# ef 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II with eos 80D: Issues?



## YuengLinger (Jan 21, 2017)

Hi, all. I finally made peace with the 80D and think it's great for family, street, still life/food photography. (And I swear, one of these days I'm going to take videos!)

However, the one lens it does not behave well with is the ef 100-400mm II. Other lenses work great on it after AFMA'ing, and the 100-400mm works great on my 5DIII. 

It is only this specific combination that produces consistently poor IQ, usually with what seems to be the type of CA you'd see with a poor tele-extender, and a lack of sharpness throughout the image.

Neither lens nor body have firmware updates available at this time.

If anybody else is using this same combination, could you please tell me your experience? Thanks!


----------



## haggie (Jan 21, 2017)

Hi YuengLinger,
I will shortly get the _EF 100-400mm L IS II USM _to also use with my _80D_. So I am quite interested in your findings, and experiences with this combination.

As I do not have the lens yet, I cannot give you any experiences. But I did some 'research' on this combination and here are some links that may give you some images to compare with yours.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58290619
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1454422/0
http://drkrishi.com/canon-ef-100-400mm-f4-5-5-6l-is-usm-ii-hands-on/comment-page-1/ 

Just to be clear, the discussion(s) in those thread have no bearing on your question. The images may be just a help for you to identify the problem.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 21, 2017)

Thanks, haggie. In theory, this should be a really fun combo.

I'm going to do a series of tests and comparisons over the weekend, as controlled as I get them. If I can't resolve the issue, I'll be contacting Canon Monday. 

In the meantime, any insights from those who have used the combo would be much appreciated.


----------



## slclick (Jan 21, 2017)

I too await your findings as the 80D is on my 2nd body short list and as I recently picked up the 100-400 Mk2. If there is a true issue that will cross that body off my list until a fix is available.


----------



## Plainsman (Jan 22, 2017)

I had soft images with the 70D/100-400 Mk I.
The lens though was very sharp with the 750D.
The 70D went back to Canon who seem to have fixed the problem.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 22, 2017)

haggie said:


> Hi YuengLinger,
> I will shortly get the _EF 100-400mm L IS II USM _to also use with my _80D_. So I am quite interested in your findings, and experiences with this combination.
> 
> As I do not have the lens yet, I cannot give you any experiences. But I did some 'research' on this combination and here are some links that may give you some images to compare with yours.
> ...



Haggie--I've been poring over the images in your links this morning, as it's raining out. Very helpful.

One thing that is surprising in many of the images is the low ISO being used. I still tend to expose to the right, which lowers shutter speed, so I go a little higher with ISO. I think I'm learning with the 80D that this is not only unnecessary, but it might be counter productive. 

The fredmiranda images are a bit of a mixed bag, but I think I can attain IQ pretty close to the osprey series. The humming birds? On an ef-s 55-250mm STM? Pretty amazing. First, the sharpness and color, second the bokeh. Very good post processing too, and, at ISO 800, I'd guess some selectively applied NR (the background especially!) and sharpening. Just shows that budget lenses in the right hands can do wonders!

AS for the drkrishi shots, these are much closer to the results I'm getting.

I double checked my AFMA yesterday, and my adjustments seem right on a target. I will say that I have been influenced by the precision AF on the 5DIII, and using single point on the 80D for slightly moving birds with narrow necks and relatively small heads is not easy. It is very easy to have focus miss the target--but when it does it, the sharpness is good. More AF points works in some cases, but with lots of brush and reeds right behind birds, not so easy.

I am going to try again with these insights. I've shared my RAWs with a local bird photographer, he sees no hardware problem.

Part of what is going on is likely that I am so used to high ISO on the 5DIII for boosting shutter speeds that I need to be more careful with a cropped 24MP sensor. Images with the 5DIII and the 100-400mm II are consistently clear and sharp, but I am still getting used to the longer effective focal length, and what that does to motion blur--so I tend to go even higher with shutter speed than necessary.

slclick, I've struggled with the combo, trying the 80D some months ago, giving up on it because of problems I was having with the 100-400, but then trying it again because with lenses in the 16mm to 70mm I was seeing excellent results when reviewing portraits. (Note that my first copy of the 80D did have problems with AI Servo, which on the other two, including my current, works very well.)

