RF 100-500mm vs EF 100-400mm II vs 400mm DO II on R5

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,089
12,772
Thanks Alan,

I picked up the 400 DO II and a 1.4x III. I am having an issue with focus consistency. When the bare lens or the lens with the 1.4x hits focus it is sharp, unfortunately, the hit rate is very low (especially with the 1.4x). Even with large stationary targets like a parked car's licence plate. Greater than 50% are slightly out of focus, even with good lite conditions.

I use servo focus with back button focus with eye-tracking or single spot.

Could this be an issue with the IS? Any ideas?

My R5 has amazing focus consistency with the rest of my lenses including the F 1.2 lenses.
Please post an example or two with the shutter speed so we can see whether it is a camera shake problem.
 
Mar 6, 2021
6
0
Please post an example or two with the shutter speed so we can see whether it is a camera shake problem.
Thanks Alan,

In this folder, I have a few raw files. Image _F2A6691 was indicative of a whole string of 30 shots that were out of focus. The other two pairs of images show the variations between in focus and out of focus I get, with ~50% or more being slightly out of focus. One example is with the 1.4x the other is without. In both cases the shutter speed is fairly high.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2l6pym6so9rfxi7/AACBCk8_6ttw9lljcPDBWm3va?dl=0

Thanks again,

Sean
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,089
12,772
Thanks Alan,

In this folder, I have a few raw files. Image _F2A6691 was indicative of a whole string of 30 shots that were out of focus. The other two pairs of images show the variations between in focus and out of focus I get, with ~50% or more being slightly out of focus. One example is with the 1.4x the other is without. In both cases the shutter speed is fairly high.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2l6pym6so9rfxi7/AACBCk8_6ttw9lljcPDBWm3va?dl=0

Thanks again,

Sean
Sean
I've looked at them. Only 1/4 is acceptable. _F2A6691 certainly is not. Something is wrong. 1/1000s should not be affected by the IS - I would have used 1/2000s f/5.6 rather than 1/1000s f/8 as there is little point in stopping down. Is the lens new or used? In either case, I would send it back as there are no distracting features in the background that would upset the focus.
Alan
 
Mar 6, 2021
6
0
I was using f8 because I was waiting for the owl to take off and didn't want to have the owl move out of focus as it launched.

I agree that under this scenario, clean background, good light, there shouldn't have been an issue. Some images were focused well but way too many did not. I am going to upgrade the lens firmware and do some additional testing.

Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • _F2A8141-Edit.jpg
    _F2A8141-Edit.jpg
    183 KB · Views: 110
Mar 6, 2021
6
0
Sean
I've looked at them. Only 1/4 is acceptable. _F2A6691 certainly is not. Something is wrong. 1/1000s should not be affected by the IS - I would have used 1/2000s f/5.6 rather than 1/1000s f/8 as there is little point in stopping down. Is the lens new or used? In either case, I would send it back as there are no distracting features in the background that would upset the focus.
Alan
Hi Again Alan,

I took some photos on a tripod with and without the 1.4x and after changing an AF setting to "Lens drive with AF impossible off".

The results were better, the focus was never off. there was variation with >70 with the TC hitting and nearly all with bare lense.

This folder shows the variation in focus and sharpness, does it seem reasonable?

 
Last edited:

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,089
12,772
Hi Again Alan,

I took some photos on a tripod with and without the 1.4x and after changing an AF setting to "Lens drive with AF impossible off".

The results were better, the focus was never off. there was variation with >70 with the TC hitting and nearly all with bare lense.

This folder shows the variation. Is it reasonable?

They look good enough. I checked out for reproducibility of AF on the R5 my 400mm DO II, bare and with 1.4x and 2xTC and my 100-500mm bare and with 14xTC, hand held at very fast shutter speeds using a high resolution chart at 20m. The DO series and bare zoom were about 80% spot on, the 100-500mm at 700mm about 50%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron
Mar 6, 2021
6
0
They look good enough. I checked out for reproducibility of AF on the R5 my 400mm DO II, bare and with 1.4x and 2xTC and my 100-500mm bare and with 14xTC, hand held at very fast shutter speeds using a high resolution chart at 20m. The DO series and bare zoom were about 80% spot on, the 100-500mm at 700mm about 50%.
Thanks again,

How was the DO II with the 1.4x? I did some more test shots and the bare 400 DO was great >90% (using eye detect on faces).

How much of a hit on sharpness do you see with your 1.4x? When I use a test chart the difference is very small, but in real-world tests the performance of the lens with the 1.4 isn't variable sometimes it looks great others it looks a bit soft, it could be missing focus slightly more often than is desirable.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,089
12,772
Thanks again,

How was the DO II with the 1.4x? I did some more test shots and the bare 400 DO was great >90% (using eye detect on faces).

