Canon EF 400mm f/4L IS DO II USM

John Sheehy wrote in post #17952111
It's more a matter of illusion vs reality.

Sharpness has more to do with processing than optics for the size of images allowed here. It is no challenge to put up a 1MP image that is sharp on a web page, even with a basic lens, and even if focus is slightly off. Take any image here from someone, downsample to a sharp 1MP, then upsample to 20 to 50MP, and stick it on their HD, and they will delete it immediately when they see it at 100% or even 50%.

Now, if you're showing a 100% crop and tell us what sensor was used, then we might tell if the lens is sharp or not.

I don't know why this has to keep being repeated. One of the first things a person should learn IMO, being a digital photographer, is how processing affects results.

In that case there is no way for you to determine anything here, since we all do edit our work, which we know will be compressed by the site when we post. I think Medicineman and I are aware of what we are bringing to the table. I've seen his shots in the field, he's seen mine--maybe we are a mutual admiration society. But I don't have any doubts that a DO lens can produce sharp images if proper technique is used. All the information is included in my shots, you just have to read the strip of info at the top of the image. These are from the same image. One is uncropped, the other is a tiny slice of the overall image. And this is not just the 400mm DO on the 5DIII, it's with a 2x TC III. Big file, so I had to reduce it 70 percent. The section of skin does look funny, but if you are a jigsaw fan you can find where it came from. Oh, yeah--I was too close to this elephant for comfort.

'mutual admiration society' roger that.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ES3n​zu

advaitin wrote in post #17952863
In that case there is no way for you to determine anything here, since we all do edit our work, which we know will be compressed by the site when we post.

I am not complaining about what I can determine. If people like to show their downsampled results here, that is fine. It is not a problem. When someone sees a sharp, small image, and concludes that the lens itself was sharp, as one poster here did, they go out on a logical limb, because any lens can make a small, sharp image, even if it takes nearest neighbor and a little sharpening to do so.

Nor do I ... I have the 400/4DO II, and it is sharp enough that I can use a 2xIII converter and get usable hard crops, wide open at f/8. What makes you think that my questioning of drawing conclusions about a lens' sharpness from a small image is a disparaging comment about the lens? You might have some assumptional baggage here.

Another poster implied that I don't "like" the picture in question; that's absurd. What I didn't like is the logic that a small full images can demonstrate lens sharpness, in a world where almost any lens and the right processing can make a small, sharp image.lled another person a god and I said that they were actually human, and people started accusing me of not liking that person (the alleged god).

The harder crop shows a less-than stellar lens sharpness, but usable. I'm all for magnifying optics to the point where they are pixel-softer; that's the way that sampling of optics should be done. It is only problematic when it makes the FOV too narrow or intereferes with camera operation, like AF.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17953210
I am not complaining about what I can determine. If people like to show their downsampled results here, that is fine. It is not a problem. When someone sees a sharp, small image, and concludes that the lens itself was sharp, as one poster here did, they go out on a logical limb, because any lens can make a small, sharp image, even if it takes nearest neighbor and a little sharpening to do so.

Nor do I ... I have the 400/4DO II, and it is sharp enough that I can use a 2xIII converter and get usable hard crops, wide open at f/8. What makes you think that my questioning of drawing conclusions about a lens' sharpness from a small image is a disparaging comment about the lens? You might have some assumptional baggage here.

Another poster implied that I don't "like" the picture in question; that's absurd. What I didn't like is the logic that a small full images can demonstrate lens sharpness, in a world where almost any lens and the right processing can make a small, sharp image.lled another person a god and I said that they were actually human, and people started accusing me of not liking that person (the alleged god).

The harder crop shows a less-than stellar lens sharpness, but usable. I'm all for magnifying optics to the point where they are pixel-softer; that's the way that sampling of optics should be done. It is only problematic when it makes the FOV too narrow or intereferes with camera operation, like AF.