Here is an 80%* 20% crop *of an image with no other edits. I've chosen one with people as it has less chance than my bird shots of being influenced by operator error. ISO is high because a moment before I was doing birds in flight.

ISO 1250, f/5.6, 1/2500th, 271mm


----------



## haggie (Jan 22, 2017)

Thanks for sharing your findings and thoughts, YuengLinger.
With the AFMA being OK I think your assessment that Single Point AF could be of influence is correct.

Earlier today I remembered something I have read and what could also account for 'soft images' with the 80D. 
Apparently, due to the 80D's high pixel count and the fact that it is an APS-C sensor, the sharpness decreases above f/8. I cannot reproduce the physics behind it, but I think it had to do with diffraction increasing with smaller aperture (i.e higher aperture values) in combination with a high-pixel count on APS-C.
This means that if you find the aperture was above f/8 in a considerable number of your 'soft images', this may also be at hand.


----------



## Pippan (Jan 22, 2017)

You may be right about the diffraction with such small pixels. Actually even f/8 is beyond where diffraction makes a difference on an 80D; anything smaller than f/5.6 with that sensor will result in some diffraction. All my lenses on my 80D are softer at f/8 than at f/5.6 (except for the long ends of the 55-250 STM and 18-55 STM).


----------



## haggie (Jan 25, 2017)

Pippan wrote:


> Actually even f/8 is beyond where diffraction makes a difference on an 80D; anything smaller than f/5.6 with that sensor will result in some diffraction.



As I said, I do not know (the details of) the physics behind the decrease in image quality due to diffraction. But when visible diffraction already exists at apertures f/5.6 (i.e. numbers above f/5.6), than that is a shocking fact.

I do not know at what pixels count /pixel size the phenomenon of diffraction improves to levels where for instance the image quality at f/8 still is not soft due to the influence of diffraction. 
But increasing the numbers of pixels of a camera like the 80D to *a number where the higher pixel count actually causes a decrease in image quality* is just plain stupid. Both from the user perspective and from the design perspective. 

Up until now I had no real position in the "megapixel debate" that shows up every now and then. 
But if this phenomenon (i.e. of soft images due to diffraction already showing at a wide open aperture) is mainly due to the increased pixel count of the sensors in APS-S cameras over time, then in my opinion this decrease in image quality is too high a price to pay for a higher pixel count.

I argue this design choice of one of the sensor's parameters would qualify as a straightforward design error in relevant cameras from Canon's "APS-C system".


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 25, 2017)

haggie said:


> Pippan wrote:
> 
> 
> > Actually even f/8 is beyond where diffraction makes a difference on an 80D; anything smaller than f/5.6 with that sensor will result in some diffraction.
> ...



So...The diffraction shows more on the 80D than the 7DII because of more pixels? Still trying to get out into good light for side by side of 5DIII and 80D, which, I think is relevant and "fair," because photographers with a FF often like to have a cropped sensor camera for wildlife and simply for a cheaper backup camera.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 25, 2017)

haggie said:


> Pippan wrote:
> 
> 
> > Actually even f/8 is beyond where diffraction makes a difference on an 80D; anything smaller than f/5.6 with that sensor will result in some diffraction.
> ...



The diffraction limit is the point at which the narrower aperture does not cause a corresponding increase in sharpness across the DOF range. The DOF is actually nothing to do with making an image worse.

So, for example, on a given sensor size* you may have a diffraction limit of f11 for a 8MP sensor, but you have a diffraction limit of f 9 for a 20MP sensor. This does not mean that the image at f5.6 is any worse on the 20MP sensor.
It does not even mean that the effect of diffraction makes the image worse at f16. It just means that there is no improvement by narrowing the aperture at that point.

