Canon 400 f/4DO and 1.4X TC

[arash_hazeghi]

Does anyone use the 400DO with a 1.4X TC on a high pixel density camera (7D or 50D) ? I am giving the 400 DO a serious look for its versatility against 500 f/4. Naked the lens is very sharp and a joy to work with due to its compact size and low weight but at times I do need more reach (500mm or better). I tried the 400 with my 1.4X TC II (date code UU0501) and found the results to be unacceptable at anything below f/9. It is very soft wide open to the point that you'd actually better be off taking it off, shooting naked and then crop tighter in post! As such I would go for 500 but I wanted to hear from other people before I give up. I have focus checked the lens itself and it is razor sharp and spot on wide open so that is not an issue. I would be happy if someone with this combo can post a few 100% crops.


Sorry for the ugly subject I was in the field when I did this test and I didn't spot anything better that I was 100% sure of focus.

[arash_hazeghi]

Here is another example, Kestrel is so soft!!!

[Jia Liu]

Arash, I found my 400DO doesn't take TCs as good as 300/2.8IS, but good enough for me, even at wide open. I don't have good samples at hand, but here is one taken at ISO 1600, wide open (f/5.6), no sharpening nor NR from ACR 5.6 RC, 400DO + Tamron 1.4x on 7D, Canon 1.4x produces similar results


Do you do AF micro-adjustment with the combo? On my 7D, 400DO needs -15, and 400DO + 1.4xTC needs -14.

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks Jia for posting the sample, I did a quick AF test and found that it didn't really need MA on my body, I was actually surprised by how sharp the lens naked and wide open is. If you ever get a chance I would appreciate if you can post a sample at lower ISO that is a bit less noisy so detail can be judged better

thanks :)

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Arash!

I can't believe how soft that bird is at f/7.1 at 100% crop on the 400 DO with 1.4X.

I get sharper images that that with BIF at f/8 on my 400 f/5.6 with the 1.4X.

Do you own this lens, I was about to consider buying one but I may now shell out the extra $$$ and get the 400 f/2.8 which I have used and is a magic lens with a 1.4X attached. heavy but I am accostumed to toting 40 Lbs of gear plus camera all day.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash!

I can't believe how soft that bird is at f/7.1 at 100% crop on the 400 DO with 1.4X.

I get sharper images that that with BIF at f/8 on my 400 f/5.6 with the 1.4X.

Do you own this lens, I was about to consider buying one but I may now shell out the extra $$$ and get the 400 f/2.8 which I have used and is a magic lens with a 1.4X attached. heavy but I am accostumed to toting 40 Lbs of gear plus camera all day.

I don't own the lens yet but I tried for a week and the lens itself is darn sharp, sharper than 400 f/5.6L at wide open, it's just when I add the TC that it lacks. What body are you using? There is substantial difference between a large pixel 1D camera and 7D in terms of what it demands from the optics, so some of the imperfections may not be visible on those cameras. I actually find the 400 f/5.6 slightly inadequate for the 7D at wide open so I am considering moving to either the DO or 500 f/4.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Chris/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-12.png[/IMG]

Arash

This image was taken on the 1D MKIII with the 400 f/5.6 + 1.4 X Con. at 560mm, 1/2000 sec, 100% crop f/9, ISO 400 Hand held.

The EXIF Data is intact and no NR and minimum PP.

I will not be purchasing the 400 f/4 DO.

[Doug Brown]

I don't have any experience with the 400 DO, but Artie Morris does. I just saw him using the 400 with a 1.4 at the Bosque the other day. I'll see if I can get him to weigh in on this thread.

[david cramer]

Arash, I thought I'd comment here even though I'm a Nikon shooter and haven't tried the lens. I've come to know you to be very thorough in how you evaluate your gear, but I am seeing your posted images a little differently than you are, so I thought I'd comment to see if my own view needs to be corrected. In your first post, the f/8 image looks to be the sharpest of the three. Are you finding f/9 and up to be acceptable? Have you processed the f/8 image to see if it would be an acceptable final image?

