# EF 100-400mm II - first impressions



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2014)

My 100-400 II arrived today at the local store, collected it at 2.45 pm, adjusted microfocus on Focal by 3.45, when it was nearly dark here, ± 1.4xTC.

I fired 6 quick shots of the local chimney in the near dark at 560 mm (with the 1.4xTC) at f/8, iso 2500 and 1/25 s. All were spot on sharp. The IS is excellent, at least 4 stops, compared with 3 on my Tamron at 600. The image looks really sharp. I couldn't do any extensive testing as I had to photo all the kids at a Christmas party, but I have just done some quick shots of the centre of the iso 1223 chart to compare with the 300/2.8 II and Tamron on the 5DIII. (My 70D is at WEX being assessed for part exchange).

1. At 400mm and f/5.6, it is not as sharp as the 300 + 1.4xTC at 420mm and f/4. I was only at about 8m from the target, and the focal length appeared to be only about a real 370mm.
2. At 560mm and f/8 with the 1.4xTC it is really sharp, and much better than the Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm and f/8.

I am really surprised about how good it is with the 1.4xTC. With it's superb IS and performance at 560mm, I am really pleased I bought it. A little disappointed at 400mm, but maybe microfocus isn't quite right yet. I'll play around with it more in the next few days to see how it shapes up at 400.

Left hand side shots are raw converted to jpeg with no sharpening whatsoever. Right is applying unsharp mask at 0.9 px and 100%.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 16, 2014)

I'm a bit confused. What are the left and right images on each row? They are a comparison of some type by your titles don't describe it well.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 16, 2014)

awesome so IQ is better than the tamron, how about Af performance with the 1.4? are you using the 1.4 TC mk3?
also that tamron shot looks too blurry for f8 maybe wide open... are you sure you didn't get any shake in that?

the tamron is a bit too big for travel and this looks like a much better option and has panning mode IS which IMO is a massive fault on the tamron.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> awesome so IQ is better than the tamron, how about Af performance with the 1.4? are you using the 1.4 TC mk3?
> also that tamron shot looks too blurry for f8 maybe wide open... are you sure you didn't get any shake in that?
> 
> the tamron is a bit too big for travel and this looks like a much better option and has panning mode IS which IMO is a massive fault on the tamron.



Using the MkIII. Haven't been able to check AF outside yet, will do that tomorrow. The thing about the 300/2.8 is that you sometimes feel a bit sick about what it cost, then you compare other lenses with it and it just wins.

Maybe there was some shake, but I'll never know from now as I sold the Tamron. I don't regret buying it and making a loss as it is a very good lens and I had a lot of fun with it and have some photos I treasure.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 16, 2014)

AlanF said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > awesome so IQ is better than the tamron, how about Af performance with the 1.4? are you using the 1.4 TC mk3?
> ...



cool i'm really keen on seeing your feelings since you know what you are doing, as i'm looking at getting this and selling the tamron too, can you try some panning shots with the panning mode IS at long range too to see how it performs?


----------



## Runnerguy (Dec 16, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> awesome so IQ is better than the tamron, how about Af performance with the 1.4? are you using the 1.4 TC mk3?
> also that tamron shot looks too blurry for f8 maybe wide open... are you sure you didn't get any shake in that?
> 
> the tamron is a bit too big for travel and this looks like a much better option and has panning mode IS which IMO is a massive fault on the tamron.


 I just got my 100-400 II and played around shooting at seagulls with and without the 1.4x on the 7d II and I am very impressed .The AF was slightly slower with the 1.4x but still worked very well for BIF in low light and I compared shots at stationary targets with my 300 II and the 100-400 held its own.I will be keeping this lens for a long time .


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 17, 2014)

Thanks for the comparison shots. I'm really looking forward to picking one up, possibly before the end of the year.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 17, 2014)

I have the 300 II so based on this I don't see the need right now for the 100-400. I used to own the mark 1 model but always used it at 400 and realized I didn't need a zoom.

400 seems a bit soft to me. Still better than the sigma. Since you used focal it's possible the afma is still off some. I would verify that with a better tool, something like a spyder lenscal. I'm not a big fan of focal. I think it causes more harm than good whereas a good target and ruler doesn't lie. 

So based on this initial test I can say I'm holding off for a bit. Thanks for taking the time to post the comparisons.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 17, 2014)

Sorted out the problem why 400 mm seemed soft. The focal length of the 100-400mm at that distance from the target was 370mm, compared with a true 420 for the 1.4x300 with the prime. The smaller focal took the size of the central rings of the chart below what could be resolved. So, I repeated the shots at 400mm (= 370mm) closer to the target so the image is the same size as that from the 420mm. The rings are now very nicely resolved (phew!). Here are the comparisons with my usual procedure. RAW, DxO 10, PRIME noise reduction, exported into PS. On the left there is zero sharpening, on the right 0.9 px at 100% USM. 