I have spoken to several experienced photographer and they say that diffraction is not even an issue at f22 - it matters only to pixel peepers and measurebators.


*if you compare a APS-C with FF, you may see a difference in the aperture at which diffraction limit is noticeable but that is only because for a given viewing size, you are magnifying the APS-C image more. You would see exactly the same issue if you crop the FF image to the same FOV as APS-C.


----------



## Pippan (Jan 25, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> haggie said:
> 
> 
> > Pippan wrote:
> ...



Not because of more pixels per se, but because of the smaller size of the pixels (though of course more pixels on the same sized sensor means they will necessarily be smaller). But you have to look quite closely at the image to notice diffraction softness until you get to very stopped down apertures (I have printed a 12"x8" photo taken at f/29 on my 80D/18-135USM and while I could see the softness, it still looked OK and my sister, whom I gave it to in a frame, thought it looked amazing). I don't know if diffraction's the cause of your issue but it may be something to consider.


----------



## Sharlin (Jan 25, 2017)

So let's get some facts straight. All else (including aperture) being equal, a 24Mpix sensor will capture more detail than a 20Mpix sensor. Equivalently, after being downsampled to the same output size, a 24Mpix image will be sharper than a 20Mpix one. At the diffraction-limited aperture (DLA; eg. f/5.6 or so with the 80D) diffraction just barely starts to limit the theoretical resolution of a sensor. It takes a considerably narrower aperture before diffraction has completely eaten away the resolution advantage of a higher-megapixel sensor.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2017)

Diffraction is a constant.

Diffraction is related to aperture alone, not sensor or pixel size. 

For a same sized output a smaller sensors output is enlarged more so the same amount of diffraction is more apparent.

Diffraction is not related to pixel size.

Take two sensors the same size, one with 10MP one with 50MP, both will be impacted by diffraction the same amount. Exactly the same amount.

Diffraction will degrade the output of both sensors the same amount.

A sensor with more pixels will always have more detail (assuming anything is in focus).

Smaller pixels reaching a Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA) at wider apertures is not a bad thing and is not a limitation.

An f5.6 DLA sensor will resolve more detail at f10 than an f10 DLA sensor.


----------



## Pippan (Jan 26, 2017)

Um, I'm obviously not understanding the term Diffraction Limited Aperture then. Can you explain what it is, why it is not a bad thing and why an f5.6 DLA sensor will resolve more detail at f10 than an f10 DLA sensor? Or point me to some info?


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 26, 2017)

Pippan said:


> Um, I'm obviously not understanding the term Diffraction Limited Aperture then. Can you explain what it is, why it is not a bad thing and why an f5.6 DLA sensor will resolve more detail at f10 than an f10 DLA sensor? Or point me to some info?



It is largely an issue in landscape photography.
You have an aperture of f4 and focus on a lamp post 10 away. Only a small region around the lamppost will be in focus. 
If you want to have a wider amount of the image in acceptable focus (within the DOF) then you decrease the aperture and more and more of the picture becomes acceptably sharp. 
There comes a point where if you open the aperture any more then more of the scene may be within the DOF but no more of the image appears sharp because diffraction is offsetting the increased DOF. In other words diffraction is _limiting_ the benefits of smaller apertures. 
Go much further and even the parts that were within the DOF and sharp also start to blur. 

So you will see that 'limiting' does _not_ mean 'ruining the quality' as many people make our.

And as said above a couple of times, there can be a very big gap between the aperture at which diffraction limits the benefits of aperture and the point at which is degrades the image.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 26, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Diffraction is a constant.
> 
> Diffraction is related to aperture alone, not sensor or pixel size.
> 
> ...



True. But the complication is that DOF is dependent on image size and viewing distance - print it larger and view from the same distance the DOF decreases. And diffraction blurring becomes more obvious for the same reason.

