That zoom is "Primelike" and other big lies. Roger Cicala sets us straight.

If you haven't read it yet, this is a very good read;
https://www.lensrental​s.com …o-know-about-zoom-lenses/

I'll likely still call the EF 100-400mm IS MkII "Primelike" but even so, this article shows us in graphic detail copy variation and the complexity involved in a zoom lenses IQ.

I wouldn't define these as "big lies". All that matters is human perception.

Talk about that article has already caused some consternation around here in a few threads. I read that and had to have a good stiff drink before I bought my refurb 70-200ii. People love it and take lots of great images with it, but damned if that article didn't make it hard to stomach the thought of a zoom. Or any glass that isn't perfect.

Even he points out, though, that the flaws that show up on a test bench (and especially their test bench) don't necessarily show in pictures... which does mean that, for actual pictures, "the zoom that is primelike" isn't necessarily a total lie. Your 100-400ii replaced your 400/5.6 because it was flat-out better at 400, right? It might or might not have shown better on their charts, but you couldn't see the difference in the end product, as I recall, or you'd still have the 400.

The article certainly seems to call into question some of the many reviews and especially comparisons based mainly on bench-testing only individual lens copies. And it makes me more sympathetic towards people who report returning several copies of a lens before settling on one that they are happy with. Given the amount of variation between copies, there clearly is a chance of picking up a run of poor copies.

I probably should have known all this before ... ...

There's always more to learn.

Crap. That really irks me. Thanks Jake.
Now I have to go purchase about 20 primes to cover my zoom ranges!
Nah - will stick with what I have but sure will consider adding a prime or two for specific uses.
Very interesting article of info that really is common sense stuff.

Except for my macro lens, I've been using zooms for almost a half century. I've never had somebody look at one of my photos and say, "I wish it was sharper." Maybe all those people were just being patronizing or nice.

I'm just saying that lab tests may be important to pixel-peepers and gear heads, but they don't take into account the limits of human perception.

Well, first of all, thanks to Jake's great review of the 100-400 ii I purchased one and it is "primelike".

Fortunately, (or unfortunately depending on your perspective) the camera lens is only one link in a fairly long chain of events to produce a great photo. Small errors in AF, issues with DOF, hand held vs tripod, etc, etc, etc, produce a cumulative effect that all dictate how good a particular photo is. Post processing can also minimize and even eliminate tiny anomalies.

As other posters have already said, human perception is the real key element!

Elton Balch wrote in post #18279307
Well, first of all, thanks to Jake's great review of the 100-400 ii I purchased one and it is "primelike

The best thing for you now would be to stop reading these forums (except to share photos) and just go out and enjoy your awesome new lens! Congrats on the purchase, it's an amazing bit of kit!

I just thought of a new product for Canon. Looking at the 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom chart of 8 lenses, Canon can provide their customer with this data and price the lens accordingly. Lens #1 is probably the best all around lens and lens 6 the best at 200mm so they could be priced higher than lens #7 or #2. So those of us that are really picky with lens performance and willing to pay a bit more, we have the data to do so and for those that are ok with acceptable or within spec, they can save a few $$ and still get a really decent lens.

gjl711 wrote in post #18279356
I just thought of a new product for Canon. Looking at the 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom chart of 8 lenses, Canon can provide their customer with this data and price the lens accordingly. Lens #1 is probably the best all around lens and lens 6 the best at 200mm so they could be priced higher than lens #7 or #2. So those of us that are really picky with lens performance and willing to pay a bit more, we have the data to do so and for those that are ok with acceptable or within spec, they can save a few $$ and still get a really decent lens.

Interesting idea! Just as someone might pay X$ for one car, but only Y$ for one that looks almost the same right next to it.

MatthewK wrote in post #18279326
The best thing for you now would be to stop reading these forums (except to share photos) and just go out and enjoy your awesome new lens! Congrats on the purchase, it's an amazing bit of kit!

Agreed! Unfortunately, we are in the midst of mud, melting snow and small armies of hungry, obnoxious crow families looking for food. I can't wait for spring.

.

The Canon 200-400 f4 is "prime-like", no matter what Roger says. This is not only because of the image quality (resolving ability) that the lens provides, but also because of the large aperture, relative to the focal length.

Zooms are usually pretty slow, relative to focal length, while most primes are rather fast. Hence, no matter the image quality that a lens provides, it is hard for me to consider any lens to be "prime like" if it is kinda slow.

.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #18279368
Interesting idea! Just as someone might pay X$ for one car, but only Y$ for one that looks almost the same right next to it.

It would be more like two of the same car but one will run the 1/4 mile 9.9 seconds and another 9.6. For most people the difference of .3 seconds wouldn't matter but to some it is. Looking at the numbers I would pay a bit extra for lens #6.

I'm in the same boat as a couple people who posted here. I just received my 70-200 f/2.8 ll. I bought it because of other owners raving about it for years now.

I've had my 100-400ii for around 2 years now and I've been more than thrilled with its performance. So, after reading Roger's article, I'm worried about the 70-200 since he says there is lots of lens to lens variation with it.

I did some initial testing and all looks well.... but you know, this "testing" was just a few shots in the backyard, then a few of our cat: the stuff we normally see posted when someone gets a new lens. I don't bother posting that stuff but it looks fine so far. I'll be able to put it to more rigorous testing when the northern Florida rookeries are full. I have a few spots where I can get very close to the birds so 200mm will be enough. I'm looking forward to 200mm at f/2.8 to see if I like the separation I can get.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18279471
I'm in the same boat as a couple people who posted here. I just received my 70-200 f/2.8 ll. I bought it because of other owners raving about it for years now.

I've had my 100-400ii for around 2 years now and I've been more than thrilled with its performance. So, after reading Roger's article, I'm worried about the 70-200 since he says there is lots of lens to lens variation with it.

I did some initial testing and all looks well.... but you know, this "testing" was just a few shots in the backyard, then a few of our cat: the stuff we normally see posted when someone gets a new lens. I don't bother posting that stuff but it looks fine so far. I'll be able to put it to more rigorous testing when the northern Florida rookeries are full. I have a few spots where I can get very close to the birds so 200mm will be enough. I'm looking forward to 200mm at f/2.8 to see if I like the separation I can get.

I dont think the article depicts real life shooting. Test charts are a flat surface and are not done at varying distances. when a lens is shot wide open, things like field curvature or tilted elements may not be factored into that shot. What matters more is if in focus shots are sharp or not.

You can tell if it's not sharp if you have enough experience with whatever lens you use. I've used multiple copies of the 70-200, havent met a soft one. As long as you land AF, with good shutter speeds, you're golden. If your settings are iffy, all the test charts in the world wont save the photo.