to Canon service centre to tune any new lens I buy to my bodies. It costs me like 30$ per lens, but I know that I will get no problems with AF.

What about having multiple bodies/lenses combinations? Fixing something in one combination may cause a break in another...

 

[Random Orbits]

What about having multiple bodies/lenses combinations? Fixing something in one combination may cause a break in another...

Canon calibrates it to the reference value, so AFMA should be zero. If you send in both the body and the lens, they should both be calibrated to zero and then checked attached. When I got my 5DIII years ago, I needed AFMA of about -5 for nearly all my lenses. After it was serviced, they wiped out the settings and I was expecting to have to reset the AFMA for each lens, but when I tested it, it was now zero. The worst AFMA offender... my only 3rd party lens, a Sigma Art.

 

[Snzkgb]

What about having multiple bodies/lenses combinations? Fixing something in one combination may cause a break in another...

Canon calibrates it to the reference value, so AFMA should be zero. If you send in both the body and the lens, they should both be calibrated to zero and then checked attached. When I got my 5DIII years ago, I needed AFMA of about -5 for nearly all my lenses. After it was serviced, they wiped out the settings and I was expecting to have to reset the AFMA for each lens, but when I tested it, it was now zero. The worst AFMA offender... my only 3rd party lens, a Sigma Art.

That is true, they calibrate any gear to its reference, so if all your gear is calibrated, than there can be no problems with any combination possible.

 

[YuengLinger]

The problem I'm having with obtaining expected IQ from the combo is NOT related to AFMA.

For some reason, newer members of the forum often write as if they not only discovered AFMA, but are the masters of it, and feel that it must apply to every single IQ issue involving a lens.

As stated, this reminds me of the 50mm Art woes that were always the fault of the photographer either not applying any AFMA, or not using the voodoo magic USB dock to apply AFMA at many distances for a prime lens, or simply applying AFMA poorly.

But this issue I'm having is not due to AFMA. Whether on a target or a sandhill crane, my AF is accurate.

Which is why I was hoping for owners of the lens to chime in and talk about their experiences in varying lighting conditions and at different ISO's and distances.

If kids and weather permit, I will have a good comparison this weekend. Sorry for the delay, but with kids, work, weather, and nighttime, I haven't had a chance to get out in good afternoon or morning light--the kind I would most often be using the 100-400mm lens.

So, please, for the SAKE OF THIS DISCUSSION, move on from the AFMA already.

 

[slclick]

The problem I'm having with obtaining expected IQ from the combo is NOT related to AFMA.

For some reason, newer members of the forum often write as if they not only discovered AFMA, but are the masters of it, and feel that it must apply to every single IQ issue involving a lens.

As stated, this reminds me of the 50mm Art woes that were always the fault of the photographer either not applying any AFMA, or not using the voodoo magic USB dock to apply AFMA at many distances for a prime lens, or simply applying AFMA poorly.

But this issue I'm having is not due to AFMA. Whether on a target or a sandhill crane, my AF is accurate.

Which is why I was hoping for owners of the lens to chime in and talk about their experiences in varying lighting conditions and at different ISO's and distances.

If kids and weather permit, I will have a good comparison this weekend. Sorry for the delay, but with kids, work, weather, and nighttime, I haven't had a chance to get out in good afternoon or morning light--the kind I would most often be using the 100-400mm lens.

So, please, for the SAKE OF THIS DISCUSSION, move on from the AFMA already.

I love it! You are so correct...'I've got this golden nugget of intermediate photography info and I MUST SHARE IT!'

(Yet how many of them truly think along the lines of the exposure triangle and other elementary photo foundational tools and mindsets?)

*note: not written out of smugness because I learn something just about everyday and am thankful for it but out of humorous finding from the need for people to not ever be considered a noob and to become advanced from the first day (or to convey themselves as such

 

[Mikehit]

What about having multiple bodies/lenses combinations? Fixing something in one combination may cause a break in another...

Canon calibrates it to the reference value, so AFMA should be zero. If you send in both the body and the lens, they should both be calibrated to zero and then checked attached. When I got my 5DIII years ago, I needed AFMA of about -5 for nearly all my lenses. After it was serviced, they wiped out the settings and I was expecting to have to reset the AFMA for each lens, but when I tested it, it was now zero. The worst AFMA offender... my only 3rd party lens, a Sigma Art.

I have it on very good authority that in UK at least, if you take a lens and a body in to be calibrated they calibrate each one on the test rig and they do not calibrate them as a set. And each one is calibrated within their quality control limit.

