Canon 400 F2.8 vs 600 F4

Photoskipper · January 8, 2012

I am looking into the super-telelens for serious bird shooting. Currently I am looking at either the 400 F2.8 or 600 F4. They weight almost the same but the 400 is shorter and slight cheaper. I expect the 400 have more options - add 1.4X become 560 F4 or 2X become 800 F5.6. It can cover short range with great low light and sharpness, good reach for distance objects.

But what is the trade-off? how's the IQ with the new Mark III extensions compare with the 600? Anybody can share their experience with me before I put down my credit card at the counter.

puzzledpaul · January 8, 2012

Presumably you've discounted the 500/4 ... a good compromise between reach / weight imo.
Are you considering the mk1 or 2 versions?

Whilst a 400 + 1.4x will give you a 560/4 as opposed to a 500/4, I suspect AF performance will be be affected - it certainly is when I add a 1.4(mk2) on my 500/4 (mk1)

Since I have no experience with any of the new gear it's possibly all a different ball game ... if that's what you're considering.

pp

Photoskipper · January 9, 2012

I am using 5oo F4 and usually pair it with 1.4X, the IQ got degraded. Absolutely cannot use the 2X extensor. Also the autofocus do not work after F8. I have no choice but have to use AV to control the F-stop for bird shooting.

1Dx is on my radar but still have to wait for couple months before the stock is available. I plan to wait for another few months to see any user feedback before I purchase it.

puzzledpaul · January 9, 2012

Seem to recollect reading that the 1Dx doesn't AF above 5.6 ... is that likely to be an important factor?

Whilst I don't use any mk2 glass or mk3 extenders, there's still got to be some IQ degradation when combined, surely?

What were the 2 pics taken with, btw?

pp

davev · January 9, 2012

I have a 300 f2.8is, a friend bought an older 400 f2.8 non is lens. We took them out for a little test one day.

In this gallery, the first two shots were with the 300 plus a canon 2x tc (MKII) the rest of the shots were
with the 400 f2.8 also with the 2x tc.

All shots were done handheld, shot in JPG.

Have a look at the straight from the camera (T3i) shots. LINK

After a crop, resize, and some sharpening you get something like this from the 400 plus 2x tc.

Photoskipper · January 9, 2012

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Seem to recollect reading that the 1Dx doesn't AF above 5.6 ... is that likely to be an important factor?

Whilst I don't use any mk2 glass or mk3 extenders, there's still got to be some IQ degradation when combined, surely?

What were the 2 pics taken with, btw?

pp

Thanks for reminding me about the AF stop at F5.6. I feel there still some AF function at the higher AF stops, at least my current 5D MK2 still work up to 11 but definitely much slower.

the 400 F2.8 with 1.4X maximum at F4 and with 2X is F5.6. That is good enough for most of my use. Althought that may not be at the sweet spot of the lens.

It seems the extensor Mk3 has some improvement over the mk2.

The two photos were taken in Singapore where I stay till end of this month.

Photoskipper · January 9, 2012

davev wrote: »

I have a 300 f2.8is, a friend bought an older 400 f2.8 non is lens. We took them out for a little test one day.

In this gallery, the first two shots were with the 300 plus a canon 2x tc (MKII) the rest of the shots were
with the 400 f2.8 also with the 2x tc.

All shots were done handheld, shot in JPG.

Have a look at the straight from the camera (T3i) shots. LINK

After a crop, resize, and some sharpening you get something like this from the 400 plus 2x tc.

Wow!!!! That is what I want

wink

davev · January 10, 2012

Photoskipper wrote: »

Wow!!!! That is what I wantwink

Don't discount the 500 f4.
It's a hell of a lens, tack sharp, takes the 1.4x tc pretty well to give you 700mm.
It weighs a lot less, and is easier to handhold. (not easy, but easier):D

I've tried my friends 500 f4, it's way easier to use without a tripod than the 400 f2.8.

We need Canon to come out with a 400 f4 with i.s.
Could be used handheld, and would take the 1.4x tc with the all their cameras.

puzzledpaul · January 10, 2012

davev wrote: »

We need Canon to come out with a 400 f4 with i.s.

Presumably you're talking about a Mk2 version of the current 400/4 DO is .. maybe non DO, that also incorporates the 'enhancements' used on the other mk2 long lenses?

Ps - I was curious about what (gear/setup) you'd taken the pics with - not the location

pp

Photoskipper · January 10, 2012

ef400mm-f28l-is-usm-b1.pngI am referring to the 400 F2.8 as show below. I have been using the 500 mm and not very happy with the IQ when using with 1.4X. Moreover, the 500 F4 is the older version, it is time to look into replacement.

Regarding the two pictures,
1. I used the 500 +1.4 for the two Brahminy Kites. It was rather far away and a bit backlight. Cropped a lot to get the picture out.
2. The Brown Shrike was taken with 500mm only. Just a bit crop.

DeVerm · January 12, 2012

Don't forget about the body... moving the lens from 5D2 body to 7D body is like adding a 1.6x TC.

cheers,
Nick.

puzzledpaul · January 12, 2012

DeVerm wrote: »

Don't forget about the body... moving the lens from 5D2 body to 7D body is like adding a 1.6x TC.

Not quite.

Ignoring the minor difference between 21/18mp, there's a FOV / viewing angle aspect.
Adding a Tc gives a narrower fov than changing bodies.
Attaching the (same) lens to any body provides the same fov.

pp

ziggy53 · January 12, 2012

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Not quite.