So if you take the same scene, framed the same way with APS-C and FF and print both to the same size you will see the effect of diffraction sooner with the APS-C image because you are magnifying the image more. 
Take two identical size sensors and look at a 10MP age and 50MP both at 100% and the 50MP image will make diffraction more obvious. Look at the m both at the same viewing size and there is no difference. 

This is where people get confused and some people who know better talk BS.


----------



## Pippan (Jan 26, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Pippan said:
> 
> 
> > Um, I'm obviously not understanding the term Diffraction Limited Aperture then. Can you explain what it is, why it is not a bad thing and why an f5.6 DLA sensor will resolve more detail at f10 than an f10 DLA sensor? Or point me to some info?
> ...



Thanks Mike. I do understand those things but I've been under the impression that diffraction, or at least the effects of diffraction, begin to occur at wider apertures the smaller the pixels are, and so I'm confused by Private's explanation that diffraction is dependent only on aperture and that an f/5.6 DLA sensor is sharper at f/10 than an f/10 DLA sensor. I'm happy to read it though as I'm using an 80D with its 3.7μm ϕ pixels. I suppose it must be that the higher resolution provided by the smaller pixels more than offsets the effects of diffraction.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 26, 2017)

Pippan said:


> so I'm confused by Private's explanation that diffraction is dependent only on aperture and that an f/5.6 DLA sensor is sharper at f/10 than an f/10 DLA sensor. I'm happy to read it though as I'm using an 80D with its 3.7μm ϕ pixels. I suppose it must be that the higher resolution provided by the smaller pixels more than offsets the effects of diffraction.



That is in my other post. 
PBD is correct that the blur due to diffraction is identical for any sensor. Smaller pixels enable you to zoom in closer and see the diffraction, but within that blur the smaller pixels will still have more detail even if it is smeared a bit. 
It is a bit similar to the noise issue where you can have a sensor with more noise but more detail.


----------



## BobG (Jan 26, 2017)

haggie said:


> Hi YuengLinger,
> I will shortly get the _EF 100-400mm L IS II USM _to also use with my _80D_. So I am quite interested in your findings, and experiences with this combination.
> 
> As I do not have the lens yet, I cannot give you any experiences. But I did some 'research' on this combination and here are some links that may give you some images to compare with yours.
> ...



I had a close look at the drkrishi.com series, and to me it looks as though the focus is in front of the bird, the white brown wagtail image shows this fairly clearly as you can see the earth in front of the bird is in focus. I tend to suspect operator error with some of these photos.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jan 26, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Diffraction is a constant.
> 
> Diffraction is related to aperture alone, not sensor or pixel size.
> 
> ...



This is correct, but let me clarify one thing for people who are still confused. A sensor with more, and smaller, pixels is capable of showing more detail. Therefore, when diffraction starts to occur, it is capable of showing it earlier. Detail that would have been visible at larger apertures starts to blur. With the sensor that has fewer and larger pixels, that detail would not have been visible in the first place. So you simply do not notice the diffraction. Diffraction is blurring detail that the sensor with larger pixels was not capable of resolving at any aperture.

Also, when you enlarge a photo to 100% from a sensor with more pixels, you are enlarging it more, and enlarging the image as a whole to a larger size, than a photo taken with a sensor with fewer pixels.

So the fact that a sensor with more and smaller pixels shows diffraction at smaller apertures in no way makes the sensor "worse" in showing detail related to diffraction - it is just that because it is capable of showing more detail, so when diffraction causes a loss of detail you see it sooner.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 26, 2017)

gruhl28 said:


> So the fact that a sensor with more and smaller pixels shows diffraction at smaller apertures in no way makes the sensor "worse" in showing detail related to diffraction - it is just that because it is capable of showing more detail, so when diffraction causes a loss of detail you see it sooner.



Or to put it another way, putting cheap tyres on both a Subaru Impreza and a Ford Focus, may bring performance of the Subaru closer to the Focus, but at no point is the Impreza ever worse than the Focus.