If as you suggest they are making sure the AFMA is going to be zero, it means that they must alter the physical set-up of the camera and/or the physical set up of the lens. If they alter the physical set-up of the camera then that will mean another lens in your collection will go from 'perfect' to 'not perfect' when you mount it on your re-jigged body. Or the lens goes from perfect to not perfect when you mount it on another body in your collection.
The only thing that makes sense is that they tweak the setting and tweak the camera/lens registration to, for example AFMA +2, and reset that as 'zero'. In other words doing no more than you do when doing AFMA but they have the option to change the label from '+2' to '0'.

But every QC process as a plus-to-minus limit on what will be acceptable. This is why third party lenses are cheaper - having a wider QC range means fewer rejects and consequently lower price but it also explains the much greater number of discussion about 'You think Sigma is crap but I think it is is as good as Canon'. it also explains why not every lens and camera is perfect.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/measuring-lens-variance/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/fun-with-field-of-focus-ii-copy-to-copy-variation-and-lens-testing/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

 

[slclick]

What about having multiple bodies/lenses combinations? Fixing something in one combination may cause a break in another...

Canon calibrates it to the reference value, so AFMA should be zero. If you send in both the body and the lens, they should both be calibrated to zero and then checked attached. When I got my 5DIII years ago, I needed AFMA of about -5 for nearly all my lenses. After it was serviced, they wiped out the settings and I was expecting to have to reset the AFMA for each lens, but when I tested it, it was now zero. The worst AFMA offender... my only 3rd party lens, a Sigma Art.

I have it on very good authority that in UK at least, if you take a lens and a body in to be calibrated they calibrate each one on the test rig and they do not calibrate them as a set. And each one is calibrated within their quality control limit.

If as you suggest they are making sure the AFMA is going to be zero, it means that they must alter the physical set-up of the camera and/or the physical set up of the lens. If they alter the physical set-up of the lens then that will mean another lens in your collection will go from 'perfect' to 'not perfect' when you mount it on your re-jigged body. Or the lens goes from perfect to not perfect when you mount it on another body in your collection.
The only thing that makes sense is that they tweak the setting and tweak the camera/lens registration to, for example AFMA +2, and reset that as 'zero'. In other words doing no more than you do when doing AFMA but they have the option to change the label from '+2' to '0'.

But every QC process as a plus-to-minus limit on what will be acceptable. This is why third party lenses are cheaper - having a wider QC range means fewer rejects and consequently lower price but it also explains the much greater number of discussion about 'You think Sigma is crap but I think it is is as good as Canon'. it also explains why not every lens and camera is perfect.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/measuring-lens-variance/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/fun-with-field-of-focus-ii-copy-to-copy-variation-and-lens-testing/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

Thank you! I too had issues with what the OP wrote about Canon's service methods and you summed them up very well.

 

[YuengLinger]

What about having multiple bodies/lenses combinations? Fixing something in one combination may cause a break in another...

Canon calibrates it to the reference value, so AFMA should be zero. If you send in both the body and the lens, they should both be calibrated to zero and then checked attached. When I got my 5DIII years ago, I needed AFMA of about -5 for nearly all my lenses. After it was serviced, they wiped out the settings and I was expecting to have to reset the AFMA for each lens, but when I tested it, it was now zero. The worst AFMA offender... my only 3rd party lens, a Sigma Art.

I have it on very good authority that in UK at least, if you take a lens and a body in to be calibrated they calibrate each one on the test rig and they do not calibrate them as a set. And each one is calibrated within their quality control limit.

If as you suggest they are making sure the AFMA is going to be zero, it means that they must alter the physical set-up of the camera and/or the physical set up of the lens. If they alter the physical set-up of the lens then that will mean another lens in your collection will go from 'perfect' to 'not perfect' when you mount it on your re-jigged body. Or the lens goes from perfect to not perfect when you mount it on another body in your collection.
The only thing that makes sense is that they tweak the setting and tweak the camera/lens registration to, for example AFMA +2, and reset that as 'zero'. In other words doing no more than you do when doing AFMA but they have the option to change the label from '+2' to '0'.

But every QC process as a plus-to-minus limit on what will be acceptable. This is why third party lenses are cheaper - having a wider QC range means fewer rejects and consequently lower price but it also explains the much greater number of discussion about 'You think Sigma is crap but I think it is is as good as Canon'. it also explains why not every lens and camera is perfect.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/measuring-lens-variance/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/fun-with-field-of-focus-ii-copy-to-copy-variation-and-lens-testing/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

Thank you! I too had issues with what the OP wrote about Canon's service methods and you summed them up very well.

I'm the OP: I didn't write about Canon's service methods. All I said was I wouldn't send in a lens that is sharp and working great just with hope it will work better with a body that works fine with other lenses. I love CPS! My concern would be with shipping out and back, possible drops and banging around, NOT Canon service!

Mikehit--thanks for applying logic to what is done when lenses and bodies are calibrated together. It is my understanding that either Canon just does AFMA or they check that things are within spec, then send an estimate to the customer for the cost of fixing things to be brought back into spec if the gear is out of warranty...

