Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens ISO 12233 Crops

Bryan thanks for the review and the ISO charts


I am hoping thatyou can elaborate on this statement


"Less impressive is the much-hyped-by-Canon with-extender-III image quality performance. My Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM version I Lens performed at least as well as either of my Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens lenses with extenders mounted."


The comparison between the two seem to suggest a fair amount of improvement in the midframe.


[View:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=741&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=2&API=4&LensComp=327&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=4]


With the promise in extenders improvement that is shown in the theoretical charts on the 500mm and 600mm, the decision to go with one lens or the other could be based on its performance using the extenders. I find the 500mm with a 2x to be unacceptable, it was my hope that the new lenses would improve on this.

Oh...that is pretty. Not as much with the extenders...but 400 mm f/2.8.....so pretty.


Regarding the extenders, I agree with what you are saying for the link you provided (comparing f/8) But comparing f/5.6, I see what Bryan is refering:


www.the-digital-picture.com/.../ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx

That will be disapointing if there isn

Well, the Mk 1 is amazing, so I guess I am not entirely surprised that the difference is minimal. However, looking at the native 400 mm, I view the Mk 2 as better at f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6 especially away from the center. At f/8, they are pretty even, but I don

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

The comparison between the two seem to suggest a fair amount of improvement in the midframe.

---

At f/8, that's true, but performance at f/5.6 is more important, IMHO. Plus, even at f/8 the center is slightly worse, and that's also more important if you still have to crop a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

With the promise in extenders improvement that is shown in the theoretical charts on the 500mm and 600mm,

---

I think this new 400mm f/2.8 shows Canon's MTF charts mix a lot of fiction with fact. They indicate that the 400mm f/2.8 II with 2X has the same contrast as the 400mm f/2.8 I with *no* teleconverter, at every image height except the corners. Maybe that's true that super low resolution Canon measures (30 lp/mm) for their charts, but it sure is wrong at the resolution that matters to me.


So far, my view on the new lens is that the primary benefit is weight and non-TC performance.

The Hype about the extenders may turn out to be a disappointing. Since I would never consider buying this lens, I thought the review on the 400mm would be a good indicator of how much hype vs reality we were really getting out of Canon on the new Super Tele's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

So far, my view on the new lens is that the primary benefit is weight and non-TC performance.

---

I think also if you can hand hold the 400mm easier now, and since I do allot of shots with my 500mm hand held, the new 4 stop improved IS system may turn out to be the best advancement.


When the 500mm II comes out I think it will be worth the upgrade just to loose the pound and a half and can get a better IS system and I will still go for it just for those reasons.


Eventually I would like to see a review of the IS system on these lenses.

I hadn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Hype = slightly sharper + easier to clean?

---

According to the Hype, you are going to see the biggest improvement using the extender III's on the the new Supertele's. You would not see much improvement in the older lenses.


I actually ordered the 1.4 III and tried it. I lost IQ on my 500mm, the old version of the extender performed better than the new version on the older lenses. I returned the 1.4 Extender III and got my money back, I thought if I ordered a new version of the 500mm I would try the Extender III versions again.


It would be my recommendation that if you bought the old version of the 500mm, 600mm, 400mm or 300mm that you use the extender II version with it. It is the one designed for that lens and from my hands on experience is the one to use.


The Hype I am referring to is the Theoretical Charts and articles that Canon has published concerning the new lenses. They were designed by Canon marketing to make you believe you would have substantial improvement when using the new lenses with the new extenders.


If you look at the charts, read Canon's tutorials on how to interpret the charts, you would be lead to believe that there would be a substantial improvement in IQ with the new lenses and extenders.

You

From what I can see in the charts, the conclusion I draw is that the extender itself is what facilitates the performance gain. Compare the 2x II against the 2x III, and you can immediately see a difference. So the 400L IS II + 2x III versus the 400L IS + 2x III are very similar in optical performance, but both are better than the 400L IS + 2x II, and that