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

[Daniel Browning]

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.

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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.

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.

[Kayaker72]

I hadn

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

You

[wickerprints]

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

[Trowski]

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's because of the extender.

I have to really agree with what wickerprints said here, that the 2x III is responsible for most of the performance gain, since the original 400L was an amazing lens as it was.


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


Keep in mind there's more to performance with the 2x III than just image quality. If focusing speed and tracking ability is greatly improved, I would say some of the hype about the new lenses and extenders would be justified.


I would say a lot of the value of the new 400L II is the significant weight savings and improved IS. Any improvement in image quality is just a bonus. Though maybe someday we'll see more of a difference from a higher density sensor than what is currently available. I'd actually be curious to see 100% crops from the 400L vs. 400L II on a 7D sensor, perhaps any image quality differences would be more noticeable. Think you could indulge me Bryan?

[HDNitehawk]

You're right, Rick, except that as Daniel points out, Canon uses a resolution max for their theoretical MTF charts that falls short of the resolving power of current sensors. So, these 'substantial improvements' aren't hype, they're real - provided you're using the lens on say, a 1D MkIIN.

John, you just uncovered Canon's future marketing plans. I am sure it work like this: When we see the 1Ds IV or the 1D V released we will see the "hype" that to "get the most out of" the new series II lenses you need to upgrade to the new camera body.