I am much happier now.


----------



## FEBS (Dec 17, 2014)

Thanks for sharing Alan,

I'm really impressed by the results. Maybe I will buy one soon for travelling lighter.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 17, 2014)

I am not feeling well this morning so took first photos of birds rather than work!
These are all 100% crops, f/8 at 560mm iso 640 on the 5DIII. DxO prime followed by 0.9px USM at 100% (not necessary but that's my routine).

What's impressive is the Robin was at 1/50 s and the crow at 1/60 s. I took several shots and they were all keepers at those times. The IS is stupendous.


----------



## LovePhotography (Dec 17, 2014)

AlanF said:


> I am not feeling well this morning so took first photos of birds rather than work!
> These are all 100% crops, f/8 at 560mm iso 640 on the 5DIII. DxO prime followed by 0.9px USM at 100% (not necessary but that's my routine).
> 
> What's impressive is the Robin was at 1/50 s and the crow at 1/60 s. I took several shots and they were all keepers at those times. The IS is stupendous.



Looks like they may have focused a couple inches forward of the subject. (See the gutter on the crow, and the branch for the squirrel).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 17, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I am not feeling well this morning so took first photos of birds rather than work!
> ...



I focussed on the squirrels nose, which is very sharp. As he is leaning forwards, the plane of focus is forward of his body. The crow was very close, and the depth of field very thin.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 17, 2014)

AlanF sorry to hear how unwell you are, not able to work!  Reminds me of my kids years back.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Dec 17, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> AlanF sorry to hear how unwell you are, not able to work!  Reminds me of my kids years back.
> 
> Jack



It's the first time I have been ill for ages and am meant to hosting a 120 people at a party tonight. Everything now depends on the therapeutic efficacy of my wife's chicken soup.


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 17, 2014)

AlanF said:


> I am not feeling well this morning so took first photos of birds rather than work!
> These are all 100% crops, f/8 at 560mm iso 640 on the 5DIII. DxO prime followed by 0.9px USM at 100% (not necessary but that's my routine).
> 
> What's impressive is the Robin was at 1/50 s and the crow at 1/60 s. I took several shots and they were all keepers at those times. The IS is stupendous.



If I can get my hands on a copy that is as sharp without a TC as yours is with the 1.4x, I'll be a happy camper!

Feel better!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 17, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Sorted out the problem why 400 mm seemed soft. The focal length of the 100-400mm at that distance from the target was 370mm, compared with a true 420 for the 1.4x300 with the prime. The smaller focal took the size of the central rings of the chart below what could be resolved. So, I repeated the shots at 400mm (= 370mm) closer to the target so the image is the same size as that from the 420mm. The rings are now very nicely resolved (phew!). Here are the comparisons with my usual procedure. RAW, DxO 10, PRIME noise reduction, exported into PS. On the left there is zero sharpening, on the right 0.9 px at 100% USM.
> ...



8-10 m

I'll check out the focal length at infinity soon.


----------



## Plainsman (Dec 17, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...




Thanks Alan but really I would not bother doing an infinity check - its a Canon so its bound to be as stated on the lens!!


----------



## Cosmicbug (Dec 17, 2014)

Thanks for the tests and so far so good though I am hoping 400mm is as stated at longer distances.
...
Would be great to see comparisons with the Mk1 and 400 f5.6 prime


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2014)

The comparisons are now out on The-Digital-Picture site - no full review but the iso1223 crops.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972

*vs 400/5.6*

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=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

nothing between them

*vs 200-400 @ 200*

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Nothing between them

*vs 200-400 @ 400*

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=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

very little between them

*vs 200-400 @ 560*

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

200-400 has edge in corners

*vs 200-400 @ 800*

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

200-400 significantly better in corners and will AF

*vs 100-400 I @ 400*

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

Mk II significantly better.

*vs 100-400 I @ 560*

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=8&APIComp=2

Mk II significantly better.

So, the new zoom is as sharp as the old favourite 400/5.6 and has 4 stops at least of IS and zoom. It stands up well against the 200-400 at 5x the the price (and a multiple of the weight).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2014)

Cosmicbug said:


> Thanks for the tests and so far so good though I am hoping 400mm is as stated at longer distances.
> ...
> Would be great to see comparisons with the Mk1 and 400 f5.6 prime



It is 400 at longer distances.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 18, 2014)

Hi Alan

Thanks for the test shots. Any impressions of the AF speed and accuracy with the 1.4x TC?