The posted image of the kestrel is indeed unacceptably soft, yet parts of the plant look to be sharper. I wonder if focus is off when the 1.4 is attached. Have you tested for a MA with the tc attached too? (Dang it, that would have been a sweet image!)

Thanks for running this thread. We all can learn from these examples, even if we shoot different gear.

[Marina Scarr]

Hi Arash: For over a year now, I have been using the 400 DO & 1.4TC with many of my images both with the 40D and the 50D which I sold b/c of noise. I have been pleased with the results. I will try to find some 50D images and post them at 100% crop.

[Buddy Eleazer]

I have used the 400 DO with 1.4x TC on my 50D and, like you, felt it generally too soft. I just got the 7D, so I will try to fit the pair together on it, microadjust and then post a few shots later this week so you have more feedback.

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . The posted image of the kestrel is indeed unacceptably soft, yet parts of the plant look to be sharper. I wonder if focus is off when the 1.4 is attached. . . .

Because the kestrel is shown at 100% pixels, the bird must have been small in the frame. That exaggerates focusing problems and makes a poor test. I would test larger, flat subjects both with and without the 1.4x TC. I'd also try to test with a second 1.4x. In my own experience back in 2003 and 2004 on film, the 400 DO was a fine performer with both 1.4x and 2x TCs, which is the main reason to prefer it over the 400 f5.6L. I wouldn't expect it to quite match the 500 f4L, but it's close enough where size and weight are an issue.

[arash_hazeghi]

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Chris/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-12.png[/IMG]

Arash

This image was taken on the 1D MKIII with the 400 f/5.6 + 1.4 X Con. at 560mm, 1/2000 sec, 100% crop f/9, ISO 400 Hand held.

The EXIF Data is intact and no NR and minimum PP.

I will not be purchasing the 400 f/4 DO.

Thanks Chris, as I mentioned the 1D series camera will give you better per pixel sharpness, pixel pitch of a 1DMKIII camera is 7.2um compared to 4.3um of 7D. 7D sensor needs about twice spatial resolution from a lens to match MKIII sharpness. so you are comparing apples and oranges here. But I agree if your camera focuses well with 400 f/5,6 and TC and IQ is good no need to get a DO, you would be better off investing on something that is longer to begin with like a 500 f/4.

[arash_hazeghi]

I don't have any experience with the 400 DO, but Artie Morris does. I just saw him using the 400 with a 1.4 at the Bosque the other day. I'll see if I can get him to weigh in on this thread.

Thanks Doug

[arash_hazeghi]

Because the kestrel is shown at 100% pixels, the bird must have been small in the frame. That exaggerates focusing problems and makes a poor test. I would test larger, flat subjects both with and without the 1.4x TC. I'd also try to test with a second 1.4x. In my own experience back in 2003 and 2004 on film, the 400 DO was a fine performer with both 1.4x and 2x TCs, which is the main reason to prefer it over the 400 f5.6L. I wouldn't expect it to quite match the 500 f4L, but it's close enough where size and weight are an issue.

Hey Marina,
Lens sharpness is independent of subject size in the frame, also in 2004 no digital camera with a resolution close to 7D existed so it is fair to compare with the high resolution sensors (7D or 50d) that are available today, you can't really compare sharpness between digital and film.

Best

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, I thought I'd comment here even though I'm a Nikon shooter and haven't tried the lens. I've come to know you to be very thorough in how you evaluate your gear, but I am seeing your posted images a little differently than you are, so I thought I'd comment to see if my own view needs to be corrected. In your first post, the f/8 image looks to be the sharpest of the three. Are you finding f/9 and up to be acceptable? Have you processed the f/8 image to see if it would be an acceptable final image?

