# Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 30, 2014)

```
<p>Bryan at the-digital-picture.com has completed his review of the brand new Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens.</p>
<p><strong>From TDP

</strong><em>“The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II is in an elite class of lenses, capable of producing prime-grade image quality at all available aperture and focal length settings. Put a very useful focal length range into a ruggedly-built, pro-grade lens with fast and accurate AF, very effective image stabilization and very impressive image quality and it is destined to be a very popular model. I highly recommend this lens….” </em><strong> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><strong><strong>Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II $2199: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1092632-REG/canon_9524b002_ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA1004002U.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PF39PEY/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00PF39PEY&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=DR7JYMNZQZ4LVBHE" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## chrysoberyl (Dec 30, 2014)

Mr. Carnathan certainly loves Canon!

Too bad this lens is sharpest at the wide end. I have a 70-200/2.8 II that fills that need. I was hoping for very sharp at 400mm. The new Sigma is looking better and better.

John


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 30, 2014)

I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar. Not much of a saving space wise in one's camera bag either. 

Yet one cannot ignore the seemingly superb AF system or the zoom capability. 

I need to think long and hard now.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Dec 30, 2014)

The zoom is not so important to me, but the AF, combined with the 7D II abilities - exciting for BIF in good light! I am eager to see Lenstip's review.

John


----------



## jmontagu13 (Dec 30, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar. Not much of a saving space wise in one's camera bag either.
> 
> Yet one cannot ignore the seemingly superb AF system or the zoom capability.
> 
> I need to think long and hard now.



Coming from the 400 5.6L to this lens, I can say the 2.5 inches makes it feel quit a bit shorter in the bag. I can pop my 50mm lens in the extra space now. I love the versatility of this lens compared to the 400 prime. Haven't shot enough birds yet to see if the AF is that much faster or same. The biggest difference between them is the IS. I shot last weekend in heavy cloud cover and was shooting in 1/160 to 1/320 shutter speeds, which would have been messy with the 400 prime, unless on a tripod. The pictures blew me away as I am so used to high ISO or blurred images in the past in those situations.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2014)

chrysoberyl said:


> Mr. Carnathan certainly loves Canon!
> 
> Too bad this lens is sharpest at the wide end. I have a 70-200/2.8 II that fills that need. I was hoping for very sharp at 400mm. The new Sigma is looking better and better.
> 
> John



Just about everyone who has reviewed the Sigma has complained that it is too heavy for hand-held use - not only is it heavy but the heaviest part, the front lens elements, protrude out very far unbalancing an already heavy lens. The beauty of the Tamron 150-600mm and now even more so the 100-400 II is their portability combined with pretty good IQ.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2014)

jmontagu13 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar. Not much of a saving space wise in one's camera bag either.
> ...



+1
I have been taking photos of small birds a meter away in bushes at 1/20 s hand held. Try that on the old f/5.6. First, you couldn't get nearly that close and for further away targets you would have to go 4 stops higher in iso to get to a fast enough shutter speed.


----------



## Omni Images (Dec 30, 2014)

I personally am VERY VERY happy with my new 100-400 II
I think it blows away many other lenses just for the fact that it can focus down to .98m ... amazing !
It makes being able to capture full frame tiny birds easy.
You can get within 1m to 1.5m with some of small birds and other more tame ones ... the other lenses you'd have to be 3.5m away, making small birds/animals etc way too small to get a decent image.
So that above all else is this lens's strong point.
I am using it a lot with a 1.4III converter and not finding any/much difference in AF speed or image quality.
I do prefer primes to zooms, so if a new 400 prime came out I would consider it, but now ONLY if it could focus down to 1m like this one can ... I have always drooled over the 400F2.8 ... but with all the "big whites" long min focus distance, I'm not impressed with any of them now after this one ... I'd miss upwards of 25-50% of shots I am now taking or capable of taking of wildlife with this lens.
I wouldn't touch a tamron or sigma.
Images below are cropped slightly and I used a 1.4III converter on a 1D4 ... none of these shots would have been able using any other big white ... I would have had to have backed off another 2 meters or so.