----------



## LesC (Jan 26, 2017)

I have the 80D & 100-400 myself. Only really used it once to date an an airshow but had no problems with sharpness or CA. I did notice quite a bit of noise at 100% but it was a dull day & this is with RAW files. So I don't see that there's a problem with this combo.

Having said that, I can't see much/anything wrong with the picture you've posted?


----------



## Pippan (Jan 26, 2017)

gruhl28 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Diffraction is a constant.
> ...


Thank you for these patient explanations. I think I understand it now. Unfortunately doesn't seem to be of assistance for YeungLinger's issue.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 26, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Hi, all. I finally made peace with the 80D and think it's great for family, street, still life/food photography. (And I swear, one of these days I'm going to take videos!)
> 
> However, the one lens it does not behave well with is the ef 100-400mm II. Other lenses work great on it after AFMA'ing, and the 100-400mm works great on my 5DIII.
> 
> ...


It may be that the AFMA is not set correctly. 
Tele-zooms as well as any zooms, tend to get different focus distances on different positions of zoom. I mean that you can manually tweak it to focus at 10 meters on the short end, but on the long end it may become even less accurate. 
Those situations could be fixed only by tuning the body and the lens in Canon service centre.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 27, 2017)

Snzkgb said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, all. I finally made peace with the 80D and think it's great for family, street, still life/food photography. (And I swear, one of these days I'm going to take videos!)
> ...



1) Even if all other lenses work fine on this body, and the 100-400 is working fine on other bodies?

2) Have you used this combo yourself?

I remember reading 100 times that Sigma 50mm Art & 5DIII owners needed to better understand AFMA.

This is the THIRD 80D I've used the 100-400mm on. Same results. 

I'm going to do a thorough comparison of the lens on a FF body, and on the 80D, and then a comparison of the 70-200mm f/4 on the 80D to check IQ.

As for sending in a 100-400mm that is 100% fine, exquisitely sharp on my 5DIII, no way. Simply isn't worth the (modest) risk of shipping a healthy lens out and back.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Jan 27, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Snzkgb said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Focus can behave strangely with different combinations, just because its superb on one body doesn't meen it will behave the same on another. I just ran my lenses through FoCal last night on my new body and got a strange result with my 100-400. The 100-400 only required -3 and -1 correction at W and T, similarly my 135 only required +2. Adding the 1.4x iii to the 135 brought it back to 0 AFMA, not very different than lens alone, however, added to the 100-400 made a big swing to -7 and +6 W and T.

Slightly different scenario, but I'm just trying to point out that you can't rely on logic such as body B works perfect with every other lens, 100-400 works perfect on body A, so it must be perfect on body B.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 27, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Snzkgb said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...


It is not the problem of combo, it is the problem of a lens. 
I always go to Canon service centre to tune any new lens I buy to my bodies. It costs me like 30$ per lens, but I know that I will get no problems with AF.


----------



## tron (Jan 27, 2017)

Snzkgb said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Snzkgb said:
> ...


What about having multiple bodies/lenses combinations? Fixing something in one combination may cause a break in another...


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 27, 2017)

tron said:


> What about having multiple bodies/lenses combinations? Fixing something in one combination may cause a break in another...



Canon calibrates it to the reference value, so AFMA should be zero. If you send in both the body and the lens, they should both be calibrated to zero and then checked attached. When I got my 5DIII years ago, I needed AFMA of about -5 for nearly all my lenses. After it was serviced, they wiped out the settings and I was expecting to have to reset the AFMA for each lens, but when I tested it, it was now zero. The worst AFMA offender... my only 3rd party lens, a Sigma Art.


----------



## Snzkgb (Jan 27, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > What about having multiple bodies/lenses combinations? Fixing something in one combination may cause a break in another...
> ...


That is true, they calibrate any gear to its reference, so if all your gear is calibrated, than there can be no problems with any combination possible.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 27, 2017)

The problem I'm having with obtaining expected IQ from the combo is NOT related to AFMA.

