# 100-400mm II + extender reviewed



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2015)

The reliable and friendly Swedish experts have measured the MTFs of the 100-400mm II, including the 1.4xTC to go with their earlier tests on the 300mm f/2.8 (+1.4x and 2xTCs), Sigma 150-600mm S and Tamron 150-600. 

http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-ef-100-400-mm-f45-56-l-is-ii-usm-test/

On full frame: at 300mm, the 100-400 II at f.5.6 is very close to the Canon prime and beats the Sigma and Tamron, with similar results at 420mm for the 300 + 1.4xTC and 400mm on the other two. The 100-400 II + 1.4xTC at 560mm beats the Tamron at 600mm and is as good as as the Canon prime + 2xTC and the Sigma. 

On APS-C, at 300mm the 100-400 II is as good as the 300/f2.8 and better than the others, repeated at 400mm (420mm on the 300 +1.4x TC). The 100-400mm at 560 easily beats all the others at 600mm.

The results bear out my own experience, especially that the 100-400 II + 1.4xTC is sharper than the 300mm II + 2xTC on the 7DII, which initially surprised me. However, on FF he 300mm II + 2xTC is still king.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 21, 2015)

That's an interesting result.
I am very happy with my 100-400mm II but haven't tried my 1.4 extender with it.
I found with the 70-200mm II that cropping produced a better picture than using an extender.
I had expected the case to be the same with the 100-400mm II.

Do you find using a 100-400mm II with an extender is better than cropping to get the same image size?

Come to think of it I have used the combination on the moon and I was pretty happy with the results.
With a 7D II 100-400II and a 1.4 extender the craters come up nicely.
I have a Kenko 2X extender but it does worth with either the 7DII or the 100-400.
I wanted to try 7DII with a 100-500 Sigma and with a 2X and a 1.4x extender.
I wanted to do it manually.
I have Macro extenders I must see can they fool the camera.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2015)

Hector
There is definitely an increase in resolution on adding the 1.4xTC III on both the 7DII and the 5DIII. If I am taking bird photos in reasonable light, or in poor light where they are static, I use the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at f/8. The extender really does bring out more detail. For birds in flight, it's the 100-400 II at f/5.6 on the 7DII for me.


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 21, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Hector
> There is definitely an increase in resolution on adding the 1.4xTC III on both the 7DII and the 5DIII. If I am taking bird photos in reasonable light, or in poor light where they are static, I use the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at f/8. The extender really does bring out more detail. For birds in flight, it's the 100-400 II at f/5.6 on the 7DII for me.



I agree with Alan completely. AF is too most times for birds with the extender. This is my preference also.


----------



## Peterpilot (Sep 21, 2015)

Great review. Happy to see there is still someone who can produce reliable MTF measurements that can be compared across platforms. This is the way it should be done.

A good find, AlanF!

It's exactly this kind of tips I was hoping to recieve when I joined Canon Rumours.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2015)

It is my opinion that The Digital Picture Site tests beg to differ:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4


----------



## Peterpilot (Sep 21, 2015)

tron said:


> It is my opinion that The Digital Picture Site tests beg to differ:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1
> 
> ...



Digitalpicture.com do what most lens reviewers do. They photograph test charts in a studio. I couldn't find any data telling at what distance the camera was placed. But unless they have a very large studio, it should be rather close. And I think most of us know that almost all lenses, and particularly tele photo lenses, don't perform at their best at close focus.

In other words, I think Digital Picture's review is rather unreliable. Especially considering the fact that these lenses, and the combination with extender, are almost always used for photographing animals or sports at rather long distances. That's why you choose a tele photo lens in the first place...


----------



## docsmith (Sep 21, 2015)

Peterpilot said:


> Digitalpicture.com do what most lens reviewers do. They photograph test charts in a studio. I couldn't find any data telling at what distance the camera was placed. But unless they have a very large studio, it should be rather close. And I think most of us know that almost all lenses, and particularly tele photo lenses, don't perform at their best at close focus.
> 
> In other words, I think Digital Picture's review is rather unreliable. Especially considering the fact that these lenses, and the combination with extender, are almost always used for photographing animals or sports at rather long distances. That's why you choose a tele photo lens in the first place...



As for distances, you can refer to the bottom of the page on the link below:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=972&LensComp=739&Units=E

As for whether a test shot under controlled conditions of a chart at 29-32 ft means something to you or not, TDP has been one of the most reliable online sites I have found.



AlanF said:


> On APS-C, ......The 100-400mm at 560 easily beats all the others at 600mm.



No doubt in my mind that the 100-400 L II is a great lens...but, if you want to use the referenced site's data, this is incorrect.