----------



## monkey44 (Dec 30, 2014)

Finally got a little time out with 100-400 v2 -- and after more than ten years with V.1, it simply floors me -- at first, I thought -- hmmm, pretty close, now, not so easy a choice, no choice actually. Altho my V.1 copy has shot some fine images over the years.

I know a lot of guys want to hear 'tech stuff', but I can't offer that, my experience in the field tells me all I need to know just looking at the subject. I understand the basics of camera and lens technology, and know as much as I need to function well in the field -- but to define the tech aspect of any given image, and try to state "why it looks this way, or that way" just is not my place. but, I can say, this lens will give you some very nice images and prints, and a pleasant experience when you use it no matter how we define the physics, and some one more knowledgeable about that will probably pop in soon enough (and some have elsewhere). 

I've been playing with the 7D2, figuring out the AF and other options and settings for a month or so ... got the lens less than two weeks, and have only had it out in the field twice. This second time convinces me completely it serves its purpose very, very well. Sharp, very fast focus, clean images -- nice bokeh as well. I'd not thought any lens would beat out my 70-200 f.4 IS ... but this one makes it tough to chose between them under at least some conditions.

It's got me locked in -- and it seems very sharp even at full out 400m -- have not tried it with 1.4x yet, but will soon. Field time has been cut short with a knee injury, and keeps me down and less active for a bit ... Total Bummer !! No question about the IQ or the ability of this lens tho -- none. Will probably at least "tie" for my favorite lens now, with the 70-200 on a 5DM3 and 100-400 on the 7D2, gives a right nice coverage of a lot of distance -- makes me a happy camper.

For those that care: It seems easy to use this lens as a push-pull or the rotate ... just loosen the collar, and it slides easily. Personally, I like the rotation best -- but caught myself reverting to pushing and pulling out of habit. Seems not to matter ... and 7D2 and 100-400 are a perfect match -- no doubt.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar.



That's because they're both very close to "perfect" (diffraction-limited).

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

Although, it sure looks like the zoom is quite a but better on crop (I know - 7DII versus 60D):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2014)

Here are my thoughts.

My current long-reach system is a 20D + 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC III (well, ignoring the REALLY big stuff).

I'm thinking a 7DII + 100-400L II + 1.4x TC III will just about double my reach. And what I have is already pretty impressive to me.

So, I'll be buying both at some point.


----------



## Omni Images (Dec 31, 2014)

Lee Jay
I'm thinking a 7DII + 100-400L II + 1.4x TC III will just about double my reach.

That new set-up will smash it ... !
I was using a 2xIII on a series one 70-200F2.8 and the 2x just trashed it .. in image quality and slow AF wise.
It got to the point where I was doing better with just the 70-200 and cropping.
Now using the 100-400II with and without the 1.4III images are so much better and reach is so much more. I have even used the 2xIII in manual focus, they are ok too.
I was hesitant to use a 1.4tc as the 2x tc hit me so hard with IQ and AF ... but I am really surprised how little a hit in IQ and AF the 1.4tc is.
I'm sure all three in combination would be fantastic


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 31, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar.
> ...



Hmmmmmm...seems the 400mm f/5.6 is sharper...


----------



## Eldar (Dec 31, 2014)

Not once have Bryan´s reviews at TDP, of any of the lenses I have bought and used, told my anything else than what i have experienced. His thorough review with the addition of the experiences of some of you who have had it for a while and also posted images, makes this a very tempting lens, especially matched with the 7DII for travelling. My 200-400 f4L 1.4x is a considerable chunk of glass to carry in many cases.


----------



## weixing (Dec 31, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...


Hi,
On full frame, the 400mm f5.6L seem a bit sharper, but on crop, the 100-400 II look sharper. Too bad TDP don't have the test shot of the Tamron 150-600mm for crop camera... 

Have a nice day.


----------



## vscd (Dec 31, 2014)

For me the new 100-400 is a quite interesting lense to replace the 70-200 f2.8 range from the Holy Trinity. Using the 70-200 (or in my case the 80-200L) I recognized that I far more used the longer end instead of the wide one.

