The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
ANAYV Forum Pro • Posts: 22,184
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck
1

beatboxa wrote:

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I sure hope Nikon doesn't go that route. I'd really like a constant f/4, but would be OK with a 4-5.6.

I don't mind it at all. It's a relatively compact and relatively cheap lens at $650.

In fact, I hope Nikon eventually follows suit, offering F/4 ($5000+), F/5.6 ($1500), and F/8 (<$1000) telephoto options.

In fact, in addition to my 200-500 F-mount, I already use an alternate for this type of scenario: my Nikon 1 + 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6. This is a full-frame equivalent of 189-810mm F/12-15. And yet, I don't have any issues with its f-number:

For far away subjects and small birds...I use a tiny pinhead sensor..around 20x smaller than FF

( or is it APS-C)

Anyway f6.3 is max aperture at the telephoto end.

Some would say...Diffraction territory!!

I should have a Big problem with such small aperture

But I see fine feather/hair details at 2000mm reach and f6.3. This handheld...and slowish shutter speeds:

I especially don't have an issue when I think about the sizes of the systems:

Slow/cheap/small lenses on full-frame are the alternative for a crop-system camera like APS-C or micro-four-thirds or even Nikon 1; and they are incredibly useful. Not everyone needs all that speed / size / cost all the time.

True.

So I'd love to see some small/cheap F/8 full-frame lenses from Nikon. Or even an F/11 or two.

Me too

Stay healthy

ANAYV

Cetsix Forum Member • Posts: 92
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck
2

The size and price would be right for me.

OP Jeff Klofft Veteran Member • Posts: 3,706
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck

ANAYV wrote:

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I sure hope Nikon doesn't go that route. I'd really like a constant f/4, but would be OK with a 4-5.6.

I hope Nikon would release a similar.lens.

I don't.  Nikon has a smaller R&D budget and I wouldn't want them to spend time there.

Raise ISO If you need faster shutter speeds with slower glass.

Yes, but you can't control the background blur.   f/8 or 11 is fine for BIF with a blue sky background, but on the ground, I'd prefer the animal (or player) stand out against the BG.

Surely modern cameras have no problem.maintaining good IQ. with 2 stops higher ISO. Even APS-C can do very good with high ISO

Shoot RAW and less issue with noise

Again, it's not about ISO or noise, but getting the image you want.

Unless you need shallow DOF...then only faster glass will.do.

At 400mm 5.6 is pretty shallow (but f/4 would be even better :-))

Stay healthy

ANAYV

-- hide signature --

Jeff

OP Jeff Klofft Veteran Member • Posts: 3,706
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck
2

Look at the 70-300 Nikon lens.  I think the price is close and it does the same thing only better.

Jeff

OP Jeff Klofft Veteran Member • Posts: 3,706
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck

m_black wrote:

Lance B wrote:

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I sure hope Nikon doesn't go that route. I'd really like a constant f/4, but would be OK with a 4-5.6.

It won't be as it is designated an S lens so it should be an f4-5.6.

f/6.3 seems to be Nikon’s new 5.6. And this could take the place of the 70-300. F mount 70-300 4-5.6 begats Z mount 100-400 4.5-6.3. Pure speculation of course. We’ll know soon enough.

I agree that 6.3 has become the new 5.6 and don't like that trend.  Just my $.02

-- hide signature --

Jeff

OP Jeff Klofft Veteran Member • Posts: 3,706
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck

Vince P wrote:

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I sure hope Nikon doesn't go that route. I'd really like a constant f/4, but would be OK with a 4-5.6.

Constant F4 would be huge. I think the Canon lens is innovative and I wish Nikon offered one (As well as a pro option). Yes it's slow. but you are gaining a compact 400mm that is light enough for hiking and great for travel. Sometimes that's more important than IQ or maximum aperture. Ditto the 16mm 2.8 really handy concept.

True, I hike with my 24-200.  That said, I couldn't see hiking with a 400, but I'm in a wooded area.

-- hide signature --

Jeff

lokatz
lokatz Senior Member • Posts: 2,617
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck
1

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I agree that 6.3 has become the new 5.6 and don't like that trend. Just my $.02

And that is because ?

 lokatz's gear list:lokatz's gear list
Sony RX100 VII Nikon D850 Canon EOS R5 Nikon Z7 II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.8G +33 more
Freedolin Contributing Member • Posts: 538
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck
4

lokatz wrote:

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I agree that 6.3 has become the new 5.6 and don't like that trend. Just my $.02

And that is because ?

Obviously less available light to use (also for the autofocus), requiring higher ISO or lower shutter speeds (not always possible) and more DOF.

Also, on cameras with high pixel densities (Z7, Z50), f/6.3 means the maximum achievable resolution is already diffraction limited.

OP Jeff Klofft Veteran Member • Posts: 3,706
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck

Freedolin wrote:

lokatz wrote:

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I agree that 6.3 has become the new 5.6 and don't like that trend. Just my $.02

And that is because ?