Not that the comparison matters to me, but a few months ago you referenced the Sigma S "falling apart" on APS-C at 600 mm. Now with this data, the Sigma S has a higher MTF result at 500 or 600 mm than the 100-400 II plus 1.4 TC at 560 mm. 

BTW, the site lists the red curve as wide open and the blue curve as f/8. Since wide open is f/8 on the 100-400 L II plus 1.4 TC and the site reports different curves, I am assuming red is f/8 and blue is f/11 for the 100-400L II. Doesn't really matter as the blue lines for the two lenses are almost identical and the blue for the Sigma is besting the red for 100-400 II plus TC by a small amount.

Such a small amount, I think this lenses are likely optically similar, which has been shown (at TDP, no less). So a lot of credit to the 100-400 II. It is a great lens. But optically similar to the native Sigma at those focal lengths. 

Like I've said before, I'll take the weight and all my AF points. But may some day also pick up the 100-400 II.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2015)

Peterpilot said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > It is my opinion that The Digital Picture Site tests beg to differ:
> ...


Still the MTF charts from the mentioned site do not seem to agree 100% with you.

http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-extender-ef-2x-iii-test/ 

http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-ef-100-400-mm-f45-56-l-is-ii-usm-test/ 

But even if they are very close or equal it is a huge success for 100-400...


----------



## Peterpilot (Sep 21, 2015)

tron said:


> Peterpilot said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I think you should direct this post to AlanF. I didn't make the comparison. I just state the fact that the Digital Picture's test method isn't very reliable.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2015)

Peterpilot said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Peterpilot said:
> ...


But the MTF tests of the other site do not contradict TDP site comparisons... 

Anyway I do have 100-400. Up to now I have used it with or without the 1.4XIII and I quite liked it (even at 100% magnification).

I just made sure to close it 2/3 of a stop to make sure I get top IQ. 

So the results so a fantastic 100-400 II zoom anyway. No reasons for frustrations. I like my 100-400 II very much


----------



## Peterpilot (Sep 21, 2015)

tron said:


> Peterpilot said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I agree with you, the results looks rather similar. What camera are you using your 100-400 II on?

And by the way, how do I reply on a post without getting all these previous quotes?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2015)

Peterpilot said:


> I agree with you, the results looks rather similar. What camera are you using your 100-400 II on?
> 
> And by the way, how do I reply on a post without getting all these previous quotes?



If you use "Quote" to reply, you have remove the quotes tediously and systematically by removing all the " /quote " (in square brackets) except the last after what you want to quote, and all the previous until the very first, in your case square bracket quote author=Peterpilot link=topic=27742.msg548064#msg548064 date=1442857589 square bracket. Alternatively, just click on "Reply" and save yourself the trouble.

I understand where the queries concerning the MTFs arise. They are similar. My reasoning for the 100-400mm being better for the APS-C 560/600mm data close to the centre was: the 300mm x2 at f/5.6 has an average MTF for sag and merid of 0.484 and f/8 0.524. There is astigmatism for both as the sag and merids do not converge. For the 100-400 II at f/8 the average is 0.507 with astigmatism but at f/11 it is 0.538 with no astigmatism.

I have the 300mm f/2.8 II and the 100-400mm II so I have no owners bias to either lens and love them both.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 21, 2015)

Every time I read about this lens it makes it really hard for me to care about lagging sensor performance.

That said: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It's also amazing how well some 25 year old lenses can hold up. the 100-400MkII is great, but if you don't need zoom, IS, or the near-macro capability, then the classic 400f5.6 Prime still gives some of the best "bang for your buck" on the market.
I'm going to have the 100-400MkII eventually, but it's starting to look like the 400f5.6 Prime will never actually be totally obsolete.


----------



## Peterpilot (Sep 21, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Every time I read about this lens it makes it really hard for me to care about lagging sensor performance.
> 
> That said: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> ...



The swedish site (objektivtest.se) also has a review of the old venerable Canon 400mm f5.6 L USM.
http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-ef-400-mm-f56-l-usm-test/
or with google translation
https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.objektivtest.se%2Ftester%2Fcanon-ef-400-mm-f56-l-usm-test%2F&edit-text=

It sure looks like a nice lens even if it's rather old. 22 years to be precise. But it lacks IS and I don't suppose the AF is as fast as Canon's newer lenses, like the 100-400 II. But then again, the price is considerably lower.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Peterpilot said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with you, the results looks rather similar. What camera are you using your 100-400 II on?
> ...


Alan I remember you from previous posts. I do believe that since you have tried so many combinations you are more than qualified to have an opinion which by the way I value. It was just the TDP site which seemed to contradict a little.


----------

