Canon 400 f/4DO and 1.4X TC

[Jia Liu]

Arash, I did some focus chart test last night with 400DO+1.4xTC on 7D, my opinion still holds, that the sharpness is good enough for some occasional use. I won't bore you with test shots. I am heading to Bosque tomorrow, so hopefully I will come back with some real images next week.

I bought 400DO for its portability and replaced 300/2.8IS with it. From my test, I rank the sharpness in the order: 300/2.8IS > 400DO > 300 + 1.4x > 400DO + 1.4x > 300 + 2x. Since I was always using 300 with TCs, so 400 fits my needs very well, and it's a lot lighter. IMO, 7D + 400DO is a killer combo for BIF. But if your primary focal length is around 500mm, and you don't mind extra weight, 500/4L is second to none.

[beykirch]

Hi Arash,

I use my 400DO mainly on a 5DII. Here you see a 100% crop with the 1.4IxII at ISO 500, f6.3 and 1/400sec.



No issues with contrast and sharpness from my point-of-view. But, the extender combination needed a considerable AF fine tuning.

Regards

Bernd

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, I did some focus chart test last night with 400DO+1.4xTC on 7D, my opinion still holds, that the sharpness is good enough for some occasional use. I won't bore you with test shots. I am heading to Bosque tomorrow, so hopefully I will come back with some real images next week.

I bought 400DO for its portability and replaced 300/2.8IS with it. From my test, I rank the sharpness in the order: 300/2.8IS > 400DO > 300 + 1.4x > 400DO + 1.4x > 300 + 2x. Since I was always using 300 with TCs, so 400 fits my needs very well, and it's a lot lighter. IMO, 7D + 400DO is a killer combo for BIF. But if your primary focal length is around 500mm, and you don't mind extra weight, 500/4L is second to none.

Thanks Jia, yup I want something more than "occasional" use. I would still like to see your tests

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks guys,

Based on what I heard I am leaning towards 500 but I would still like to see 100% crops from this combo on a 7D at f/5.6 aperture.

Best

[Doug Brown]

Here's a 100% crop of the 400 DO with a 1.4x. This is about as sharp as I could get wide open on a moving subject. Not great IMO.

Canon 7D, 400mm DO + Canon 1.4x, f/5.6, 1/2000, ISO 800, IS Mode 2, hand held

[arash_hazeghi]

Here's a 100% crop of the 400 DO with a 1.4x. This is about as sharp as I could get wide open on a moving subject. Not great IMO.

Canon 7D, 400mm DO + Canon 1.4x, f/5.6, 1/2000, ISO 800, IS Mode 2, hand held

Appriciate the sample Doug, exactly what I wanted to see, bird was close and you can see more detail but sharpness is just not there, I am going for 500.

Hope you had a good thanksgiving.


Thanks everybody for pariticipating in this thread.

[john jackson]

I have never used a 7D (or 50D for that matter). That said, I have a few comments on this discussion.

If you examine 18MP files at 100% you are examining your files much closer than when viewing 10MP files at 100%.

More pixels does not make for worse lens sharpness than fewer pixels; it may fail to resolve more detail, but surely will not resolve less detail at a comparable file magnification?

I would not dismiss the missed focus issue so quickly. Stopping down may appear to bring more sharpness when bringing greater depth into focus. Consider the area of the sensor that covers these crops. Can you be sure they were in the sharpest focus possible?

John

[Narayan Pai]

Arash ....will look forward to your images with the 500 :-)

[Doug Brown]

Hi John. I consider myself relatively skilled at hand holding super telephoto glass. I own the 400 f/5.6, 500 f/4, and 600 f/4, all of which I hand hold regularly. I was photographing at a place that I've visited well over 100 times with big glass. The photos I got with the 400 DO were the least sharp images I've ever gotten there. By a significant margin. This was not an issue of a 100% crop on an 18 MP image, because I've taken 15-20,000 frames with the 7D by now. I know what 7D RAW files look like at 100%.

I can tell you that the focus point was on the eye. In my experience, I should have been able to get a very sharp image with the eye in good focus. I was not able to with the 7D + 400 DO + 1.4x. This was the sharpest image I had shooting the 400 wide open. The others weren't even as good as this. I was frankly amazed at how mediocre the images taken looked.

[Roger Clark]

Note that with the 7D' 4.3 micron pixel spacing, and 560 mm focal length, that translates to 1.6 arc-seconds per pixel, and extremely small angle. At that level of angular resolution, atmospheric turbulence becomes a factor in image sharpness. That, along with any other vibration will affect image detail. The diffraction disk of an f/4 lens, green light, has a diameter of 5.2 microns, and f/5.6 it is 7.2 microns. We are approaching limits and it is not surprising that images are not super sharp with these systems.

Roger

[john jackson]

Hi Doug

I should have clarified that I was commenting on the early posts and in general rather than about your duck image. How were your 400DO images without the TC?

Cheers

John

[Arthur Morris]

Tons to say and ask here, and more images to post. But I need to get ready to get out of Socorro on Tuesday and have to finish an article so I will be brief here.