Obviously less available light to use (also for the autofocus), requiring higher ISO or lower shutter speeds (not always possible) and more DOF.

Also, on cameras with high pixel densities (Z7, Z50), f/6.3 means the maximum achievable resolution is already diffraction limited.

Exactly.

-- hide signature --

Jeff

NCB Senior Member • Posts: 2,065
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck
2

lokatz wrote:

The Canon RF 100-400 is a $650 lens. You're lucky if you're going to get a quarter of a Nikon Z 100-400 for that kind of money.

Canon's strategy includes releasing a slew of affordable lenses, slower but also MUCH cheaper than what Nikon has or plans to offer. The RF 600 and 800mm f/11 lenses are other examples. They are surprisingly good, given the price.

The current Nikon lenses are very good value considering what you're getting. That's whether you're talking S lenses (which are stellar) or non-S, such as the 24-200. Overall they beat Canon hands down.

Canon's cheap range may be affordable but the lenses do have distinct limitations. You may be better off using adapted F lenses, especially if the FTZ2 adapter gets rid of the bump on the bottom. Or waiting for the longer non-S lenses, which will come.

 NCB's gear list:NCB's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Nikon D3100 Nikon Df Nikon Z6 Nikon Z50 +2 more
m_black
m_black Senior Member • Posts: 1,047
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck

Freedolin wrote:

lokatz wrote:

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I agree that 6.3 has become the new 5.6 and don't like that trend. Just my $.02

And that is because ?

Obviously less available light to use (also for the autofocus), requiring higher ISO or lower shutter speeds (not always possible) and more DOF.

Also, on cameras with high pixel densities (Z7, Z50), f/6.3 means the maximum achievable resolution is already diffraction limited.

Well, in fairness, more light is getting to the Z sensor, and equally so, with a 6.3 lens than 5.6 on F mount where the light has to be bounced down into the AF sensor array. And the wider the AF spread with a DSLR, the less sensitive the AF is. Also, the Z7 has diffraction compensation. A lens at f/8 on a Z7 still yields a sharp image.

-- hide signature --

(formerly mgblack74)
On IG: mikeblack_pw

 m_black's gear list:m_black's gear list
Nikon Z6 Nikon Z9 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon Z 24-70mm F2.8 Nikon Z 85mm F1.8 +3 more
BasilG Veteran Member • Posts: 9,421
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck
4

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I sure hope Nikon doesn't go that route. I'd really like a constant f/4, but would be OK with a 4-5.6.

It will not, ever, be a constant f/4, unless you want to pay $15,000+ for it.

BasilG Veteran Member • Posts: 9,421
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck

m_black wrote:

Lance B wrote:

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I sure hope Nikon doesn't go that route. I'd really like a constant f/4, but would be OK with a 4-5.6.

It won't be as it is designated an S lens so it should be an f4-5.6.

f/6.3 seems to be Nikon’s new 5.6. And this could take the place of the 70-300. F mount 70-300 4-5.6 begats Z mount 100-400 4.5-6.3. Pure speculation of course. We’ll know soon enough.

f/7.2 more likely if they go for that route (unlikely for the S).

ANAYV Forum Pro • Posts: 22,184
Diffraction Myth - The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck
3

Freedolin wrote:

...Also, on cameras with high pixel densities (Z7, Z50), f/6.3 means the maximum achievable resolution is already diffraction limited.

Diffraction is gradual and not easily noticeable, due to excellent Z glass, IMHO.

A good test for this would be subjects with hair/fur:

This shot at f/9 and ISO 4000.

Z 50 and 50-250mm kit lens.

In better light f6.3 and lower ISO would give more detailed results.

Also , perhaps this kit lens is not as sharp at the 250mm end that this was taken in.

Here's one at f/6.3, also at the 250mm end :

I think diffraction is more an issue on paper and less in use

Would you want to see images from a sensor 20x smaller than the Z 50 and at f/6.3 ?

Would diffraction effect sharpness a lot?

I read it certainly will. Big time.

At 2000mm reach?

Handheld?

Should result in soft images, but sharp images are the results. Even at 2000mm and 1/80th shutter. Handheld.

Yep.

Diffraction is seldom an issue for the viewer of our images, IMHO.

Stay healthy

ANAYV

HaroldC3
HaroldC3 Senior Member • Posts: 2,929
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yum!!!!
2

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I sure hope Nikon doesn't go that route.

I hope they do offer a budget option exactly like this.

I'd really like a constant f/4,

you willing to pay 4k for it and lug around the weight?

but would be OK with a 4-5.6.

Still looking at around $2500 for it.  Canon came out with a lens for about 1/4 of that.  Even at $2k the Canon is 1/3 the cost and you get 1 stop less.  Sounds like a bargain to me.

-- hide signature --

Jeff

 HaroldC3's gear list:HaroldC3's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Nikon Z7 Canon EF-M 15-45mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Canon EF-M 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 +1 more
sirhawkeye64 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,287
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck
6

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I sure hope Nikon doesn't go that route. I'd really like a constant f/4, but would be OK with a 4-5.6.