For some reason, newer members of the forum often write as if they not only discovered AFMA, but are the masters of it, and feel that it must apply to every single IQ issue involving a lens.

As stated, this reminds me of the 50mm Art woes that were always the fault of the photographer either not applying any AFMA, or not using the voodoo magic USB dock to apply AFMA at many distances for a prime lens, or simply applying AFMA poorly. 

But this issue I'm having is not due to AFMA. Whether on a target or a sandhill crane, my AF is accurate. 

Which is why I was hoping for owners of the lens to chime in and talk about their experiences in varying lighting conditions and at different ISO's and distances.

If kids and weather permit, I will have a good comparison this weekend. Sorry for the delay, but with kids, work, weather, and nighttime, I haven't had a chance to get out in good afternoon or morning light--the kind I would most often be using the 100-400mm lens.

So, please, for the SAKE OF THIS DISCUSSION, move on from the AFMA already.


----------



## slclick (Jan 27, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> The problem I'm having with obtaining expected IQ from the combo is NOT related to AFMA.
> 
> For some reason, newer members of the forum often write as if they not only discovered AFMA, but are the masters of it, and feel that it must apply to every single IQ issue involving a lens.
> 
> ...



I love it! You are so correct...'I've got this golden nugget of intermediate photography info and I MUST SHARE IT!'

(Yet how many of them truly think along the lines of the exposure triangle and other elementary photo foundational tools and mindsets?) 

*note: not written out of smugness because I learn something just about everyday and am thankful for it but out of humorous finding from the need for people to not ever be considered a noob and to become advanced from the first day (or to convey themselves as such


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 29, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > What about having multiple bodies/lenses combinations? Fixing something in one combination may cause a break in another...
> ...



I have it on very good authority that in UK at least, if you take a lens and a body in to be calibrated they calibrate each one on the test rig and they do not calibrate them as a set. And each one is calibrated within their quality control limit. 

If as you suggest they are making sure the AFMA is going to be zero, it means that they must alter the physical set-up of the camera and/or the physical set up of the lens. If they alter the physical set-up of the camera then that will mean another lens in your collection will go from 'perfect' to 'not perfect' when you mount it on your re-jigged body. Or the lens goes from perfect to not perfect when you mount it on another body in your collection. 
The _only_ thing that makes sense is that they tweak the setting and tweak the camera/lens registration to, for example AFMA +2, and reset that as 'zero'. In other words doing no more than you do when doing AFMA but they have the option to change the label from '+2' to '0'.

But every QC process as a plus-to-minus limit on what will be acceptable. This is why third party lenses are cheaper - having a wider QC range means fewer rejects and consequently lower price but it also explains the much greater number of discussion about 'You think Sigma is crap but I think it is is as good as Canon'. it also explains why not every lens and camera is perfect.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/measuring-lens-variance/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/fun-with-field-of-focus-ii-copy-to-copy-variation-and-lens-testing/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/


----------



## slclick (Jan 29, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Thank you! I too had issues with what the OP wrote about Canon's service methods and you summed them up very well.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 30, 2017)

slclick said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



I'm the OP: I didn't write about Canon's service methods. All I said was I wouldn't send in a lens that is sharp and working great just with hope it will work better with a body that works fine with other lenses. I love CPS! My concern would be with shipping out and back, possible drops and banging around, NOT Canon service!

Mikehit--thanks for applying logic to what is done when lenses and bodies are calibrated together. It is my understanding that either Canon just does AFMA or they check that things are within spec, then send an estimate to the customer for the cost of fixing things to be brought back into spec if the gear is out of warranty...


----------



## slclick (Jan 30, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Sorry didn't mean the OP but the poster of the logical service situation. We're on the same page


----------



## AlanF (Jan 30, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> If as you suggest they are making sure the AFMA is going to be zero, it means that they must alter the physical set-up of the camera and/or the physical set up of the lens. If they alter the physical set-up of the camera then that will mean another lens in your collection will go from 'perfect' to 'not perfect' when you mount it on your re-jigged body. Or the lens goes from perfect to not perfect when you mount it on another body in your collection.
> The _only_ thing that makes sense is that they tweak the setting and tweak the camera/lens registration to, for example AFMA +2, and reset that as 'zero'. In other words doing no more than you do when doing AFMA but they have the option to change the label from '+2' to '0'.