 

[slclick]

What about having multiple bodies/lenses combinations? Fixing something in one combination may cause a break in another...

Canon calibrates it to the reference value, so AFMA should be zero. If you send in both the body and the lens, they should both be calibrated to zero and then checked attached. When I got my 5DIII years ago, I needed AFMA of about -5 for nearly all my lenses. After it was serviced, they wiped out the settings and I was expecting to have to reset the AFMA for each lens, but when I tested it, it was now zero. The worst AFMA offender... my only 3rd party lens, a Sigma Art.

I have it on very good authority that in UK at least, if you take a lens and a body in to be calibrated they calibrate each one on the test rig and they do not calibrate them as a set. And each one is calibrated within their quality control limit.

If as you suggest they are making sure the AFMA is going to be zero, it means that they must alter the physical set-up of the camera and/or the physical set up of the lens. If they alter the physical set-up of the lens then that will mean another lens in your collection will go from 'perfect' to 'not perfect' when you mount it on your re-jigged body. Or the lens goes from perfect to not perfect when you mount it on another body in your collection.
The only thing that makes sense is that they tweak the setting and tweak the camera/lens registration to, for example AFMA +2, and reset that as 'zero'. In other words doing no more than you do when doing AFMA but they have the option to change the label from '+2' to '0'.

But every QC process as a plus-to-minus limit on what will be acceptable. This is why third party lenses are cheaper - having a wider QC range means fewer rejects and consequently lower price but it also explains the much greater number of discussion about 'You think Sigma is crap but I think it is is as good as Canon'. it also explains why not every lens and camera is perfect.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/measuring-lens-variance/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/fun-with-field-of-focus-ii-copy-to-copy-variation-and-lens-testing/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

Thank you! I too had issues with what the OP wrote about Canon's service methods and you summed them up very well.

I'm the OP: I didn't write about Canon's service methods. All I said was I wouldn't send in a lens that is sharp and working great just with hope it will work better with a body that works fine with other lenses. I love CPS! My concern would be with shipping out and back, possible drops and banging around, NOT Canon service!

Mikehit--thanks for applying logic to what is done when lenses and bodies are calibrated together. It is my understanding that either Canon just does AFMA or they check that things are within spec, then send an estimate to the customer for the cost of fixing things to be brought back into spec if the gear is out of warranty...

Sorry didn't mean the OP but the poster of the logical service situation. We're on the same page

 

[AlanF]

If as you suggest they are making sure the AFMA is going to be zero, it means that they must alter the physical set-up of the camera and/or the physical set up of the lens. If they alter the physical set-up of the camera then that will mean another lens in your collection will go from 'perfect' to 'not perfect' when you mount it on your re-jigged body. Or the lens goes from perfect to not perfect when you mount it on another body in your collection.
The only thing that makes sense is that they tweak the setting and tweak the camera/lens registration to, for example AFMA +2, and reset that as 'zero'. In other words doing no more than you do when doing AFMA but they have the option to change the label from '+2' to '0'.

You can, yourself, alter the AFMA of an appropriate Sigma lens using Sigma dock (or the equivalent for a Tamron). So, it is relatively easy to reset a lens, independent of camera.

 

[YuengLinger]

People here have long memories, so I'm posting to apologize for not following up with systematic comparisons of IQ with the 100-400 mk II on the 5DIII and 80D.

I don't think, for one, it would prove or explain much. I've concluded that opinions vary so much regarding IQ, and I was use to looking only at FF images for several years, so my opinion doesn't count for much. I've taken some decent birds-in-ponds shots with the combo discussed here, as long as I nailed exposure in good lighting. I would not want to use the 80D, if I had a choice, with a long lens (over 200mm) at higher than ISO 800 or so.

Part of my problem with the 80D + 100-400mm II was thinking I could drastically crop something too far away. Wrong! That's when, in my opinion, the IQ just disintegrates.

Now, if you feel I am wrong, we have different standards, I wouldn't talk anybody out of buying the 80D. I like mine very much for fun photography, family photography (which isn't always fun)...And I'm planning to use it sometimes for well-lit macro because of the great flippy screen and LiveView AF, though, truth be told, these past two months I've been so busy, I'm hardly taking snapshots. Hope that changes soon!

I do think, not based on understanding of optics, that it would be interesting to discuss whether some lenses, accounting for other variables, tend to bring out, reveal, emphasize sensor shortcomings. But that would be a topic for another thread, preferably started by someone who does know what they are typing about.

Now if I could just get all this blasted pollen out of my sinuses!

 

[LesC]

I have the 80D & 100-400 MKII and have noticed no such problems with this combo. I do have a problem with a sticking shutter release on the 80D though after only one year but think it's been like that since I got it