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

[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]

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 had bought the 1.4x III a while back, and I went back and read my notes as to why I returned it. The IQ on the current version of the 500mm was almost identical to the 1.4x II, very little if any improvement. However, I had problem's with the new teleconverter tracking properly on the 500mm. I was loosing allot of moving targets that the 1.4x II didn't have a problem with.


Since they extender III'sare designed for the new lenses, maybe there will be improvementwith that combination over the old lens combinations.

[Kayaker72]

I am seeing more of a difference between Mk I and Mk II lenses with extenders with the 300 mm.......


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

[HDNitehawk]

I am seeing more of a difference between Mk I and Mk II lenses with extenders with the 300 mm.......

I started a new link for the 300mm.


This looks promising. The old300mm is very comparable to the 500mm in IQ maybe they both will improve the same. This gives some hope that Canon will deliver with the 500mm.

[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.