Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options

[DanN]

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

We *should* expect that the DO lens is sharper. But according to these tests, the old one wasn't. That's the surprising bit.

 

[DominoDude]

I must admit I've been a tad sceptic to the DO design and what it might deliver, but this new one have me salivating...
Too bad the price right now is too high on this side of the pond. (I could almost buy a round-trip flight over to NY and get it cheaper than here.)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Check out photozone.de results! The new 100-400 II is killer! It actually handily beats the 70-300L and 70-200 2.8 IS II at 200mm!! And it's crazy good at 300mm too. And the 400mm is fine and big jump from the old version and, other than for edges, old slow prime!

For whatever reason, I find that photozone.de results have most often matched what I've personally seen.

 

[YuengLinger]

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...

Photozone seems much more enthusiastic.

 

[Lee Jay]

Check out photozone.de results! The new 100-400 II is killer! It actually handily beats the 70-300L and 70-200 2.8 IS II at 200mm!! And it's crazy good at 300mm too. And the 400mm is fine and big jump from the old version and, other than for edges, old slow prime!

For whatever reason, I find that photozone.de results have most often matched what I've personally seen.

As usual, PZ gets the numbers all wrong.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Here's an interesting one. This is the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC III versus the new 100-400L IS II + 1.4x TC III both 1/3 of a stop down. The 70-200+2x is sharper in the middle but softer on the edges.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=3&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3

 

[Lee Jay]

This one seems to focus more accurately and faster, have lower CA and flare, retain nearly full sharpness when the IS elements are not centered, have better handling, and have dramatically better IS.

Those are all solutions to the exact problems I had with the original (which I own at work). The original has pretty good optical performance under ideal conditions. This one is taken with the original with stacked 1.4x TCs on a Rebel T2i.

The new one will give people the ability to get slightly better resolution with lower CA and flare, and to get that performance far more often in the real world. It also seems to take almost no hit at all from a 1.4x, which is pretty amazing.

I asked for it many times before, and now Canon has delivered the ultimate handheld reach system - the 7DII + 100-400L II + 1.4x TC III.

 

[NancyP]

I really want to see the in-field performance of the 400 f/4 DO II under different lighting conditions. If Canon has solved the DO weakness of poor contrast and flaring, and knows how to make super-sharp DO lenses, then we should expect to see a 500 or 600 f/4 DO someday - maybe 5.5 to 6 pounds, rather than the 7.0 and 8.5 pounds the version II conventional 500 and 600 f/4 weigh. Yeah, I know - unicorns.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I really want to see the in-field performance of the 400 f/4 DO II under different lighting conditions. If Canon has solved the DO weakness of poor contrast and flaring, and knows how to make super-sharp DO lenses, then we should expect to see a 500 or 600 f/4 DO someday - maybe 5.5 to 6 pounds, rather than the 7.0 and 8.5 pounds the version II conventional 500 and 600 f/4 weigh. Yeah, I know - unicorns.

I'm sure its possible, it depends on marketing. Are there enough buyers in the market to go for a 500mm, a 600mm or a 800mm DO? A lot of people recently invested a big chunk of money in the new 500mm and 600mm lenses, and are not likely to change to a DO version, so maybe the 800mm is the next DO lens??

 

[Lee Jay]

It's late, and I'm tired, so I don't entirely trust my results here. However, if I'm right, this will explain these results.

The theoretical maximums, simply caused by diffraction, are 1555 lp/ph for f/5.6 and 2199 lp/ph for f/4.

So, the reason the 100-400L improved less is that there's less room to improve between the old one and the diffraction limit than there was for the old 400/4DO which has a higher diffraction limit due to its faster f-stop.

In fact, the result for the 100-400L II is just 1% less than what I'd calculate from a perfect f/5.6 lens behind an AA filter. And that 1% number is based on a rule-of-thumb for the AA filter that itself is less accurate than 1%.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It's late, and I'm tired, so I don't entirely trust my results here. However, if I'm right, this will explain these results.

