How sharp really is a good 100-400 L IS?

[Romy Ocon]

I already know that I have an excellent copy of the 100-400 L IS, as all previous tests I did demonstrate that this zoom is as sharp as my 400 5.6L at 400 mm, wide open.

Shoot-out: 100-400 L IS vs 400 5.6 L (Dial-up warning - 1.1 MB)
www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/86416630/original

But how sharp really is a good copy of the 100-400 L IS at full zoom? The MTF chart for this lens suggests that it should be very good, perhaps not quite as good as the 500 f4 L IS, but theoretically pretty close.

MTF Chart for the 100-400 L IS, 400 mm at right:
www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7344

MTF Chart for the 500 f4 L IS:
www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7318

Today (December 17, 2007), I was finally able to allocate the time to do a shoot-out between these two birding lenses. The purpose of the test is to answer a question that has been at the back of my mind eversince I got the sterling zoom:

"If I can get close to the bird such that 400 mm is enough focal length, what's the hit in image quality (IQ) that I'd suffer if I use the 100-400 instead of the bare 500 f4 IS shot a bit farther away?"

This test does not address the question of whether all or most 100-400 copies are as sharp as mine. All lenses can have QC issues, and the more complex the design, the bigger is the potential for variability of performance (let Canon worry about its QC). This test applies only to the copies of these lenses that I have.

With the usual disclaimer dispensed with, let's look at the test results.

Shoot-out: 100-400 L IS vs 500 f4 L IS:

Link if embedded photo doesn't show (1.33 MB)
www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/90420274/original






My comments:

To my eyes, the 500 f4 IS is still a bit sharper (note Hamilton's hair at upper right) and a tad contrastier. Surprisingly, however, the 100-400 is not so far behind. The IQ difference is very small, and I'd say the 100-400 is critically sharp, even wide open. This confirms what I've been seeing subjectively in the field, and follows closely what the MTF charts for both lenses suggest.

Now, my question has been answered - if 400 mm is enough, the hit in IQ that I'd suffer in mounting the zoom instead of the 500 f4 IS is acceptable.

Best regards from our islands,

Romy Ocon

[Ed Matuod]

Is these tests applies also too on far away subjects, like a distance of 20' birds(still), i mean how about those wind factors, lighting condition(sunny/cloudy) etc?

[Romy Ocon]

The relative optical performance should stay the same regardless of shooting distance, as long as both compared lenses are subjected to similar conditions. Just one notable difference though - the 100-400 is closer to a real 400 mm when the focusing distance approaches infinity. At near MFD (6 feet), the 100-400 behaves much shorter than 400 mm.

edmatuod said:

Is these tests applies also too on far away subjects, like a distance of 20' birds(still), i mean how about those wind factors, lighting condition(sunny/cloudy) etc?

[wannabird]

Happy New Year Sir Romy, Golfcaochnoel here po. Ive done these testings as you have suggested and you had some concerns about my 100-400 L IS. I took it to Canon service center to have it calibrated (with sample prints taken at near infinity). After a week they said my lens is fine. Hehehe...Still can't sleep po ! Would you be kind enough to test my lens (i'd be more than happy to compensate for your time po). Ive taken some sharp pictures with it relative to my skill as a photographer. If you remember po, sent you that picture of a hawk i took from a golf course> The bird was a little out of focus, you said that it didnt look like a lens problem rather it appeared the be camera shake when i took the picture.

I appreaciate any help po. Thanks very much !

[Romy Ocon]

Hi Noel,

I guess the best way to check your lens is for you to join one of our sorties. This way, you can shoot my 100-400 and yours side by side, and compare the two.... ;D

Romy

wannabird said:

Happy New Year Sir Romy, Golfcaochnoel here po. Ive done these testings as you have suggested and you had some concerns about my 100-400 L IS. I took it to Canon service center to have it calibrated (with sample prints taken at near infinity). After a week they said my lens is fine. Hehehe...Still can't sleep po ! Would you be kind enough to test my lens (i'd be more than happy to compensate for your time po). Ive taken some sharp pictures with it relative to my skill as a photographer. If you remember po, sent you that picture of a hawk i took from a golf course> The bird was a little out of focus, you said that it didnt look like a lens problem rather it appeared the be camera shake when i took the picture.

I appreaciate any help po. Thanks very much !

[mantarey]

That's a great offer Noel, I hope you won't pass this up.

[wannabird]

Hehehe....Im in sir ! When and Where....?

@rey,
Happy New Year Rey..!

[Bien Gutierrez]

Jan 1, 2008 9:32:12 GMT wannabird said:

Happy New Year Sir Romy, Golfcaochnoel here po. Ive done these testings as you have suggested and you had some concerns about my 100-400 L IS. I took it to Canon service center to have it calibrated (with sample prints taken at near infinity). After a week they said my lens is fine. Hehehe...Still can't sleep po ! Would you be kind enough to test my lens (i'd be more than happy to compensate for your time po). Ive taken some sharp pictures with it relative to my skill as a photographer. If you remember po, sent you that picture of a hawk i took from a golf course> The bird was a little out of focus, you said that it didnt look like a lens problem rather it appeared the be camera shake when i took the picture.

I appreaciate any help po. Thanks very much !