OK... But given the price, it's probably a reasonable set of specs.  I mean it's a $650 lens.  Yes 5.6-8 is slow, and if you adapt to APS-C it's slower, but a 100-400 for $650 isn't bad, and if optically it's good, even better.  I wouldn't personally discount a lens just because it's slow.  Many shooters I know shoot in that range anyway, with many shooting f/8 majority of the time to ensure DOF especially at longer FLs.

-- hide signature --

(If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread, so please PM me if you have a question.)

 sirhawkeye64's gear list:sirhawkeye64's gear list
Nikon Z6 II Nikon Z7 II GoPro Hero8 Black Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 +9 more
Verkku Regular Member • Posts: 266
Good points Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck

beatboxa wrote:

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I sure hope Nikon doesn't go that route. I'd really like a constant f/4, but would be OK with a 4-5.6.

I don't mind it at all. It's a relatively compact and relatively cheap lens at $650.

In fact, I hope Nikon eventually follows suit, offering F/4 ($5000+), F/5.6 ($1500), and F/8 (<$1000) telephoto options.

In fact, in addition to my 200-500 F-mount, I already use an alternate for this type of scenario: my Nikon 1 + 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6. This is a full-frame equivalent of 189-810mm F/12-15. And yet, I don't have any issues with its f-number:

I especially don't have an issue when I think about the sizes of the systems:

Slow/cheap/small lenses on full-frame are the alternative for a crop-system camera like APS-C or micro-four-thirds or even Nikon 1; and they are incredibly useful. Not everyone needs all that speed / size / cost all the time.

So I'd love to see some small/cheap F/8 full-frame lenses from Nikon. Or even an F/11 or two.

i man using my omd-1 and lumix 100-300 for the same reson, bad af amd slow but very often adequate and much smaller than my Nikons

-- hide signature --

My gear: Z7 mark II, D810, D750, F801S, Olympus om-d em5 & EM-1, Lumix G80, Fuji x100s + too many objectives

 Verkku's gear list:Verkku's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Nikon D810 Nikon D750 +31 more
Freedolin Contributing Member • Posts: 538
Re: Diffraction Myth - The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck
2

Diffraction is seldom an issue for the viewer of our images, IMHO.

I didn't claim it to be a visible issue. Diffraction is not a myth, though, but a physical fact. It reduces the maximum resolution possible on the mentioned bodies (f/5.6 does already, actually, even though to a really small extent). The context was why Jeff (and others, including myself) would prefer higher specs over a theoretical f/something-6.3 zoom. Diffraction is one of the reasons. Not the main reason (at least for me), but one of them.

BasilG Veteran Member • Posts: 9,421
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yum!!!!

HaroldC3 wrote:

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I sure hope Nikon doesn't go that route.

I hope they do offer a budget option exactly like this.

I'd really like a constant f/4,

you willing to pay 4k for it and lug around the weight?

$4k? Have you seen the price of the 180-400/4?

lokatz
lokatz Senior Member • Posts: 2,617
Re: The Canon 100-400 is a f/5.6-8 - Yuck
2

Freedolin wrote:

lokatz wrote:

Jeff Klofft wrote:

I agree that 6.3 has become the new 5.6 and don't like that trend. Just my $.02

And that is because ?

Obviously less available light to use (also for the autofocus), requiring higher ISO or lower shutter speeds (not always possible) and more DOF.

Also, on cameras with high pixel densities (Z7, Z50), f/6.3 means the maximum achievable resolution is already diffraction limited.

Cannot refute the DOF argument, though the difference between 6.3 and 5.6 is  miniscule.

The ISO argument is a bit of an anachronism.  IQ at higher ISOs has made WAY more progress in recent years than the trend towards slower lenses did to offset it, which means you are getting better images with a slower lens today than with a faster one of days yore. On top of that, I'm not even sure there IS a trend towards slower lenses: Nikon's Z series serves more as an example of the opposite, and Canon/Sony have a slew of fast lenses, too.

Diffraction won't make a difference at f/6.3. Theoretically, yes. Measurably in the lab, maybe.  Discernably, absolutely not. Depending on the lens, that becomes an issue at f/13, f/16, f/22 or so, but not at wider apertures.

Just to wrap up another point which you did not make but that comes up often: slow lenses do not create much of a focusing problem for ML bodies, whose AF systems generally handle them far better than DSLRs do. Even Canon's f/11 tele lenses focus fairly quickly and don't hunt much on an R5, for example.  Those lenses are also not diffraction limited in a practical sense: they are surprisingly sharp, much more so than I would have expected.

Which, case in point, means that slow lenses CAN get sharp images just fine.

Just don't use them for BIF.  At shutter speeds of 1/2000s and faster, the ISOs you'll need DO become an issue.

 lokatz's gear list:lokatz's gear list
Sony RX100 VII Nikon D850 Canon EOS R5 Nikon Z7 II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.8G +33 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads