100-400 wide open sharpness

I'd have to say that although my copy is acceptably sharp at 400mm / f5.6, I usually shoot at f8 if it's possible because it is really sharp at that f-stop.

100-400L with 1.4x Extender at 400mm (560mm) f/8 (wide open), on 1D Mark II N:

That is amazingly sharp. I likey

Mine is best at F11. At full 400mm zoom, it is noticeably sharper at F11 versus anything F8 and lower.

Handheld, 1/100, 400mm not edited, wide open crop. I say sharp.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Sharpening is at Lightroom defaults, with output sharpening set to "Standard for screen" for all the following....

At 400mm, f/5.6, 1/1000, 800 ISO on a 40D. No edits other than white balance.....

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

Ive never thought mine was soft at 400. Its a great lens!

Neither of mine were acceptable and most of the shots in this thread wouldn't be either. It really is both a comparison across copies issue and a personal acceptability issue. All one can do is try it and see if you find a copy that does the job for you. That's all that matters.

I voted No, but that sounds negative and I'm not, I'm a big fan of the 100-400L.

I certainly don't know any lens that is at it's best wide open. Everything I've ever owned has needed to be stopped down a little.

I've owned a couple 100-400's.....The lens is OK but I wouldn't call it "sharp" wide open, maybe stopped down a bit.......I'm not a fan of the 100-400, I think it lacks contrast and gives dull results....I'm sure tons of folks will not agree with me but to each there own right?

40Driggs wrote in post #7901613
What didn't you like about it?

I didnt like the push pull zoom, i always forgot to retighten the friction ring and when i would point my camera down in would slam all the way out. The lens is kind of heavy, but not so heavy that it is hard to handhold, I just found it hard to zoom the lens while hand holding it because you need to push and pull the lens with the hand that is taking most of the weight of the gear. On a monopod it is not that bad though, i just prefer to hand hold because I feel like I am more mobile while shooting sports without one.

It was sharp wideopen but imo it was not sharp for the price

Also, this is minor but I dont like variable aperture lenses, I shoot alot of indoor and night sports and events and I need faster glass then f5.6, and to get really sharp images out of this lens I usually stopped down to f8

There was not really specific reasons, I just didnt feel that the images were as good as the ones I was producing with my 24-70L and 70-200 2.8L.

Im not saying that it is a bad lens, it is a high quality lens, but for me it was not a good fit and that is why I dont plan on buying one.

tdodd wrote in post #7905958
Sharpening is at Lightroom defaults, with output sharpening set to "Standard fro screen" for all the following....

At 400mm, f/5.6, 1/1000, 800 ISO on a 40D. No edits other than white balance......

Wow, that is one sharp 100-400, if mine were like that I'd still be shooting it

Another one at 400mm and f/5.6.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

It's plenty sharp wide open as long as you don't expect miracles from the IS. It's a long lens and still requires good technique to keep it steady or you will get some movement based softness.

Mine is sharp at f/5.6.....As long as the operator doesn't screw up.
Honestly, if I pixel peep, it is slightly better at f/8.