The theoretical maximums, simply caused by diffraction, are 1555 lp/ph for f/5.6 and 2199 lp/ph for f/4.

So, the reason the 100-400L improved less is that there's less room to improve between the old one and the diffraction limit than there was for the old 400/4DO which has a higher diffraction limit due to its faster f-stop.

In fact, the result for the 100-400L II is just 1% less than what I'd calculate from a perfect f/5.6 lens behind an AA filter. And that 1% number is based on a rule-of-thumb for the AA filter that itself is less accurate than 1%.

We probably will see a bigger difference on high MP bodies where the lens will have a bigger impact. I'm not about to fool with calculations.

 

[9VIII]

I really want to see the in-field performance of the 400 f/4 DO II under different lighting conditions. If Canon has solved the DO weakness of poor contrast and flaring, and knows how to make super-sharp DO lenses, then we should expect to see a 500 or 600 f/4 DO someday - maybe 5.5 to 6 pounds, rather than the 7.0 and 8.5 pounds the version II conventional 500 and 600 f/4 weigh. Yeah, I know - unicorns.

I'm sure its possible, it depends on marketing. Are there enough buyers in the market to go for a 500mm, a 600mm or a 800mm DO? A lot of people recently invested a big chunk of money in the new 500mm and 600mm lenses, and are not likely to change to a DO version, so maybe the 800mm is the next DO lens??

I'm surprised you're so sceptical about DO with how much people raved about the weight difference between the Mk1 and Mk2 Big Whites.

My bet is all Mk3 Supertelephoto lenses will be DO, there really isn't much else they can improve otherwise.

 

[Bennymiata]

The new 400DO 2 has me excited too.
I have the old 100-400 and I find it an excellent lens, but it's either keeping it and getting the new 400DO, or selling the 100-400 and just buy the new version.

I like birds and bugs and some landscapes, so would the new 400DO really be that much better, including things like af, than my old 100-400?

 

[9VIII]

Check out photozone.de results! The new 100-400 II is killer! It actually handily beats the 70-300L and 70-200 2.8 IS II at 200mm!! And it's crazy good at 300mm too. And the 400mm is fine and big jump from the old version and, other than for edges, old slow prime!

For whatever reason, I find that photozone.de results have most often matched what I've personally seen.

As usual, PZ gets the numbers all wrong.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Here's an interesting one. This is the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC III versus the new 100-400L IS II + 1.4x TC III both 1/3 of a stop down. The 70-200+2x is sharper in the middle but softer on the edges.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=3&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3

It's funny, after looking at the Photozone and TDP tests, the 400f5.6 is still very competitive in terms of overall sharpness, especially considering price.
That said, the 100-400MKII is now almost perfected in every other way, It really seems like they were trying hard to think of ways to make this lens better without encroaching on Big White territory.
I guess that leaves plenty for them to improve upon when they release the 100-400 MkIII in 2030.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Check out photozone.de results! The new 100-400 II is killer! It actually handily beats the 70-300L and 70-200 2.8 IS II at 200mm!! And it's crazy good at 300mm too. And the 400mm is fine and big jump from the old version and, other than for edges, old slow prime!

For whatever reason, I find that photozone.de results have most often matched what I've personally seen.

As usual, PZ gets the numbers all wrong.

No, if anything, TDP gets it all wrong. Every Tamron they test looks like it was dropped. Their 70-300L does horribly compared to how mine did vs various 70-200 lenses and compared to what PZ and about 85% of blogs say. How come they have the 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC better than the bare 70-300L???

And how come TDP shows the 100-400 II + 1.4x TC III MUCH sharper than the 100-400 + 1.4x TC wide open and near wide open and yet the same or even blurrier without the TC???

How come for some lenses the results get blurry a couple steps down from wide open and then get sharper again and then get blurrier again?

 

[Ryan85]

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.

Are you talking about your 100-400 v1 with 1.4TC is a little sharper than the Tamron or your new Version 2? How did you like the V1 with the 1.4TC?