The posted image of the kestrel is indeed unacceptably soft, yet parts of the plant look to be sharper. I wonder if focus is off when the 1.4 is attached. Have you tested for a MA with the tc attached too? (Dang it, that would have been a sweet image!)

Thanks for running this thread. We all can learn from these examples, even if we shoot different gear.

Thanks David,
To my eyes the f/9 looks little bit sharper than f/8 (I am using HP 24" LCD with 1920X1200 resolution) but f/8 is somewhat on the border line I could still live with it but it is too slow unfortunately I need at least f/5.6 to get the shutter speed up in most situations as I tend not to go above ISO 1000 on a cropped body.

And yes, I have done focus test, no MA was needed. Kestrel shot is one of 23 images so it is unlikely that focus was missed on all of those. The pine needles aren't really sharp either, they may appear sharper because they have more contrast than the feathers but they are quite soft too.

Here is what the lens does naked and wide open. 100% from DPP



Best

[Buddy Eleazer]

Arash,
I don't doubt any of what you have written, but regarding the bird in the tree, as an observation to my eye (on a Dell U2410 moniotor at 1920x1200), the foreground needles in the lower left look sharpest be a good bit.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash,
I don't doubt any of what you have written, but regarding the bird in the tree, as an observation to my eye (on a Dell U2410 moniotor at 1920x1200), the foreground needles in the lower left look sharpest be a good bit.

Thanks Buddy, the goal here is not to nit pick on focus even if focus was so ever slightly off it should not result in such soft results, any ways I am really interested to see samples from other owners of this combo to see if my TC is bad.

Thanks.

[Buddy Eleazer]

I have the DO and both the Canon and the Sigma 1.4 TCon, so I am probably going to be a good source of feedback. Unfortunately, it's very gray with mist today, so I won't be able to get out today to set microadjustment or shoot images.

BTW, I microadjust on tripod with IS off and using mirror lock-up/cable release focusing on a scale at a 45 deg angle with target set at about the distance I most commonly shoot or min. 50x the focal length minimum. Latter method is what I will do if I can get out today.

[arash_hazeghi]

I have the DO and both the Canon and the Sigma 1.4 TCon, so I am probably going to be a good source of feedback. Unfortunately, it's very gray with mist today, so I won't be able to get out today to set microadjustment or shoot images.

BTW, I microadjust with a scale at a 45 deg angle with target set at about the distance I most commonly shoot or min. 50x the focal length minimum. Latter method is what I will do if I can get out today.

I would bee happy to see your samples when you get a chance.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Arash, I would really like Artie to jump in here on this one as he has produced superb images with the DO but once again with the 1DMKIII I have not seen any of his with the 7D but would certainly like to see some.

I have ordered the 1DMKIV and as soon as I get it I am sending in my 1DMKIII back to Canon to let them fiddle with the AF on it as it is still not up to scratch.

I also want to buy a 7D to have a top notch 1.6 crop bus am hanging back for a bit to see how it pans out with L Glass.

[Buddy Eleazer]

Actually, I bought my lens and the Canon TCon from Andy Biggs, who is pretty famous for his wildlife photography (for example, you can see it on the walls at Banana Republic). He used it with a 1Ds MkIII and you will see a number of his shots at his web site with the 400 DO, including a few with the Tcon. We discussed this and he (and I) agreed that with the TCon, the images were always slightly softer and that f8 or better really helps this combo. That said, I am not sure that experience translates to what we get with the 7D - which is why I need to get out and see what it will do.

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . Lens sharpness is independent of subject size in the frame, also in 2004 no digital camera with a resolution close to 7D existed so it is fair to compare with the high resolution sensors (7D or 50d) that are available today, you can't really compare sharpness between digital and film. . . .

I didn't say sharpness was dependent on subject size. I said focus is difficult with a small-in-the-frame subject--difficult because with a sensor that is relatively large compared to the bird's eye, it's hard to know whether the sensor was on the eye or, say, the shoulder. That's why a flat, stationary subject would be better for a test. Whether focus is the problem with your 400/1.4 combo or something else has nothing to do with film versus digital--either is capable of producing a sharp image.