Ignoring the minor difference between 21/18mp, there's a FOV / viewing angle aspect.
Adding a Tc gives a narrower fov than changing bodies.
Attaching the (same) lens to any body provides the same fov.

pp

It is my understanding that the 2 - "multiplication" factors, crop factor and teleconverter magnification factor, are indeed treated somewhat the same way. The net result of a 1.4x teleconverter on a FF camera body with a 50mm lens should be the same as the same lens on a crop 1.4x sensor camera (without the teleconverter, of course.)

In a perfect world, assuming accurate multiplication factors (which is rarely the case), the resulting FOV/AOV should be equivalent, although the image created with the teleconverter will be less luminous (at the same aperture) and may lose image quality as well.

Likewise a 1.4x crop from the FF image, without the teleconverter, should produce an equivalent FOV/AOV.

Pixel/photosite density is a whole different can-of-worms, as is software interpolated magnification.

DeVerm · January 12, 2012

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Not quite.

Ignoring the minor difference between 21/18mp, there's a FOV / viewing angle aspect.
Adding a Tc gives a narrower fov than changing bodies.
Attaching the (same) lens to any body provides the same fov.

pp

When the pixel densities of the sensors are the same I would agree. But if the 7D would record the same amount of pixels for a tighter crop of the light through the lens, then it would be similar to a 1.6x TC on the 5D.

The 7D has less pixels of course. But when you compensate for that, the 7D has still a similar effect to a lens than a 5D + 1.4 TC (at same dpi; I did 18 / 21 x 1.6 to get at 1.37x value).

Edit: fast Ziggy

puzzledpaul · January 18, 2012

Ziggy, DeVerm, I agree that it is possible to obtain the same number of ‘pixels on subject’ by various different body / lens combinations, but the issue I was trying to comment on, with respect to fov / viewing angle was the behaviour of light thro’ the optics / lens system, before it actually reaches the sensor plane.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
My understanding is that light, having passed thro’ the rearmost element of the lens won’t undergo any further ‘image significant’ behaviour or modification when it hits the sensor.

Together with my failure to adequately describe my thoughts on this, I also made an assumption – which could be wrong, of course

That a lens + Tc combo has the same viewing angle / dof behaviour as a lens with the same focal length as the combination rig.
Eg that a 500 f4 + 1.4x Tc combo would behave in an optically similar manner as a 700 f5.6 (if Canon made one, that is, rather than their 800 - and ignoring mfd differences)

If correct, then I continue to have some difficulty in understanding how the optical behaviour of a lens + Tc combo can be identical to that of a (similar) lens + crop factored magnification arrangement.

I should’ve been made it clearer in my previous post that ‘angle of view’ related to the optical components, rather than the whole ‘system’.

I also think that the ‘magnification factor’ of the 7D compared with a 5Dm2 is

1.6 x sq.rt (18/21) = 1.48

(Since 1.6 refers to a linear parameter, and 18 / 21 to areas)

Apologies for not responding earlier – but apart from ‘normal life’, I’ve been out and about trying to make the most of some half decent light that’s been around for the last few days … and has now gone

pp

20DNoob · January 18, 2012

If I were looking into some spending some pretty serious loot for birding I'd go with a 1D4/500mm/TC combo.

Just Google Romy Ocon(goes by liquidstone on some forums), the guys got crazy skill when it comes to photographing anything at distance(especially birds[ranked 117 out of the top 1000 by fat birder]). He stacks TCs all the time and his astro stuff is up there quality wise too, he's even managed to catch the International Space Station on flyovers of the Philippines. He's even stacking TCs shooting video now and is doing a pretty decent job at that.

Good luck.

ziggy53 · January 18, 2012

puzzledpaul wrote: »

... I also think that the ‘magnification factor’ of the 7D compared with a 5Dm2 is

1.6 x sq.rt (18/21) = 1.48

(Since 1.6 refers to a linear parameter, and 18 / 21 to areas) ...

The number of pixels only affects the size that you see on the computer monitor. Interpolating additional or reduced numbers of pixels should likewise not be considered in any part of an image magnification calculation, nor should it factor into FOV/AOV calculations. For the purposes of our discussion in this thread, all sensors should be considered to have the same aspect ratio and pixel count/photosite count.

For the other part of my statement,

"It is my understanding that the 2 - "multiplication" factors, crop factor and teleconverter magnification factor, are indeed treated somewhat the same way. The net result of a 1.4x teleconverter on a FF camera body with a 50mm lens should be the same as the same lens on a crop 1.4x sensor camera (without the teleconverter, of course.)

In a perfect world, assuming accurate multiplication factors (which is rarely the case), the resulting FOV/AOV should be equivalent, although the image created with the teleconverter will be less luminous (at the same aperture) and may lose image quality as well.

Likewise a 1.4x crop from the FF image, without the teleconverter, should produce an equivalent FOV/AOV."

... I am temporarily ignoring physical sensor size, and commenting on the apparent output results from the 2 - systems, full-frame format 135 versus crop sensor, with the different lens/converter/crop combinations.

(I suspect that you and I are in sync with our understanding of the physics involved, but we are momentarily divergent in thought due to my ambiguous use of terminology. I blame the media, the manufacturers and the public, for the concept of "crop factor" bodies, as opposed to treating each system as separate and unique.

)

Canon 400 F2.8 vs 600 F4

Comments