#1: Killer walrus image by Beykirch above.
#2: Thanks Roger for your detailed remarks. I even partially understand some of them.
#3: In the same vein, I happen to know that the 400 DO and 7D that Doug used had not been calibrated. Also, after Doug used it I cleaned the drop in filter which was filthy. How many of you clean the drop-in filter regularly? A dirty one can trash the AF accuracy.
#4: John Jackson's comments make lots of sense to me.
#5: Doug, the eye in your image looks quite sharp to me.
#6: The issue surely is not with the 1.4X TC as can be seen in the image in Pane #37 which to both my and Robert O'Toole's eyes looks razor sharp.
#7: Now I am getting to my major points:
a-When photographing a duck's head at point blank range the last thing that I would ever do is work wide open. D-O-F decreases as the distance to the subject decreases.
b-In my opinion here, folks are overly concerned with sharpness issues. Until I read this thread I had never viewed an image at 100%. I do not see the purpose.
c- I have a very reliable test to determine if an image is sharp enough for me. It is call the pen test. If the buyer signs the check, the image is sharp enough for me.
#8: It seems fairly obvious to me that their was some sort of major problem either with regards to faulty gear, a dirty filter, an un-calibrated lens, or operator error with the image in Pane #2.

Gotta run. Will post some images asap.

[Peter Hawrylyshyn]

Arash
I'm testing a 7D this weekend , so thought i checked out my 400mmDO. I didn't do a AF micro-calibration to the new 7D demo model.
As the post shows - I couldn't see any difference when i put on the x1.4 TC

I used central point AF in one-shot AF mode on a tripod. I manually set the focus near infinity, depressed the shutter button to acquire focus, and then took the pic. Each image is representative of a series of 5 test shots. No sharpening of any kind was applied to the images shown at 100% crop .
ISO 400 f4 1/160

What camera, focusing mode and focusing points were you using ?

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks Peter for taking the time and posting this, all I can say is that they are both soft and somewhat fuzzy so the lens or body may need calibration, I can get much better results with the lens naked (curlew sample in the last page) but not with the converter as confirmed by Doug. There is always loss of sharpness with a TC, the degree of which is different between lenses.


Thanks

[Peter Hawrylyshyn]

Arash -
The sharpness would indeed be improved if i had AF micro-calibrated the lens and applied sharpening in PS. My intent was to show that there was no noticeable difference when i added the x 1.4 TC. You might try a similar test with your camera and lenses to confirm if it's the equipment or AF techniques
Good luck
Peter

[arash_hazeghi]

an image at 100%. I do not see the purpose.
Will post some images asap.

Thanks Artie for remarks, about 100% crop it is true that we don't usually view our images at 100% but you have to remember that 100% is the true 1:1 sensor output, i.e. one pixel on sensor = 1 pixel on screen. At any other size, the original pixels are either interpolated or extrapolated by the computer and cannot be used for evaluation of the optics. I see people use the term "magnification" for a 100% image, this isn't correct, at 100% a digitally captured image has no magnification it is just the 1:1 output of the sensor, indeed anything other than this is "magnified". Almost any digital camera with any lens on the market even the cheapest point and shoots can produce a sharp looking 1024 pixel photo if the subject is large and in focus, but that is not enough for me to pay $6000 :D I need something that can give me lots of cropping headroom in post.

People have posted razor sharp 100% crops of 7D with 500 f/4 and 300 f/2.8 lenses so that is not an issue here.

Best

[Jia Liu]

Arash, as promised, here is one sample from Bosque, all EXIF data is included. All converted from ACR 5.6 RC, no any NR nor sharperning applied.
7D + 400DO + 1.4x, at f/5.6


For comparison, here is one with naked 400DO at f/4.0


I don't know about your opinion, but 400DO + 1.4x is certainly sharp enough for me.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, as promised, here is one sample from Bosque, all EXIF data is included. All converted from ACR 5.6 RC, no any NR nor sharperning applied.
7D + 400DO + 1.4x, at f/5.6

I don't know about your opinion, but 400DO + 1.4x is certainly sharp enough for me.

Thanks Jia for posting this,
Interesting... I can get better results with the lens naked and wide open that is why I immediately noticed the drop in sharpness when I attached the TC. Your TC sample is not bad and as you say good for occasional use but I will be happier with 500 based on what I have seen from that lens.

Thanks again :)

best

[philperry]

I must say that this is a very interesting post. For which many thanks Arash. I would like to add another few comments.

I love Artie's 'Pen Test'. I whole-heartedly agree with that. While my sales are miniscule in comparison I do supply a small number of photos to two stock agencies of excellent repute and most of my pictures in the last couple of years have been taken using the 400 DO + 1.4x combo. So while Arash may be leaning towards the 500mm f4, I would hate for other photographers to be put off from considering the 400 DO & 1.4x. For me air-portability is paramount and the weight saving of this lens makes a huge difference. I can also pack it into my rucksack with the lens hood fitted for quick use in the field.

I am not technically competent to discuss the minutiae of lens quality but I have taken some great shots with this lens. Another lens that regularly gets 'bashed' is the Canon 100-400 zoom. I have also taken some super shots with this lens. My first major competition success in NaturesBest was taken with this lens and to paraphrase Artie's test is that 'if it is good enough for the Smithsonian, then it is good enough for me'.

At the end of the day I am sure that most Canon and Nikon lenses are excellent quality - I feel that each user must choose lenses on the basis of the best specifications that match the users requirements. For me the 400 DO and 1.4x fits the bill. Add in the 70-300 DO and you just need a wideangle to cover nearly every subject you might come across.