Canon EF 400mm F5.6 L with GFX 100S

[Manzur Fahim]

Hello everyone,

Did a quick test with a different Canon 400mm F5.6 L lens just now. Previous one had some issues and didn't work well. This one works quite well.

Focus areas are marked. All taken at the widest aperture, F5.6.



View attachment b4e67378dd6a49e4a53e143239f73274.jpg



View attachment aec516a3f5ca48b287db0e37602bef82.jpg



View attachment acc8de35e19a47939cf93e2bfb6b3626.jpg



View attachment e0201897d2404045a81059b029ad1723.jpg



View attachment fd68ab14f6f64ac5b05c351f032dc6f7.jpg

Worked quite well I think, some vignetting, but I think could be corrected in LR.

Images exported at jpeg quality 40 from LR to reduce file size.

--
IG: https://www.instagram.com/manzurfahim/
website: https://www.manzurfahim.com

 

[Bipin Prag]

Hello everyone,

Did a quick test with a different Canon 400mm F5.6 L lens just now. Previous one had some issues and didn't work well. This one works quite well.

Focus areas are marked. All taken at the widest aperture, F5.6.



View attachment acc8de35e19a47939cf93e2bfb6b3626.jpg



Worked quite well I think, some vignetting, but I think could be corrected in LR.

Images exported at jpeg quality 40 from LR to reduce file size.

I did a quick edit for correction in post and the vignetting is not gradual from corners to centre so at best usable 1:1 crop (4x5crop not that great though) I think the EF400mm f2.8 may give better results

 

[Hamiltionian]

Hello everyone,

Did a quick test with a different Canon 400mm F5.6 L lens just now. Previous one had some issues and didn't work well. This one works quite well.

Focus areas are marked. All taken at the widest aperture, F5.6.

View attachment acc8de35e19a47939cf93e2bfb6b3626.jpg

Worked quite well I think, some vignetting, but I think could be corrected in LR.

Images exported at jpeg quality 40 from LR to reduce file size.

I did a quick edit for correction in post and the vignetting is not gradual from corners to centre so at best usable 1:1 crop (4x5crop not that great though) I think the EF400mm f2.8 may give better results

If you can get away with manual focusing there is also the Pentax 67 400mm f/4 which is quite good for it's era.

--
Stay Calm and Carry Cameras

The Center Column

Independent Tripod Testing

thecentercolumn.com

 

[alpshiker]

If you can get away with manual focusing there is also the Pentax 67 400mm f/4 which is quite good for it's era.

Nice lens but big and heavy!

 

[alpshiker]

Another very useful test, Manzur, as always.

Have you looked if removing the rear light baffle was possible? It is quite large and this would likely solve the vignetting issue. It is probably either held in place with 3 tiny screws on the periphery of the mount, or simply clicked in.

Paul

 

[Manzur Fahim]

Another very useful test, Manzur, as always.

Have you looked if removing the rear light baffle was possible? It is quite large and this would likely solve the vignetting issue. It is probably either held in place with 3 tiny screws on the periphery of the mount, or simply clicked in.

Paul

Thank you very much Paul.

I just had a look, and I don't think I can take it out without doing some kind of damage. No screws to take out and I tried to force take out the black plastic bit, but it won't budge. Don't wanna force it too much without knowing how to properly do it.

The mount have screws, do I have to take the mount out first?







--
IG: https://www.instagram.com/manzurfahim/
website: https://www.manzurfahim.com

 

[Rob de Loe]

Another very useful test, Manzur, as always.

Have you looked if removing the rear light baffle was possible? It is quite large and this would likely solve the vignetting issue. It is probably either held in place with 3 tiny screws on the periphery of the mount, or simply clicked in.

Paul

Thank you very much Paul.

I just had a look, and I don't think I can take it out without doing some kind of damage. No screws to take out and I tried to force take out the black plastic bit, but it won't budge. Don't wanna force it too much without knowing how to properly do it.

