# 100-400 L II in combination with EOS M5 - Experiences



## Deleted member 378664 (Nov 10, 2017)

Hello,

has anyone experience in using the 100-400 L IS II USM lens on the EOS M5?
I plan to use this combination for an upcoming vacation and leave my 5D Mark II at home.

I don't own the 100-400 yet and can't test it on my own.

I mainly want to shoot landscapes and animals (no birds in flight, yes birds, but penguins don't fly).
I will also take other lenses with me.

regards
Frank


----------



## Talys (Nov 10, 2017)

I've mounted mine on one and snapped a couple of pictures for fun, but that's about it. Personally, I don't like the feel -- I think it's too front heavy, but I'm sure there are people who would disagree. The autofocus works perfectly. 

I think 100mm is a little too tele for landscapes, though, even on FF, nevermind APSC.


----------



## PCM-madison (Nov 10, 2017)

I have used this combination. It is less than ideal. Autofocus is accurate but slow - definitely not a good choice for rapidly moving subjects. Autofocus also failed sometimes when the lens autofocus range was set to "full." Limiting the focus range seemed to prevent failure to autofocus. As long as autofocus is achieved, image quality is very good. Osprey photo was taken with M5 + 100-400 L II.

Paul


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2017)

I've never shot it, but see pic (mk I lens shown). You won't exactly save much space in your bag and it has the ergonomic sensibilities I'd associate with hand cramp and high ibuprofen demand.

I'm sure it will take fine pics (and I defer to those who have shot this combo), but I'd still consider bringing the 5D2 for it's grip if nothing else.

- A


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Nov 10, 2017)

Thank you Talys, PCM-madison and ahsanford so far.

I already suspected that the lens will be too front heavy on the M5.
As I will often be aboard a cruise ship a long lens for landscape (espacially icebergs) can be of good value. Then the APS-C cropfactor will help.

On the onshore trips I will then have the M5 (22 [or the 11-22] and 40 pancake) and the 5DMarkII (with 100-400 attached) with me. Don't want to bring too much gear when sitting on the Zodiac for the shoreleave. 

regards
Frank


----------



## digigal (Nov 10, 2017)

I've tried this a few times just for giggles. I certainly have no where near the control I do with my 7DMK2 for precise focusing--but, duh, it's a "consumer" camera so what else would you expect and it doesn't look like Canon has any plans to change that to improve the focusing capabilities and is putting all its efforts into its full frame mirrorless. I was not bothered by the ergonomics of having the M5 on the 100-400: it felt like I was shooting with the bare lens! I haven't tried it with using my finger on the track pad to determine the focus point. May have to play with it some more. Am going to Bosque in a couple of weeks so will take it along with my 7DMK2 and experiment. I usually use the M5 for my landscape shots because it's so easy to carry as a backup unit with all its little lenses and it works well for night shots too.
Catherine


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2017)

Photorex said:


> Thank you Talys, PCM-madison and ahsanford so far.
> 
> I already suspected that the lens will be too front heavy on the M5.
> As I will often be aboard a cruise ship a long lens for landscape (espacially icebergs) can be of good value. Then the APS-C cropfactor will help.
> ...



So long as you have the 5D2 with you, feel free to blast away with the M5. You can always switch the 100-400 to the 5D2 if your wrist cries out in pain. 

- A


----------



## AlanF (Nov 10, 2017)

The M5 pairs very nicely and comfortably with the 55-250mm STM + adapter. The resolution isn't far off that of the 100-400mm II on the 5DIV.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Nov 10, 2017)

AlanF said:


> The M5 pairs very nicely and comfortably with the 55-250mm STM + adapter. The resolution isn't far off that of the 100-400mm II on the 5DIV.



Hi Alan,

Yes I know. I do have the EF-S 55-250. But I wanted to have the extra reach of 400mm on the M5 and I'm also missing a tele zoom on my 5D Mark II. My 100mm 2.8 Makro is the longest FF lens I currently have.

Frank


----------



## andrei1989 (Nov 10, 2017)

i don't have the 100-400 but i do have the 55-250 and it's true: the M5 balances superbly with it
i do, however, also have the sigma 150-600 and what i can say is that a big lens with IS on the small M5 sucks the battery out of it like a hungry mosquito. turning the IS off solves this. with the sigma there is also the possibility to put the IS in a custom mode to only work when the shutter releases. as far as i know canon lenses don't have this option.
you could test the new sigma/tamron 100-400 which are smaller and lighter than the canon, since you didn't already buy anything...


----------



## docsmith (Nov 10, 2017)

Sorry if this ends up being a duplicate post. I just tried to post and it doesn't seem to have stuck....

So, I can see the EFs 55-250 being a nice option, but I also wanted to point out that the EFm 55-200 is a good option as well and very compact. I use it with my M3. 

Some examples:


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Nov 10, 2017)

andrei1989 said:


> i don't have the 100-400 but i do have the 55-250 and it's true: the M5 balances superbly with it
> i do, however, also have the sigma 150-600 and what i can say is that a big lens with IS on the small M5 sucks the battery out of it like a hungry mosquito. turning the IS off solves this. with the sigma there is also the possibility to put the IS in a custom mode to only work when the shutter releases. as far as i know canon lenses don't have this option.
> you could test the new sigma/tamron 100-400 which are smaller and lighter than the canon, since you didn't already buy anything...



the 150-600 lense are no option for me.

sigma/tamron 100-400 maybe. On the M5 with adapter (and its tripod foot) the sigmas disadvantage of not having a tripod collar is not necessarily a disadvantage. But this is only the case with the M5. The tamron will only be released in december. Could be too short before my trip starts in January to read some reviews in advance.

Thank you all for your input. It's very appreciated.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 10, 2017)

Getting a bit closer to the OPs question, I have used the 70-300 L on my M3 and it works well. The ergonomics was pretty good, but I did keep the left hand under the lens. 

No experience with the 100-400 II.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Nov 10, 2017)

docsmith said:


> Getting a bit closer to the OPs question, I have used the 70-300 L on my M3 and it works well. The ergonomics was pretty good, but I did keep the left hand under the lens.
> 
> No experience with the 100-400 II.



I also opted for this lens. But in future situations (not necessarily on the upcoming trip) when I want to use it on FF, the 300mm can be too short some times.

My conclusion out of this thread. I will take both bodies with me on my antarctica expedition cruise ship tour.

Frank


----------



## slclick (Nov 11, 2017)

As soon as I get my adapter I'l chime in on how the Sigma 100-400 is on the M5


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Photorex said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Talys, PCM-madison and ahsanford so far.
> ...



It’s still mind boggling that people can go their entire lives trying to support large lenses with the grip on the camera body when it was perfectly logical from the first moment that I touched a 400mm lens that you would _never_ even try to hold the weight of the lens with the camera body.

Small bodies are ergonomically superior when used with large lenses.
At 400mm the lens is the center of balance no matter what body you use. Using a large camera body just makes the entire system less maneuverable, it’s just dead weight no matter how you hold it.

If the M5 doesn’t focus quickly that might be reason enough to leave it behind, but as far as I’m concerned an SL2 would be far preferable to the 5D2. The center point on my 1100D tracks birds in flight with a 400f5.6 well enough (though when I did have a 5D2 it did focus noticeably faster, and the larger viewfinder is nice).
The ultimate wildlife camera would be a 5DS crammed into the SL2 body.

The next problem is that the 5D2 has really low pixel density, if you’re not going to get close enough to fill a 35mm frame then the M5 would get better pictures.


----------