A bit OT: I'm happy to report that coachnoel's copy is Sharp! Thank you coach!

[Romy Ocon]

May 12, 2008 8:55:00 GMT Bien Gutierrez said:

Jan 1, 2008 9:32:12 GMT wannabird said:

Happy New Year Sir Romy, Golfcaochnoel here po. Ive done these testings as you have suggested and you had some concerns about my 100-400 L IS. I took it to Canon service center to have it calibrated (with sample prints taken at near infinity). After a week they said my lens is fine. Hehehe...Still can't sleep po ! Would you be kind enough to test my lens (i'd be more than happy to compensate for your time po). Ive taken some sharp pictures with it relative to my skill as a photographer. If you remember po, sent you that picture of a hawk i took from a golf course> The bird was a little out of focus, you said that it didnt look like a lens problem rather it appeared the be camera shake when i took the picture.

I appreaciate any help po. Thanks very much !

A bit OT: I'm happy to report that coachnoel's copy is Sharp! Thank you coach!

Nice to hear that.... haven't heard from Noel lately, looks like he's immune to avian flu! ;D

[Clemn A. Macasiano Jr.]

OT: Using 1.4x TC on 100-400 on manual focus. Does the RED dot focusing points confirm during half half press while manual focusing ?


Thanks

[Romy Ocon]

At least on the 40D, I can't make the 100-400 + 1.4x do a focus confimation beep. It does beep without the TC when the lens is set to MF.

Sept 3, 2009 5:51:43 GMT Clemn A. Macasiano Jr. said:

OT: Using 1.4x TC on 100-400 on manual focus. Does the RED dot focusing points confirm during half half press while manual focusing ?


Thanks

[Clemn A. Macasiano Jr.]

Sept 3, 2009 6:16:13 GMT Romy Ocon said:

At least on the 40D, I can't make the 100-400 + 1.4x do a focus confimation beep. It does beep without the TC when the lens is set to MF.

Sept 3, 2009 5:51:43 GMT Clemn A. Macasiano Jr. said:

OT: Using 1.4x TC on 100-400 on manual focus. Does the RED dot focusing points confirm during half half press while manual focusing ?


Thanks

Thanks Romy ....

So this is normal ? I thought there might be some problem with the lens.

Lucky 40D ... it works. Haven't tried it with 40D only with 5DmkII. I'll test it with 5DmkI hope it hope it will beep to confirm focus.

Again Thanks Romy.


cheers,

drboymac

[psykepbpf]

The 500mm is alot more expensive so I would hope it was a bit sharper, all I know is that my 100-400mm is really sharp and I love the detail in the photos its taking.

[gabriel buluran]

hi romy! i am testing my 80 400 lens for sharpness and used this test. i find my dollar images soft versus these images you posted in this thread.


neutral value by gabsbuluran, on Flickr


neutral value cropped by gabsbuluran, on Flickr

i tested for +2, 0 and -2 AF fine tune setting using my D300s and all are showing similar results. attached is the ff and 100% cropped images at "0" fine tune value. the images are jpegs, transfered via nikon's transfer software and cropped via PS Elements. no other editing was done.

i did the test indoors, with a flourescent bulb as light. Manual mode at f8 and the shutter speed was about 1/2s. gimbal support on 055pro Manfrotto. distance was at mfd, more or less 7.5'.

i noticed you put sharpness = 5. is that an in camera setting?

cheers

[Romy Ocon]

Looks like you had camera shake at 1/5 sec.

Try to redo the test in brighter lighting:

1. 400 mm wide open
2. VR off, use a tripod/remote switch, try a shutter speed of 1/100 sec or faster
3. Use MLU or Live View shooting
4. Shoot using AF and MF and compare results.

[gabriel buluran]

thanks romy!

i forgot to say the VR was off, wired remote trigger.

i will try it outdoors tomorrow, at 5.6, 1/100 and MLU or live view.

hopefully the light would be better.

cheers!

[gabriel buluran]

Hi Romy. I tried mirror lock up, outdoors to get 1/100s at 5.6, ISO200. It was on gimbal support and wired remote shutter release. This is what I got. This was at 0 fine tune value.


ninoy sharpness test by gabsbuluran, on Flickr

Thanks!

[Romy Ocon]

I'm not familiar how a good 80-400 VR should perform, Gabs. But your posted crop has good detail when given a USM of say 300, 0.3, 0, though not as sharp as my 100-400 at 400 mm f/5.6.

How did you focus on this one? The target is 2D and focus accuracy is very critical for this type of test.

[gabriel buluran]

hi romy! thanks again for taking time to check the images out. i used auto focus for this one... i tried using live view, but was unsuccessful. am not familiar with the use of live view...

please excuse my "hi jacking" of the "how sharp really..." thread.

cheers

[Romy Ocon]

Nov 20, 2010 14:14:41 GMT gabriel buluran said:

hi romy! thanks again for taking time to check the images out. i used auto focus for this one... i tried using live view, but was unsuccessful. am not familiar with the use of live view...

please excuse my "hi jacking" of the "how sharp really..." thread.

cheers

If your AF calibration is a bit off, this type of test (very thin target) won't yield the best that your optics can do. It's best to use manual focus or live view focus for this one, take many shots and select the sharpest. I suspect that your lens can do better with more precise focusing.