The mount have screws, do I have to take the mount out first?

I have not done one of these, but based on your picture I'd be willing to bet that the screws for the baffle are underneath the mount. The catch is there are electronics in the part that is also the baffle; if the baffle is what's holding the contacts in place, you might not be able to remove the baffle.

One other thing: those are likely to be JIS screws. If you don't use a JIS driver, you might wreck them. Philips is not the same.

 

[Manzur Fahim]

Another very useful test, Manzur, as always.

Have you looked if removing the rear light baffle was possible? It is quite large and this would likely solve the vignetting issue. It is probably either held in place with 3 tiny screws on the periphery of the mount, or simply clicked in.

Paul

Thank you very much Paul.

I just had a look, and I don't think I can take it out without doing some kind of damage. No screws to take out and I tried to force take out the black plastic bit, but it won't budge. Don't wanna force it too much without knowing how to properly do it.

The mount have screws, do I have to take the mount out first?

I have not done one of these, but based on your picture I'd be willing to bet that the screws for the baffle are underneath the mount. The catch is there are electronics in the part that is also the baffle; if the baffle is what's holding the contacts in place, you might not be able to remove the baffle.

I think you are right Rob. The baffle seems to be very precisely cut around the contact piece, most likely to hold it in place. I'd rather not try something and put a mark on this mint condition 400mm, I can live with the tiny vignetting which go away at anything smaller than F5.6, I haven't tried it yet.

One other thing: those are likely to be JIS screws. If you don't use a JIS driver, you might wreck them. Philips is not the same.

Ahh, always something to learn hahaha. Never heard of JIS screws before, and I only have Philips screw drivers set. Thank you very much All the more reason to not mess with this old boy.

Have a great day!

--
IG: https://www.instagram.com/manzurfahim/
website: https://www.manzurfahim.com

 

[alpshiker]

Another very useful test, Manzur, as always.

Have you looked if removing the rear light baffle was possible? It is quite large and this would likely solve the vignetting issue. It is probably either held in place with 3 tiny screws on the periphery of the mount, or simply clicked in.

Paul

Thank you very much Paul.

I just had a look, and I don't think I can take it out without doing some kind of damage. No screws to take out and I tried to force take out the black plastic bit, but it won't budge. Don't wanna force it too much without knowing how to properly do it.

The mount have screws, do I have to take the mount out first?

I have not done one of these, but based on your picture I'd be willing to bet that the screws for the baffle are underneath the mount. The catch is there are electronics in the part that is also the baffle; if the baffle is what's holding the contacts in place, you might not be able to remove the baffle.

I think you are right Rob. The baffle seems to be very precisely cut around the contact piece, most likely to hold it in place. I'd rather not try something and put a mark on this mint condition 400mm, I can live with the tiny vignetting which go away at anything smaller than F5.6, I haven't tried it yet.

One other thing: those are likely to be JIS screws. If you don't use a JIS driver, you might wreck them. Philips is not the same.

Ahh, always something to learn hahaha. Never heard of JIS screws before, and I only have Philips screw drivers set. Thank you very much All the more reason to not mess with this old boy.

Have a great day!

Manzur,

I can see a screw on this pic. The contacts are on a separate block which must stay in place, so if you want to try to remove the baffle, only unscrew the other screws. You will need a tiny Philips 00 screwdriver. Typically, there are four screws and three must be taken off, on other lenses.

I had posted the procedure for some other lenses HERE



Done with some care, this should leave no mark on the lens and it is fully reversible. The possible trade off with taking the baffle off could be a flare issue in some lighting angles, but it should be possible to place a hand cut baffle to reduce the reflection on the shiny parts, and a black marker can also matte the shining surfaces of the mount if you decide to keep the lens. No pressure but good luck if you decide to give it a go.

Paul

 

[Rob de Loe]

You will need a tiny Philips 00 screwdriver. Typically, there are four screws and three must be taken off, on other lenses.