Thanks


----------



## Mykel (Dec 18, 2014)

Hello Guy's
I am very happy with mine so far, shot it yesterday with the 1.4 mk3 and my 7Dmk2 and looks pretty sharp to me?


----------



## balvert (Dec 19, 2014)

UPS finally showed up. I spent the better part of the afternoon shooting with the new lens, mostly at 400. Shots at both minimum focus distance and far were very sharp. Nice contrast and color. Did a comparison to my 400 f/5.6 and I could not tell the difference. I am a happy camper with this new lens. I do need to build up some strength in the left arm. This is a heavy sucker compared to the 400 f/5.6 my wife stole from me. Casey


----------



## weixing (Dec 19, 2014)

Hi,
Any 7D2 user with the EF 100-400mm II and 1.4x TC?? 

According to TDP, the aperture at 300mm for this lens is F5.0, so with 1.4x TC, it'll be 420mm F7.1. 7D2 can only use the center AF point at F8, so just wonder will 7D2 able to use other AF points at 420mm F7.1??

Have a nice day.


----------



## balvert (Dec 21, 2014)

I have spent the past few days shooting with new lens. Nature stuff; primarily birds. I am thoroughly pleased with image quality and the fast autofocus. The lens also works well with my TC M3, maintaining acceptable sharpness although the AF is considerably slower. It also does a nice job of closeup subjects such as flowers. While not in the same league as my 100mm f/2.8L, it still makes closeup I mages that are sharp with pleasing color and contrast. I think Canon hit a home run with this lens.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 21, 2014)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> Any 7D2 user with the EF 100-400mm II and 1.4x TC??
> 
> According to TDP, the aperture at 300mm for this lens is F5.0, so with 1.4x TC, it'll be 420mm F7.1. 7D2 can only use the center AF point at F8, so just wonder will 7D2 able to use other AF points at 420mm F7.1??
> ...



um why not take the TC off and use it at 400 and f5.6 and have access to all the points and faster AF... ?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 21, 2014)

My 7D II arrived yesterday, and I did a series of experiments to decide when to use it rather than the 5D III and with what lenses and with or without TCs.

First I did a series of shots with the iso12233 chart at distance where 100-400 II on the 5DIII was on the verge of being resolved (not close up like with TDP, and all the shots were from the same distance, and not at different distances as done by TDP for the chart to fill the frame). I compared the 300mm f/2.8 with the 100-400.
a) The bare 300mm on the 7DII outresolved the 100-400 on the 5DIII, as expected, as did the 100-400 on the 7D II. 
b) The 100-400 is not as good as the 300/2.8 + 1.4xTC, but is still a very good performer.
c) The 100-400 + 1.4xTC outresolved the bare 100-400.

The next question is as the 100-400 + 1.4xTC outresolved the bare 100-400 on the 7D II, should I always use the TC for bird photography? For the 300mm on the 5DIII, I always use the 2xTC at 600mm and f/5.6. But, there are real differences for the 100-400 on the 7DII - addition of the TC increases the f number to 8, affecting the AF and gives a very narrow field of view from the equivalent of a 900mm on FF. In the next collage, I compared the effect of the TC closer to the iso12233 chart where resolution was not as critical. There isn't much difference between the 100-400 + 1.4xTC (at f/8) and the bare 100-400 (f/5.6) upresolved 1.4x using PS. So, I argue that using the bare 100-400 I would be losing a small amount of resolution but would be gaining 1 stop in iso, better AF, less effects from camera shake and, also very important, a wider field of view. My conclusion is that I will use the 100-400mm bare on the 7D II, with a fov of a 640mm on a FF. 

Edit - I posted this reply to weixing within seconds of wickidwombat's - and clearly agree with him. My combos are going to be the 5DIII + 300mm+2xTC for optimal (for me) or the 7D II +100-400 II for longer hikes or travel, what luxury!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 24, 2014)

TDP has just published image quality of the 100-400 II on the 7DII. The quality is remarkable for a crop, and the 100-400 II on the 7DII at 400mm (fov = 640mm) and f/5.6 is actually better than the Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm f/8 on FF.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

At 300mm (fov = 480mm) f/5 it beats the Tamron at 500mm f/6.3 on FF. 

This squares with my own measurements of the 100-400 II on the 7d II vs the 100-400 I on the 7D, where the new combo wins hands down (my 100-400 I was admittedly soft).


----------