How much of a hit on sharpness do you see with your 1.4x? When I use a test chart the difference is very small, but in real-world tests the performance of the lens with the 1.4 isn't variable sometimes it looks great others it looks a bit soft, it could be missing focus slightly more often than is desirable.
I don’t use the 1.4x much on the R5 as the 2x works so well, and that has a very high AF consistency. The 1.4x has very good IQ and maybe a consistency of 90%+.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tron and usern4cr
Jan 17, 2020
2
0
Hi AlanF,
Thank you so much for doing these comparisons as I just picked up a R5 and already have the EF100-400 II with EF1.4 III TC. I chose the Canon ecosystem a long time ago so I am upgrading from a 7D. I will enjoy this setup until I see a need to upgrade to the RF100-500.
I wanted to ask your opinion on the image quality of the D850 versus the R5. Since you have owned both these cameras, your experience with them is invaluable. I *think* I remember somewhere I saw that the D850 still has better raw images than the R5. I realise that the same lens can not be used on both cameras but still (for curiosity) would like your opinion on the image quality from these cameras. Cheers!
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,089
12,772
Hi AlanF,
Thank you so much for doing these comparisons as I just picked up a R5 and already have the EF100-400 II with EF1.4 III TC. I chose the Canon ecosystem a long time ago so I am upgrading from a 7D. I will enjoy this setup until I see a need to upgrade to the RF100-500.
I wanted to ask your opinion on the image quality of the D850 versus the R5. Since you have owned both these cameras, your experience with them is invaluable. I *think* I remember somewhere I saw that the D850 still has better raw images than the R5. I realise that the same lens can not be used on both cameras but still (for curiosity) would like your opinion on the image quality from these cameras. Cheers!
They are surprisingly close. Put it this way, you would be pushed to see the difference in practice. You can also push both through 3 or 4 stops when processing from RAW iso800 and they are as good as getting the iso right in the first place. Canon claimed that the R5 would outresolve the 5DSR before it was launched and I didn't believe it, but I think it's true. What really shocked me is that the R5 + RF 100-500mm @ 500mm is very close in IQ to the D850 + 500mm f/5.6 PF, with only a very slight edge to the prime on one of the very best sensors made and without an AA-filter. Anyone shooting with an RF 5/100-500mm (or100-400mm) or a D850/500PF for nature photgraphy should be very happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HS2020

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,089
12,772
Hi AlanF,
Thank you so much for doing these comparisons as I just picked up a R5 and already have the EF100-400 II with EF1.4 III TC. I chose the Canon ecosystem a long time ago so I am upgrading from a 7D. I will enjoy this setup until I see a need to upgrade to the RF100-500.
I wanted to ask your opinion on the image quality of the D850 versus the R5. Since you have owned both these cameras, your experience with them is invaluable. I *think* I remember somewhere I saw that the D850 still has better raw images than the R5. I realise that the same lens can not be used on both cameras but still (for curiosity) would like your opinion on the image quality from these cameras. Cheers!
I just came across some comparisons I did with the R5 + 100-500mm vs the D850 + 500mm f/5.6 PF last April/May. First some crops reasonably close at 500mm, then some very far away at 700mm with the 1.4x TCs, all at 100% crops (1px = 1px of original). They illustrate what I wrote. There's not much between them, if anything.

Male_Mallard_500PFvs100-500mm.jpg
Female_Mallard_500PFvs100-500mm.jpg
 Cormorant_500Pf_vs_100-500mm_700mm.jpg
 Little_Egret_500Pf_vs_100-500mm_700mm.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HS2020

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,858
2,474
Alberta, Canada
I just came across some comparisons I did with the R5 + 100-500mm vs the D850 + 500mm f/5.6 PF last April/May. First some crops reasonably close at 500mm, then some very far away at 700mm with the 1.4x TCs, all at 100% crops (1px = 1px of original). They illustrate what I wrote. There's not much between them, if anything.

View attachment 201906 View attachment 201907 View attachment 201908 View attachment 201909
Edge to Nikon but not at 700 IMHO but you're right, not much difference.

Jack
 
Jan 17, 2020
2
0
I just came across some comparisons I did with the R5 + 100-500mm vs the D850 + 500mm f/5.6 PF last April/May. First some crops reasonably close at 500mm, then some very far away at 700mm with the 1.4x TCs, all at 100% crops (1px = 1px of original). They illustrate what I wrote. There's not much between them, if anything.

...
Once again, thank you AlanF for providing these sample photos. Much appreciated by me. For my eyesight, they both look pretty good. :)
 

Nemorino

EOS R5
Aug 29, 2020
276
569
The RF 100-400 is a steal.
I answer here because I do not want to derail the bird thread! :unsure:

Do You think the RF 100-400 would be also a good DIF lens? I don't do a lot of birds (just in the winter) and a fast AF and good IQ at shorter distance would be very important.

I like Your DIF pictures in the R5/RF100-500 thread and startet dreaming to get the RF 100-500. But at the moment the biggest problem is to buy one in Germany. It's anywhere out of stock.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,089
12,772
I answer here because I do not want to derail the bird thread! :unsure:

Do You think the RF 100-400 would be also a good DIF lens? I don't do a lot of birds (just in the winter) and a fast AF and good IQ at shorter distance would be very important.

I like Your DIF pictures in the R5/RF100-500 thread and startet dreaming to get the RF 100-500. But at the moment the biggest problem is to buy one in Germany. It's anywhere out of stock.
We have a really great Dragonfly thread! https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/dragonflies-and-damselflies.35543/
I haven't had the chance to test the RF 100-400mm yet as it came out after the end of the dragonfly season, but I think the odds are it will be very good for DIF and insects in general. First, it is very light and manoeuvrable, and you need to be quick with DIF. Second, it is very sharp close up, which is great for photographing insects where you have to be close. Also, 400mm is good for DIF as a wider field of view makes it easier to track them. The AF is very fast is as well. I'll be posting in the dragonfly thread when it gets warm again!

I have had a bad back for the past few days, and it has made me appreciate the RF 100-400mm even more as I try to get around! If I am going out on primarily a birding trip, I'll take the 100-500mm as it takes the extenders so well on the R5. But, if it is primarily dragonflies and butterflies, I might take the 100-400mm if it is as good as I think it will be.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Nemorino