Based on the test images you posted, I certainly wouldn't buy that particular lens without a lot more testing.

[arash_hazeghi]

Actually, I bought my lens and the Canon TCon from Andy Biggs, who is pretty famous for his wildlife photography (for example, you can see it on the walls at Banana Republic). He used it with a 1Ds MkIII and you will see a number of his shots at his web site with the 400 DO, including a few with the Tcon. We discussed this and he (and I) agreed that with the TCon, the images were always slightly softer and that f8 or better really helps this combo. That said, I am not sure that experience translates to what we get with the 7D - which is why I need to get out and see what it will do.

I imagine on a 1D(S) camera and f/8 it is good, It also depends on your subject, for raptor flight shots I need to be 1/1600 sec or faster and I like evening light about 1.5 hrs before sunset that puts me at ISO 800+ at f/5.6 already so at f/8 I will be at ISO 1600, noise and softness from TC is usually a lethal combo :(
After comparing many different scenarios and percentage of my photos I have drawn my line at 500mm and f/5.6. If 400 DO with TC at f/5.6 delivers at least 80% of the sharpness of 500 f/4 I would still pick it due to its versatility and light weight but not if it is what I am seeing right now.

I also found this more systematic test online which confirms my impressions, looks like the diffractive optics nature of this lens is not designed to work well with a conventional tele-convector, at least on a tight pixel body.

[arash_hazeghi]

I didn't say sharpness was dependent on subject size. I said focus is difficult with a small-in-the-frame subject--difficult because with a sensor that is relatively large compared to the bird's eye, it's hard to know whether the sensor was on the eye or, say, the shoulder. That's why a flat, stationary subject would be better for a test. Whether focus is the problem with your 400/1.4 combo or something else has nothing to do with film versus digital--either is capable of producing a sharp image.

Well sharpness is a subjective term, what I was saying was that you cannot compare sharpness of digital file from a 18 mpixel image sensor that has a low pass filter on top of it with a 35mm negative that has been printed at 8X10 or has been scanned. There are too many variables here. If a lens produces what appears to be a sharp negative it doesn't mean it can deliver optical resolution needed for the 7D sensor, unless you examine the negative with a microscope and inspect individual grains.

The lens itself is very sharp and focus is very good, so the only possibility is that my TC is bad (that is why I mentioned the date code and asked for samples from other owners) I have had it for a number of years now, initially bought it for my 300 f/4 IS but have't use it since I got the 400 f/5.6 three years ago.

Thanks

[Marina Scarr]

Here's a 100% crop with the 50D, 400DO & 1.4 @ F5.6, 1/2500sec, ISO 400.
Handheld

[Marina Scarr]

100% crop. 50D, 400DO & 1.4 @ 560; F8, 1/2000sec, ISO 400, tripod

[arash_hazeghi]

Here's a 100% crop with the 50D, 400DO & 1.4 @ F5.6, 1/2500sec, ISO 400.
Handheld

Thanks Marina, are you sure these are 100% crop? It looks like a down-sampled image as opposed to a 100% crop because the detail looks very fine rather than coarse(?) The grain is also very fine. Can you also post the full frame image?

[Marina Scarr]

full frame untouched

[Marina Scarr]

full frame, untouched

[Flavio Rose]

This image was taken on the 1D MKIII with the 400 f/5.6 + 1.4 X Con. at 560mm, 1/2000 sec, 100% crop f/9, ISO 400 Hand held.

This is a bit off topic, but just wondering if this is typical for that combo, or better, or worse than average. I've been trying the combo with a 1.4x Tamron myself and don't like the results, but this is on an XTi where focus might be off. Focus is spot on for you but it still doesn't look so sharp (e.g., the bird's feet).