Frankly, your comments seem persnickety to me and Roger. I may have been who you are referring to, and I take it as personal.
I made my statement based on comparative values. Of course I'm looking at a condensed image--and I am comparing it to all the other condensed images here. I did not feel I had to specify that I meant "relatively" sharp. The DO series started out with unrealistic expectations. Its performance is different than most other optics and requires some rearrangement of post process to get the best out of the produced images.
Therefore I think that particular shot of a bird's head is sharper than some other work posted here and in other threads, relatively speaking. I think it shows that the 400 DO II meets its potential.
I also think that the 400 DO does the same thing. To my eye, comparatively speaking, in this thread and on this forum via the compression algorithms in use, there seems to me to be little or no difference in the best results from both lenses.
I don't know anything about the "god" comment--and don't understand what you are saying there.

Great images here. Am on a serious save at the minute probably for this Lens as I tend to walk a lot and hate using a tripod. One question I have is the AF with an extender 1.4 and/or 2 times.

How fast in comparison to a bare 100-400 L IS II (if you have both) is the AF on the DOII with an extender. A purely subjective view as in noticeably slower, bit slower or about the same. Not really a scientific view just your feeling.

Thanks in advance if anyone can answer it.

I have both and cannot tell a difference with EOS 1.4TCiii for auto-focus.
I've not used the EOS 2.0TCiii after I saw the IQ diminish too much for my tastes so
have little recollection on it's af speed.
For practicality you can put the 1.4 on and leave it.
Ironic though, when I put the 2.0TCiii on the 500isii I get great IQ....go figure.
Maybe I was just asking too much of the 400DOii + 2.0TC, the target was 1/4 mile away

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #17954110
I have both and cannot tell a difference with EOS 1.4TCiii for auto-focus.
I've not used the EOS 2.0TCiii after I saw the IQ diminish too much for my tastes so
have little recollection on it's af speed.
For practicality you can put the 1.4 on and leave it.
Ironic though, when I put the 2.0TCiii on the 500isii I get great IQ....go figure.
Maybe I was just asking too much of the 400DOii + 2.0TC, the target was 1/4 mile away

You're basing that assessment on one experience? Perhaps atmosphere was the bigger limitation that day and location.

that and hand held 800mm.
In the end it was an excuse to buy a 500 so all is good.
Plus I don't have a problem formulating a reaction formation to a single event
and acting vividly to help the Japanese economy along.

Here is the pic that did the 2.0 in, found near the first days of this thread-

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qVqQ​Rk

Seeing conditions were not so bad over our islands early this morning, so I dug out my doublers to try out the 400 DO II at mooning.

Live View CD AF on the 7D2 surprisingly works fairly fast even at f/16. The 1600 mm combo is still light enough to hand hold, but I used a tripod to allow me to shoot at a low ISO (and consequentially slow Tv) for better file processability.


Shooting info - Bued River, La Union, northern Philippines, March 31, 2016 (4:10 am, local time), Canon 7D MII + EF 400 DO IS II + EF 2x TC II + EF 2x TC III, 1600 mm, f/16 (wide open), 1/30 sec, ISO 160, Live View AF, remote switch, 455B/UBH45 support, single RAW capture, near full frame resized to 50% and cropped to 2400x1600.

Thumbnail:

Thanks for the answers and having researched and checked the excellent example images about especially from Liquidstone I have come to the conclusion that this lens makes most sense to me. If less people were about in my local area I think I would have gone for the 500F4 but if I setup for any length of time someone is bound to drop by within a half an hour be it jogging, mountain biking or dog walking at all times of the day. So I am constantly moving so the weight factor plays a huge roll coupled with my dislike of mono/tripods. Wether its a good idea as I own the 100-400 ISII I dont know but I think they may compliment each other nicely with the DO on the 7d2 and the zoom on the 70D.

All that really left is to scratch the cash together sell a few things and order the thing. May take a while.

Pity the fish that's hooked by those talons

Chipping Sparrow
7D Mark II | EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM @560mm | 1/1000 | f/6.3 | ISO 320

been trying for a J and a Bluebird last several days....so far nothing

A bit of saving, a bit of selling and a chat with the bank manager and the things ordered. God knows however how long it will take to turn up here in Europe but I am looking foward to posting my efforts in this thread. at some point.