You (sometimes, maybe) can take a JIS screw out with a Philips driver. But you can also destroy the JIS screw quite easily with a Philips driver. Ask me how I know.

I searched around just now and have found several sites that say Canon used JIS screws. That's not surprising; every Japanese lens from any manufacturer that I've worked on has been JIS (Pentax, Mamiya, Fujinon, Olympus, and some I can't recall).

You can get a set of nice Vessel JIS drivers for Japan for very modest money. I just bought this set again yesterday because after several years and hundreds of screws, the head broke on my small one (from the same set, which I purchased once already): https://www.ebay.com/itm/284389016758 I was turning a Philips screw when I wrecked the driver's head. More fool me because my Philips driver was close to hand.

 

[alpshiker]

You will need a tiny Philips 00 screwdriver. Typically, there are four screws and three must be taken off, on other lenses.

You (sometimes, maybe) can take a JIS screw out with a Philips driver. But you can also destroy the JIS screw quite easily with a Philips driver. Ask me how I know.

I searched around just now and have found several sites that say Canon used JIS screws. That's not surprising; every Japanese lens from any manufacturer that I've worked on has been JIS (Pentax, Mamiya, Fujinon, Olympus, and some I can't recall).

You can get a set of nice Vessel JIS drivers for Japan for very modest money. I just bought this set again yesterday because after several years and hundreds of screws, the head broke on my small one (from the same set, which I purchased once already): https://www.ebay.com/itm/284389016758 I was turning a Philips screw when I wrecked the driver's head. More fool me because my Philips driver was close to hand.

Oh I had missed that, thanks for correcting me on screw type not being Philips but JIS, Rob. I have not encountered problems but the screws can indeed be pretty tight on some lenses and it is better to use the proper screwdriver not to jam definitively the screw. Applying good pressure on the screwdriver while unblocking, also helps.

 

[Rob de Loe]

You will need a tiny Philips 00 screwdriver. Typically, there are four screws and three must be taken off, on other lenses.

You (sometimes, maybe) can take a JIS screw out with a Philips driver. But you can also destroy the JIS screw quite easily with a Philips driver. Ask me how I know.

I searched around just now and have found several sites that say Canon used JIS screws. That's not surprising; every Japanese lens from any manufacturer that I've worked on has been JIS (Pentax, Mamiya, Fujinon, Olympus, and some I can't recall).

You can get a set of nice Vessel JIS drivers for Japan for very modest money. I just bought this set again yesterday because after several years and hundreds of screws, the head broke on my small one (from the same set, which I purchased once already): https://www.ebay.com/itm/284389016758 I was turning a Philips screw when I wrecked the driver's head. More fool me because my Philips driver was close to hand.

Oh I had missed that, thanks for correcting me on screw type not being Philips but JIS, Rob. I have not encountered problems but the screws can indeed be pretty tight on some lenses and it is better to use the proper screwdriver not to jam definitively the screw. Applying good pressure on the screwdriver while unblocking, also helps.

No worries! Happy to help.

These screws are so tiny, and so hard to find in Canada. I save every one I pull out of a lens I took apart. Tiny metric screws are available from major online retailers, but the quality of the Chinese ones that come in big boxes is very poor. The metal is soft and it's low quality steel.

 

[Manzur Fahim]

Decided to not mess with the lens, I don't wanna regret it hahaha, although it was a steal for $336.

That solves my long-ish tele issue with GFX. Next I need to look for something wider than the 23mm.

 

[Rob de Loe]

Decided to not mess with the lens, I don't wanna regret it hahaha, although it was a steal for $336.

That solves my long-ish tele issue with GFX. Next I need to look for something wider than the 23mm.

90% of it is knowing when not to get out the screw driver!

 

[MikeReid]

You might check out the Laowa 17mm

 

[Manzur Fahim]

You might check out the Laowa 17mm

I was kind of looking for an AF lens, but Laowa is a decent lens too.