[arash_hazeghi]

H Marina,
Thanks for posting full frame however these are not 100% crops, a 50D image is 4752 pixels wide the crop you posted is 27% of the full frame image horizontally so it should be 1265 pixels wide the ones you posted are only 750 pixels wide so they have been down-sampled.

If you can tell me what program you are using to convert the RAW files I can show you how to save a 100% crop.

[Don Hamilton Jr.]

Arash, after reading your last statement, i wonder! I'm using LR2.5, considering PS CS4 at this time, as it seems to be the industry standard. So here's the question, when LR converts my raw to a jpg, and i have a cropped image... is that really a down sampled image, or a true crop.. thks for your explanation.
Also could you describe situatiuons where you fell the 400DO is a better choice that the 500 F4.. or is this strictly a hand held(wreight) issue you are referring to.
Thks don

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, after reading your last statement, i wonder! I'm using LR2.5, considering PS CS4 at this time, as it seems to be the industry standard. So here's the question, when LR converts my raw to a jpg, and i have a cropped image... is that really a down sampled image, or a true crop.. thks for your explanation.
Also could you describe situatiuons where you fell the 400DO is a better choice that the 500 F4.. or is this strictly a hand held(wreight) issue you are referring to.
Thks don

Hi Don,

You can convert and save your RAW file with any program to any size that you wish, in LR when you are exporting your files you can choose to resize the photo, if you choose a size that is smaller than the original pixel dimensions you will be down-sampling if you choose a larger size you will be up-sampling, if you choose not to resize lightroom will export a 100% or 1:1 copy. Here is what the export menu looks like, if you want a 100% crop uncheck the resize box. Also for evaluation purposes set quality to 100 to avoid any compression.



On the second point the main advantage of 400 DO is weight and mobility in the field, I can easily run after birds with the DO, 500 limits mobility and it is also not as easy to pull out immediately and aim in rapidly changing situations. The optical quality of 400 DO naked is excellent, contrast is of course not as good as 500 but I will scarifies IQ for mobility as long as it is still acceptable. At the same time the need for 500mm with at least f/5.6 aperture complicates things as I am not assured of TC performance on this lens. In that case I will pick the 500 and keep my 400 f/5.6 when HH and mobility is needed. The idea of 400 DO is one light lens that can do everything, however it is still a 400 mm lens, it adds one stop and IS over 400 f/5.6L but costs about $5000 :eek: more so I can't really justify paying for it if performance with TC is anything less than "very good" :D

[philperry]

Arash

I am not quite sure what you mean by 100% crop. But here is an image taken with the 7D plus 400 DO & 1.4x. At f8 ; 1/400th.

I use this combination as my standard in Africa and have been really pleased with it (the 7D is new - but so far so good).

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash

I am not quite sure what you mean by 100% crop. But here is an image taken with the 7D plus 400 DO & 1.4x. At f8 ; 1/400th.

I use this combination as my standard in Africa and have been really pleased with it (the 7D is new - but so far so good).

thanks Phil, 100% crop is what I described in the post just above yours. Thanks for posting any way.

[Arthur Morris]

Well, when I first read this I assumed that there was either operator error involved or that you have a TC with a problem. Though this image does not exactly meet your criteria (it was created with the 1D Mark III), it does not change my thoughts above.... And though I read your post I am not exactly sure what a 100% crop is.

IAC, the image was created at an aperture of f/7.1 with the 400 DO handheld with the 1.4X II TC. Shutter speed 1/1600 sec. The TIFF was enlarged to 100% and saved as a 96 dpi JPEG after cropping as show. The JPEG has not been sharpened.

What difference would a higher pixel density camera make?

Do you consider this image to be sharp?

[arash_hazeghi]

Well, when I first read this I assumed that there was either operator error involved or that you have a TC with a problem. Though this image does not exactly meet your criteria (it was created with the 1D Mark III), it does not change my thoughts above.... And though I read your post I am not exactly sure what a 100% crop is.

IAC, the image was created at an aperture of f/7.1 with the 400 DO handheld with the 1.4X II TC. Shutter speed 1/1600 sec. The TIFF was enlarged to 100% and saved as a 96 dpi JPEG after cropping as show. The JPEG has not been sharpened.

What difference would a higher pixel density camera make?

Do you consider this image to be sharp?

Hi Artie,

Thanks for posting this, a 100% crop is the same as 100% enlargement which represents 1:1 sensor output.

The difference between a tight pixel camera and a large pixel camera like your 1DMKIII is in that the lens needs to have a higher resolution to provide an equally sharp image to those smaller pixels. Nominal resolution for a 1DMKIII sensor is 70 lpm (line per millimeter) and 116 lpm for a 7D so, for example if a lens has a center resolution of 100 lpm it will look very sharp on your 1DMKIII but slightly soft on a 7D. micro contrast rendition is also better on a large pixel sensor so that means slight lack of local contrast will hurt small pixel sensors. In fact I do have lots of sharp samples from a zoom lens with a 1.4X TC on a large pixel camera and the effect of TC is hardly noticeable, however this is not a good comparison.


100% crop 200-400 f/4 zoom lens + 1.4X TC wide open aperture (f/5.6) No sharpening applied, neutral profile.



Your crop is indeed sharp, but do you have anything with 50D and at f/5.6? That would be more relevant to my question here.

thanks and happy thanksgiving!

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for the explanation. My only problem is when you say this, "Nominal resolution for a 1DMKIII sensor is 70 lpm (line per millimeter) and 116 lpm for a 7D so, for example if a lens has a center resolution of 100 lpm it will look very sharp on your 1DMKIII but slightly soft on a 7D." In your original post, the image that you show is unsharp not "slighltly soft..."

I will try something ASAP at f/5.6 with the 400 DO and the 7D. If the best images are not very sharp I will be amazed.

[Doug Brown]

Thanks for looking in on this thread Artie! And thanks for letting me use your 400 DO with 1.4x yesterday afternoon. My take on the combination of lens and TC is slightly different than Artie's. I found that while I could get images that were considerably sharper than what Arash was getting, I wasn't exactly thrilled with sharpness when photographing at f/5.6. I did find the bare 400 to be quite sharp however (but I didn't use it wide open).

[philperry]

Arash, if you post details for Photoshop re 100% crop then I could maybe post some pictures next week (I am off tomorrow for time in the field for a few days). I do have 50D and 7D pictures with this combo - and must have some at a range of apertures. But I have never been unhappy with the equipment, only my technique.

[Doug Brown]

To get a 100% crop, simply open the image in Photoshop. Use the rectangular marquee tool and set it to a fixed pixel size (I normally use 1024 x 683). Place the marquee on the part of the image that you want to use. Then copy the selection and paste it into a new image with a canvas size that matches the pixel dimensions of what you just copied. Save the new image for web, but don't resize it. Adjust quality to get the file size where you want it.

[Doug Brown]

I will also confess that Artie's comment about user error may also have some merit. I am accustomed to my super tele lenses acquiring focus very quickly. The 400 DO with a 1.4x did not lock on all that quickly IMO, even when the subject was large in the frame. I took a number of frames where I could tell through the viewfinder that focus was not perfect, even though it should have been based on my experience with other Canon super teles. Perhaps with more experience, I'd have better success with the 400 DO + 1.4x.

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks for the explanation. My only problem is when you say this, "Nominal resolution for a 1DMKIII sensor is 70 lpm (line per millimeter) and 116 lpm for a 7D so, for example if a lens has a center resolution of 100 lpm it will look very sharp on your 1DMKIII but slightly soft on a 7D." In your original post, the image that you show is unsharp not "slighltly soft..."

I will try something ASAP at f/5.6 with the 400 DO and the 7D. If the best images are not very sharp I will be amazed.