 

[dufflover]

I have to Photozone overall has the most consistent results that match what I see in my lenses and others online. I find TDP to be the most inconsistent, at least in-terms of what I see in the "Lens Image Quality" tool. All resources are useful though; in the end the more results the better whether it be reviews, testing houses and forum feedback to get a good average.

I don't find anything too special with this particular topic though. A bit like the 7D2 sensor topics, this is the sort of improvement that is basically EXPECTED given the price and time differences.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I have to Photozone overall has the most consistent results that match what I see in my lenses and others online. I find TDP to be the most inconsistent, at least in-terms of what I see in the "Lens Image Quality" tool. All resources are useful though; in the end the more results the better whether it be reviews, testing houses and forum feedback to get a good average.

+1

 

[YuengLinger]

Check out photozone.de results! The new 100-400 II is killer! It actually handily beats the 70-300L and 70-200 2.8 IS II at 200mm!! And it's crazy good at 300mm too. And the 400mm is fine and big jump from the old version and, other than for edges, old slow prime!

For whatever reason, I find that photozone.de results have most often matched what I've personally seen.

As usual, PZ gets the numbers all wrong.

No, if anything, TDP gets it all wrong. Every Tamron they test looks like it was dropped. Their 70-300L does horribly compared to how mine did vs various 70-200 lenses and compared to what PZ and about 85% of blogs say. How come they have the 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC better than the bare 70-300L???

And how come TDP shows the 100-400 II + 1.4x TC III MUCH sharper than the 100-400 + 1.4x TC wide open and near wide open and yet the same or even blurrier without the TC???

How come for some lenses the results get blurry a couple steps down from wide open and then get sharper again and then get blurrier again?

Your statements seem to suggest TDP, despite what would appear to be the most transparent, simple demonstrations available, is either misleading with his shots of charts, or incompetent in execution, or frequently stuck with bad copies.

Where, in your opinion is he going wrong?

 

[AlanF]

Roger of lensrentals is by far the most reliable person when it comes to testing lenses. He understands lenses, takes them apart, puts them back together and importantly handles thousands of them and understands statistical variation. He tested four copies of each for the 100-400, and won't give his final opinion until he tested 30. The other sites usually do only one of each, which why many of us like trawling through as many sites as possible to find the common factors and not rely on one report.

TDP is an excellent site. However, his report of the Tamron 150-600mm at f/8 having abysmal corner resolution doesn't square with my own experience of the lens or the actual measured mtfs by ePhotozine. Maybe ePhotozone and I lucked out with our copies.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-review-23866

I put it down to sample variation. Conversely, my copy of the old 100-400 mm much softer than TDP charts suggested, and measured by lensrentals on many of their copies.

 

[Plainsman]

I really want to see the in-field performance of the 400 f/4 DO II under different lighting conditions. If Canon has solved the DO weakness of poor contrast and flaring, and knows how to make super-sharp DO lenses, then we should expect to see a 500 or 600 f/4 DO someday - maybe 5.5 to 6 pounds, rather than the 7.0 and 8.5 pounds the version II conventional 500 and 600 f/4 weigh. Yeah, I know - unicorns.

I'm sure its possible, it depends on marketing. Are there enough buyers in the market to go for a 500mm, a 600mm or a 800mm DO? A lot of people recently invested a big chunk of money in the new 500mm and 600mm lenses, and are not likely to change to a DO version, so maybe the 800mm is the next DO lens??

I'm surprised you're so sceptical about DO with how much people raved about the weight difference between the Mk1 and Mk2 Big Whites.

My bet is all Mk3 Supertelephoto lenses will be DO, there really isn't much else they can improve otherwise.

I think by 2020 the 500 and 600 dinosaur primes could be replaced by a single 400 - 600/4 DO zoom unit.

Canon are getting the hang of DO now so this would be a natural developement - two for one! Primes are going to be replaced by zooms.