 

[alpshiker]

You might check out the Laowa 17mm

I was kind of looking for an AF lens, but Laowa is a decent lens too.

Michael has tried the EF 16-35mm f2.8 III, and he says the lens is usable from 19mm, and very sharp even in the corners. I have the f4 version. The AF if fast and accurate, overall sharp, but the corners aren't consistent. I might consider exchanging it. But the newer lens isn't exactly cheap, even second hand. So for now, I keep using the Pentax FA 45-85 (here 132 MP file) or the A35mm, on a shift adapter, which gives big files and unlimited width with minimal distortion. Of course on specific subjects.


GFX-50S, 6 vertical frames, FA 45-85, f16, at 45mm, on Kipon TS adapter

 

[alpshiker]

You might check out the Laowa 17mm

I was kind of looking for an AF lens, but Laowa is a decent lens too.

Michael has tried the EF 16-35mm f2.8 III, and he says the lens is usable from 19mm, and very sharp even in the corners. I have the f4 version. The AF if fast and accurate, overall sharp, but the corners aren't consistent. I might consider exchanging it. But the newer lens isn't exactly cheap, even second hand.

Manzur, I could put a EF 16-35 2.8 III to some testing this morning, and it is a much better lens than the f4 IS version when used on the GFX format. The periphery is sharper and more contrasted. Extremely good from 20 to 35mm with simple LR profile (the profile for the EF II version works well at the long end).

Usable from 18-19mm if you are willing to ad a radial filter. I place it just outside the frame and check the effect with the progressive slider, a little exposure and shadows compensation, some warm up for the hue, and you are done.

Interestingly, this lens produces stunning 1x2 ratio images, edge to edge sharp at 16mm.

Well, it misses IS with the 50S. So probably an even greater lens in this regard on 50SII and the 100S. My testing did not include AF accuracy, but I think there is no issue with the Fringer.

 

[creative edge]

You might check out the Laowa 17mm

I was kind of looking for an AF lens, but Laowa is a decent lens too.

Michael has tried the EF 16-35mm f2.8 III, and he says the lens is usable from 19mm, and very sharp even in the corners. I have the f4 version. The AF if fast and accurate, overall sharp, but the corners aren't consistent. I might consider exchanging it. But the newer lens isn't exactly cheap, even second hand.

Manzur, I could put a EF 16-35 2.8 III to some testing this morning, and it is a much better lens than the f4 IS version when used on the GFX format. The periphery is sharper and more contrasted. Extremely good from 20 to 35mm with simple LR profile (the profile for the EF II version works well at the long end).

Usable from 18-19mm if you are willing to ad a radial filter. I place it just outside the frame and check the effect with the progressive slider, a little exposure and shadows compensation, some warm up for the hue, and you are done.

Interestingly, this lens produces stunning 1x2 ratio images, edge to edge sharp at 16mm.

Well, it misses IS with the 50S. So probably an even greater lens in this regard on 50SII and the 100S. My testing did not include AF accuracy, but I think there is no issue with the Fringer.

I am extremely impressed with the IQ I get from the 16-35 2.8 III. Funny thing is I now use it on my Nikon Z9 with a Fringer adapter and love the results. On the GFX100s and the Fringer Pro adapter, focus is very quick and spot on. I find it very sharp even wide open and it is usable from 20mm to 35mm... not bad for a 2.8 wide angle on the GFX..

 

[alpshiker]

I am extremely impressed with the IQ I get from the 16-35 2.8 III. Funny thing is I now use it on my Nikon Z9 with a Fringer adapter and love the results. On the GFX100s and the Fringer Pro adapter, focus is very quick and spot on. I find it very sharp even wide open and it is usable from 20mm to 35mm... not bad for a 2.8 wide angle on the GFX..

That's interesting! Nikon and Sony make beasts of lenses with protruding glass. This canon lens is still relatively small and takes 82mm filters. Well, on the GFX it might require special WA filters I guess. I'm looking forward to take some night shots and the Milky Way with this lens on the GFX.