Thanks Artie,

The MKIII sample you posted was actually f/7.1 so if f/5.6 is somewhat marginal or slightly soft on MKIII then it will be totally soft on a 7D just like the samples I posted above.

if you look at the first samples of the rusty post (sorry again for ugly subject), when I stop down it gets sharper and sharper and a single post against a plain BG is not something that I would not be able to focus on. So the problem is at wide open. I look forward to your samples with 7D, it is very possible that my TC is bad.

Thanks

[arash_hazeghi]

To get a 100% crop, simply open the image in Photoshop. Use the rectangular marquee tool and set it to a fixed pixel size (I normally use 1024 x 683). Place the marquee on the part of the image that you want to use. Then copy the selection and paste it into a new image with a canvas size that matches the pixel dimensions of what you just copied. Save the new image for web, but don't resize it. Adjust quality to get the file size where you want it.

Doug adjusting quality to get a smaller file is not a very good idea because JPEG compression artifacts will degrade image quality, for evaluation always use maximum quality if saving JPEG. If the file gets too large you can crop tighter, even a small area of the image is usually sufficient.

[arash_hazeghi]

I will also confess that Artie's comment about user error may also have some merit. I am accustomed to my super tele lenses acquiring focus very quickly. The 400 DO with a 1.4x did not lock on all that quickly IMO, even when the subject was large in the frame. I took a number of frames where I could tell through the viewfinder that focus was not perfect, even though it should have been based on my experience with other Canon super teles. Perhaps with more experience, I'd have better success with the 400 DO + 1.4x.

TC will always hurt AF speed on any camera and lens due to loss of contrast and I noticed it as well. The 7D was hunting at times with the TC, it would never hunt without it. That is why I chose stationary subjects. Overall if handicap in IQ and AF with 400 f/4 + 1.4X TC is no more than 30% compared to 500 f/4 I will pick it otherwise I will just go for 500. The difference that I am seeing in my samples and on this website is like day an night.

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks for looking in on this thread Artie! And thanks for letting me use your 400 DO with 1.4x yesterday afternoon. My take on the combination of lens and TC is slightly different than Artie's. I found that while I could get images that were considerably sharper than what Arash was getting, I wasn't exactly thrilled with sharpness when photographing at f/5.6. I did find the bare 400 to be quite sharp however (but I didn't use it wide open).

Doug would you please post your f/5.6 crops as well? What is the date code on the TC 1.4 that you have?

Here is a 100% unsharpened crop of the 400 naked at f/4, pretty good






Thanks

[Doug Brown]

Doug would you please post your f/5.6 crops as well? What is the date code on the TC 1.4 that you have?

I was using Artie's 1.4x; I only brought my 400 f/5.6. I'll post samples when I get home later today.

[Doug Brown]

For me there is no comparison Arash. The 500 has better image quality and takes a 1.4x or a 2x with little loss of image quality. AF speed of the 500 with a 1.4x is noticeably quicker than a 400 DO with a 1.4x.

Here's another option to consider; pick up a 1D Mark IV or a used Mark III. Then you can throw a 1.4x on a 400 f/5.6 and still get AF.

[arash_hazeghi]

For me there is no comparison Arash. The 500 has better image quality and takes a 1.4x or a 2x with little loss of image quality. AF speed of the 500 with a 1.4x is noticeably quicker than a 400 DO with a 1.4x.

Here's another option to consider; pick up a 1D Mark IV or a used Mark III. Then you can throw a 1.4x on a 400 f/5.6 and still get AF.

Thanks Doug for the suggestions, looks like I will be happier with 500 need to live with the weight :D
400 naked has more reach on my current 7D than both MKIII and MKIV with 1.4X TC and the advantages of those cameras will be lost by one stop loss of light with the TC and AF point limited to center point only with no cross type sensitivity. Not a big fan of f/8 max aperture!!!