Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options

[Canon Rumors]

<p>Roger at LensRentals.com has done a quick comparison of the EF 400 f/4 DO IS and <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/supertelephoto/canon-400mm-f4l-do-is-ii" target="_blank">EF 400 f/4 DO IS II</a> as well as the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS and <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6l-is-ii" target="_blank">EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II</a>.</p>
<p><strong>From LensRentals.com on the EF 400 f/4 DO IS II
</strong></p>
<table id="wp-table-reloaded-id-104-no-1" class="wp-table-reloaded wp-table-reloaded-id-104">
<thead>
<tr class="row-1">
<th class="column-1"></th>
<th class="column-2"><b>400mm DO mtf50</b></th>
<th class="column-3"><b>400mm DO II mtf50</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="row-2">
<td class="column-1"><b>Center</b></td>
<td class="column-2">1190</td>
<td class="column-3">1490</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row-3">
<td class="column-1"><b>Weighted Avg.</b></td>
<td class="column-2">970</td>
<td class="column-3">1350</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row-4">
<td class="column-1"><b>Corner Avg.</b></td>
<td class="column-2">740</td>
<td class="column-3">1100</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><em>“The difference in Canon’s computer-generated MTF charts for the 400mm DO and 400mm DO II is pretty striking, and I think our results confirm that difference shows up in actual optical testing as well as in the computer ray tracing.  Canon also says the new design has much greater contrast, and I tend to believe that too, although we’ll all want to see images in a variety of lighting conditions.”</em><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>From LensRentals.com on the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II</strong></p>
<table id="wp-table-reloaded-id-105-no-1" class="wp-table-reloaded wp-table-reloaded-id-105">
<thead>
<tr class="row-1">
<th class="column-1"></th>
<th class="column-2"><b>100-400mm mtf50</b></th>
<th class="column-3"><b>100-400 II mtf50</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="row-2">
<td class="column-1"><b>Center</b></td>
<td class="column-2">1300</td>
<td class="column-3">1380</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row-3">
<td class="column-1"><b>Weighted Avg.</b></td>
<td class="column-2">980</td>
<td class="column-3">1020</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row-4">
<td class="column-1"><b>Corner Avg.</b></td>
<td class="column-2">680</td>
<td class="column-3">760</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><em>“The Canon computer-generated MTF charts suggest that the center of the image should be similar in both the old and new versions, but that the Mk II should be noticeably better off-axis and particularly in the corners. We do see that difference in the resolution tests, but I had expected the difference to be a bit larger. It’s certainly not nearly as dramatic as the DO difference.”</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/12/a-brief-400mm-comparison" target="_blank">Read the full comparison at LensRentals.com</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[JoeDavid]

He must have picked an excellent copy of the original 100-400 for his comparison. I'd say my version 1 lens is average but the version II lens is excellent. My copy of the new one is much sharper wide open plus the much improved IS and twist zoom is a "must upgrade" if you use this lens a lot.

 

[Plainsman]

Wow! LR confirms that the 400DO centre is sharper than the new 100-400II by as much as the 100-400II is sharper than the 100-400I. Take that which way you want!

I've always known that my 100-400I was sharp and Roger Cicala's test proves just that. So doubtful whether I will sell it for the newer one now as I never crop at the corners!

BTW this is the first time I have seen quantitative MTF measurements for the old DO - thanks Roger.

 

[kenny]

He must have picked an excellent copy of the original 100-400 for his comparison. I'd say my version 1 lens is average but the version II lens is excellent. My copy of the new one is much sharper wide open plus the much improved IS and twist zoom is a "must upgrade" if you use this lens a lot.

They tested four copies of each generation 100-400, and averaged the numbers.

 

[Chaitanya]

Photozone has also posted their review: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2

 

[sleepnever]

I know the LR guys say wait to see more copies tested, but those initial numbers are a bit disappointing. Nothing like, as they say, the 400mm DO comparison or the years between the mk1 and mk2 24-70L.