You can, yourself, alter the AFMA of an appropriate Sigma lens using Sigma dock (or the equivalent for a Tamron). So, it is relatively easy to reset a lens, independent of camera.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 13, 2017)

People here have long memories, so I'm posting to apologize for not following up with systematic comparisons of IQ with the 100-400 mk II on the 5DIII and 80D.

I don't think, for one, it would prove or explain much. I've concluded that opinions vary so much regarding IQ, and I was use to looking only at FF images for several years, so my opinion doesn't count for much. I've taken some decent birds-in-ponds shots with the combo discussed here, as long as I nailed exposure in good lighting. I would not want to use the 80D, if I had a choice, with a long lens (over 200mm) at higher than ISO 800 or so.

Part of my problem with the 80D + 100-400mm II was thinking I could drastically crop something too far away. Wrong! That's when, in my opinion, the IQ just disintegrates.

Now, if you feel I am wrong, we have different standards, I wouldn't talk anybody out of buying the 80D. I like mine very much for fun photography, family photography (which isn't always fun)...And I'm planning to use it sometimes for well-lit macro because of the great flippy screen and LiveView AF, though, truth be told, these past two months I've been so busy, I'm hardly taking snapshots. Hope that changes soon!

I do think, not based on understanding of optics, that it would be interesting to discuss whether some lenses, accounting for other variables, tend to bring out, reveal, emphasize sensor shortcomings. But that would be a topic for another thread, preferably started by someone who does know what they are typing about.

Now if I could just get all this blasted pollen out of my sinuses!


----------



## LesC (Jul 19, 2017)

I have the 80D & 100-400 MKII and have noticed no such problems with this combo. I do have a problem with a sticking shutter release on the 80D though after only one year but think it's been like that since I got it


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 19, 2017)

mkamelg said:


> If you checked this lens (EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM) on three different EOS 80D bodies and problem still existed there I think that there is no other explanation than problem with diffraction https://photographylife.com/what-is-diffraction-in-photography
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Specifications.aspx?CameraComp=792&Camera=1044
> 
> ...



Diffraction is a quality of the lens and not the sensor so I would say diffraction is not the issue.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 19, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Diffraction is a quality of the lens and not the sensor so I would say diffraction is not the issue.



I beg to differ. Diffraction truly occurs on lens iris, but it is also directly bound to pixel size on the sensor. The smaller the pixel size, the lower DLA number is. That's of course for 1:1 pixel magnification. It does not matter for smaller prints, where you effectively downsizing image obviously...


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 19, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Diffraction is a quality of the lens and not the sensor so I would say diffraction is not the issue.
> ...



Diffraction is a constant. 'Diffraction limiting' does not mean the image gets worse. It means only that the diffraction visibly starts to offset the benefits of either smaller aperture or more pixels. The phrase is much-abused by armchair theoreticians and more so by people who don't really understand what the phrase means.

Are you really telling me that the resolution of a 50MP 5DSR at f8 is less than the resolution of a 8MP 30D (or a 12MP 40D) at f8 when used with the same lens? It is a trade off of two competing factors and I will bet you anything that at the same aperture the blur caused by more identifiable diffraction is nowhere near as bad as the blur caused by lesser resolution. 
In fact, I doubt you could tell me which is blur due to refraction and which is blur due to limited resolution.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 19, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



You misunderstand. I was not saying diffraction is a problem (well, as long as you keep your aperture below f/13-16 I guess). But I disagree that it's not entirely unrelated with the sensor. There is secondary relation, quanitified by DLA number. Now, DLA is not a hard wall, where suddenly all image goes sour, I'm not saying that. But diffraction affects resolution sooner on high MPix cameras than on low MPix ones. Not that it mattered much. I was simply correcting a claim that sensor has nothing to do with diffraction. It actually does, although indirectly. If you look at e.g. Photozone reviews with 5Dsr, then diffration kicks sooner, around f8, while on 5D2 reviews, there is not a reduction of resolution until f/11. And that's all I wanted to convey.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 19, 2017)

This is the problem in that there are so many variables and people rarely state the conditions they are assuming.