I rented it from LR for next week and I've used the mk1 in the past. We'll see how it goes, especially with the new IS and non-pump design.

 

[ahsanford]

Photozone has also posted their review: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2

Photozone's data and LR's data are not similar. PZ's Mark II (At least in resolution) was a marked improvement over the Mark I.

- A

 

[raptor3x]

He must have picked an excellent copy of the original 100-400 for his comparison. I'd say my version 1 lens is average but the version II lens is excellent. My copy of the new one is much sharper wide open plus the much improved IS and twist zoom is a "must upgrade" if you use this lens a lot.

They tested four copies of each generation 100-400, and averaged the numbers.

Yeah but all four of those copies had been tuned on their optical bench so it's not like he picked fours copies at random from out in the wild.

[quote author=RCicala]
One thing I'll just throw out for discussion regarding 100-400 comparisons. It's a lens we find we have to optically adjust fairly frequently over time (maybe 10% of copies) and the problems are always at 400mm only. The 4 copies I tested had all been optically tested and screened on a bench prior to this measurement. [/quote]

 

[ScottyP]

So.... Am I oversimplifying this analysis if my take away here is that because the center number of the DO lens is now higher than that of the 100-400, the DO lens has leapfrogged the 100–400 and is now a better lens? If so, in what exactly, sharpness?

 

[BeenThere]

So.... Am I oversimplifying this analysis if my take away here is that because the center number of the DO lens is now higher than that of the 100-400, the DO lens has leapfrogged the 100–400 and is now a better lens? If so, in what exactly, sharpness?

Based on the quick comparison at LR, you could conclude that the old DO was not as sharp as the old 100-400 AND that the new DO is sharper than the new 100-400. That's an interesting conclusion.

 

[Khufu]

Numbers! I'm safe to assume bigger numbers mean better, er, awesomeness, right?

Looks like they forgot to throw the 400mm f/5.6L prime in the mix

Really though, I think there are plenty of us wondering how our trusty primes measures up and if it's finally time to grab something a little more "new-school"... But judging by people's responses to the improvement, giving me the impression it's marginal regarding the non-DO, I'm inclined to ask if hopping over is a bad idea if IS and de-zooming is of little interest unless stepping up to throwing cash at a DO purchase. Thoughts, anyone?

I don't really know all this chart stuff inside or at the moment but I'll have a nose around these sites, see if there's any data on the prime that makes sense to me

 

[ahsanford]

So.... Am I oversimplifying this analysis if my take away here is that because the center number of the DO lens is now higher than that of the 100-400, the DO lens has leapfrogged the 100–400 and is now a better lens? If so, in what exactly, sharpness?

Based on the quick comparison at LR, you could conclude that the old DO was not as sharp as the old 100-400 AND that the new DO is sharper than the new 100-400. That's an interesting conclusion.

Shouldn't we expect that? The DO lens is a slightly faster prime that costs 3-4x as much. It ought to be sharper.

- A

 

[Khufu]

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18496.45

Google brought me back around to the CR forum where some of you guys were comparing various 400mm Canon lenses around this time last year - interesting stuff! I'm not really sure how to compare these figures with this thread's figures though - but as was always the case, the prime wasn't looking too bad at all in December 2013...

 

[Canon1]

For the wildlife photographer the real benefit of the mark ii 100-400 will not be a huge iq boost (which does not appear to exist). The real news here is the improved IS, the much faster and more accurate AF, and hopefully an improved IQ/ performance when paired with a 1.4x.

 

[Plainsman]

He must have picked an excellent copy of the original 100-400 for his comparison. I'd say my version 1 lens is average but the version II lens is excellent. My copy of the new one is much sharper wide open plus the much improved IS and twist zoom is a "must upgrade" if you use this lens a lot.

They tested four copies of each generation 100-400, and averaged the numbers.

....that's why LR results are more reliable than other reviews where probably only one unit is tested.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Rogers tests confirm my observations. My MK 1 was very sharp in the center, and my new MK II is similar. It is noticeably sharper looking due to no CA, better edges, and better contrast. The reason I bought it was for the new IS and fast AF speed. The push-pull was ok for me, so the new twist to zoom is not a big deal either way. From what I've seen, its also better with a 1.4TC than the Tamron 150-600 at f/8. The same in the center, but mid and outer areas are significantly better. Its also twice the price, so the Tamron's a good deal, I'm not knocking it.

 

[ahsanford]

For the wildlife photographer the real benefit of the mark ii 100-400 will not be a huge iq boost (which does not appear to exist). The real news here is the improved IS, the much faster and more accurate AF, and hopefully an improved IQ/ performance when paired with a 1.4x.

So help me understand as I don't shoot long glass (I am happy topping out at 200 and don't shoot sports or wildlife)

100-400 f/4.5-5.6 zoom + 1.4x TC III --> 560mm f/8 for $2,648

200-400 + 1.4 integral TC ---> 560 f/5.6 for $11,799

That seems like a huge jump in price (and quality). Wouldn't that inform Canon that there should be a 'nicer' equivalent 500-600mm option for a mid-level price point? Perhaps a native 200-600 f/6.3 lens that didn't need a T/C?

I ask because Sigma's Sport 150-600 very well might be that lens -- $2k for a 600mm f/6.3 without T/C drawbacks. Would prospective White Unicorn buyers opt for this lens instead?

- A

 

[Canon1]

Perhaps canon could do well with a mid price f6.3 lens that covers the 400-600 range, but to date canon has not delved into the smaller aperture (than f5.6) lenses.

In my experience, using a lens naked (without tc's) and cropping in post yields better results, with the exception of a few combinations (primarily the v2 superteles with v3 tc's)

Also, in my experience the performance improvement of f4 and f5.6 AF lenses yield more keepers due to more accurate AF, faster AF and lower ISO. I personally would not be interested in an f6.3 lens at any focal length for this reason, and I'm a wildlife photographer. I'd rather crop.

 

[ahsanford]

He must have picked an excellent copy of the original 100-400 for his comparison. I'd say my version 1 lens is average but the version II lens is excellent. My copy of the new one is much sharper wide open plus the much improved IS and twist zoom is a "must upgrade" if you use this lens a lot.

They tested four copies of each generation 100-400, and averaged the numbers.

....that's way LR results are more reliable than other reviews where probably only one unit is tested.

Sure, but LR is sadly not a testing house. They have world class equipment and a very bright soul to publish and interpret the results, but they are not in the business of comparing hamburger A to hamburger B. Every time Roger publishes his data, he leaves out one lens we really want to compare against or an aperture other than wide open, etc.

To him, this is a curiosity that he dabbles in, but ultimately he's running a business. So I have to use PhotoZone and LensTip to compare numbers and TDP to see IQ with my own eyes.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

He must have picked an excellent copy of the original 100-400 for his comparison. I'd say my version 1 lens is average but the version II lens is excellent. My copy of the new one is much sharper wide open plus the much improved IS and twist zoom is a "must upgrade" if you use this lens a lot.

They tested four copies of each generation 100-400, and averaged the numbers.

....that's way LR results are more reliable than other reviews where probably only one unit is tested.

Sure, but LR is sadly not a testing house. They have world class equipment and a very bright soul to publish and interpret the results, but they are not in the business of comparing hamburger A to hamburger B. Every time Roger publishes his data, he leaves out one lens we really want to compare against or an aperture other than wide open, etc.

To him, this is a curiosity that he dabbles in, but ultimately he's running a business. So I have to use PhotoZone and LensTip to compare numbers and TDP to see IQ with my own eyes.

- A

Yes, I read them all. Each site has their strengths. Rogers equipment is the best at what it does, while the other sites give lots of good information.

I've read the 100-400mm MK II reviews on those sites, as well as Alan F's on CR, and all generally agree that its very good. My copy is up to my expectations as well.

Its great that we have web sites looking at lenses from different points of view, we get a more rounded picture of things that way.