My original comment was meant to say that the resolution of the sensor does not change the amount of diffraction it merely makes it easier to recognise. Semantics? Maybe - but when you do not get the correct understanding and language you get all sorts of myths bouncing around and Lord knows there is enough BS spoken about camera technology without myths and misunderstandings adding to it! (same in hifi)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> This is the problem in that there are so many variables and people rarely state the conditions they are assuming.
> 
> My original comment was meant to say that the resolution of the sensor does not change the amount of diffraction it merely makes it easier to recognise. Semantics? Maybe - but when you do not get the correct understanding and language you get all sorts of myths bouncing around and Lord knows there is enough BS spoken about camera technology without myths and misunderstandings adding to it! (same in hifi)



Yes, diffraction is constant, that circle of confusion from the lens does not change no matter what sensor. As pixels get smaller and closer together, the circle of confusion covers more pixels, so you can't resolve all those pixels, but resolution is always equal or better with a high mp body. It is somewhat a red herring, in that other factors tend to be bigger issues unless you have a very small aperture. I'll use f/16 when the situation calls for a small aperture.


----------



## nc0b (Jul 21, 2017)

I shot some children on the Bay of Fundy at 400 yards with the 100-400mm II and a 5DsR at f/8. I was sitting on the ground with the camera stabilized with my elbows on my knees. I was stunned at the detail of a 70 kb crop from a 15 mb JPG. So much for too many megapixels or defraction limited. The previous technical discription of diffraction being independent of the sensor was very informative. Thanks.


----------



## Desiree Vie (Jul 21, 2017)

I have the Canon 80D and the Canon EF 100-400 L IS II, and I have not experienced any issues with the IQ other than those I have created. Such as ISO, Focus Points, AF Modes and such. I got the camera Oct 11, 2016, and the lens May 19, 2017.

My biggest issue on lost shots has been my knowledge of both pieces of the whole.

I gripped the 80D and went Watkin Glen for the Six hours of the Glen on July 2, 2017 and shot 1192 photos, 39 videos. Shooting both raw and jpg, this used portions of two 64 gig cards and one 32 gig.

I tried various settings on single point focusing, and all the metering options. I used less than 50% battery and over 500 of those where photos I am proud of. High speed drive wasted 300 or more. I set up back button focus, but had I chosen AI Servo, less would have been wasted.

In my yard, I have studied and prepared feeding for the birds and have captured several species and I also live near a nature preserve where I have captured Eagles, Osprey, Heron, Egrets and Deer. When I enlarge them and/or edit them in Adobe products or Canon's, to this day, I can honestly state, the only flaw in ANY of them was the with the owner and how to to use this combo to it's maximum quality.

This my 7th Canon camera, from film to digital, and my 9th lens. I bought the Tamron 150-600 SP, and with my T3i, thought I had the world at my finger tips. A friend of mine had the 100-400 II and said, IQ, IQ, IQ, you will not regret it. You may never take the lens off the camera. He was right, I rarely have.

Every issue I can find with the quality of the photos has been down to how I used it, not the quality of the products themselves. None of the issues discussed here. Sorry if I am also a supporter of Canon but for what this cost, nearly $5000, I have taken 5000 photos with the 80D and 2000 with the 100-400 II, and the only problem with the photos has been knowledge of the use of said equipment, i.e me.


----------



## Desiree Vie (Jul 24, 2017)

Red Bellied Woodpecker With Canon 80D and Canon EF 100-400 IS II


----------