The difference between 80mm and 100mm is not that big, but the 400mm are quite a number on airshows or other larger places. Now this lense even comes near to a useable Makro and has an improved IS+AF.

Has anyone experiences with this lens, handhold on a location? It seems to be quite heavy as the only drawback. And is the AF+IS better than the last 70-200 L IS II?


----------



## docsmith (Dec 31, 2014)

AlanF said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Carnathan certainly loves Canon!
> ...


I wouldn't say they complained that it is too heavy for hand-held use. Actually, they used it hand held and certainly noted its weight. I am one of the few with the 150-600S and have only used it hand held. Sure it is heavy, but I've gotten used to it. It is a heckuva lens. Believe me, I am tempted by the 100-400II because of its size and MFD, but so far I am sticking with the 150-600S. 

Bryan's reviews are almost always reflective of my own experiences. If he loves the lens, I have little doubt I would too. My only issue is that I really wanted more reach than 400 mm. So, I am watching the IQ and the AF performance of the 100-400II +1.4TC. But all that time, I am shooting and liking the 150-600S more and more.


----------



## sanj (Dec 31, 2014)

weixing said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I did not know that lenses change sharpness qualities FF vs crop. Hmmmm.


----------



## vscd (Dec 31, 2014)

> I did not know that lenses change sharpness qualities FF vs crop. Hmmmm.



They recognize the body and adjust the optical formula inside the tube ;D

Ok, fun aside. I think this statement goes toward the direction that no fullframe from Canon has enough MPixel that cropping from fullframe would be as good as taking a real APS-C. 

LP/imagehight is, as the name suggests, dependent from the sensorsize.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2014)

Omni Images said:


> Lee Jay
> I'm thinking a 7DII + 100-400L II + 1.4x TC III will just about double my reach.
> 
> That new set-up will smash it ... !
> ...



I seem to have better luck with TCs than most. I've used both versions of the 70-200/2.8IS with 2x TCs with excellent results. I use them at optimum apertures which was f/9 on the old one. The new one is as sharp with a 2x as the old 100-400L was bare.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2014)

You should stick with your 70-200 + 2xTC if that's your preferred option. There's not much I can take with my 100-400 at the moment over here, but this is my local Robin waiting for his birdseed. It's pretty dark, iso1600 at 1/125s f/5.6 100-400mm II on 5DIII. There is no direct light on him to give contrast. It's a real 3D bird close up, about 3m away, so not all of him is in focus (I focussed on his eye).


----------



## hoodlum (Dec 31, 2014)

sanj said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



The crop images would be taken at a further distance. So distance comes into play here as well.


----------



## anolis23 (Dec 31, 2014)

When comparing the 400 prime with the new zoom. I think they look pretty much equal at full frame and better on crop. Which is quite amazing that a zoom lens and equal a prime lens like the 400mm 5.6, which is known to be one of the best options at this range and price point. 

This is what I was hoping to hear actually, don't feel disappointed that it isn't much sharper, I just wanted it to be as good as the prime since the previous version wasn't and thats why I went with the prime. 

But now, I am selling my 400 5.6 and getting this one since sharpness isn't a factor, price definitely is ... But I think that the weather sealing, IS, focal range and close focus abilities make this lens a great choice for birders that do lots of work handheld in the field. It is shorter to, so its easier to pack, even though its a bit heavier.


----------



## Flyingskiguy (Dec 31, 2014)

Hello all, long time reader of canonrumors here. Decided to make an account today.

I recently purchased the 100-400 ii, and during my pre-purchase research, I came across Photozone's Imatest results for both lenses. 

100-400 ii:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1

400 5.6L:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1

It appears, according to their data, that the new 100-400 is sharper than the 400 prime in the center of the frame at f/5.6 (3450 vs. 3084). However, the prime makes up for this with greater mid-frame and corner sharpness. 

It is also interesting to note, for the sake of comparison, that the 100-400ii @200mm has greater center and mid-frame sharpness than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS ii @200mm. 

70-200 f/2.8 IS ii data:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/510-canon_70200_2is28?start=1


As always, this is data from but one source, and should be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## PhotosbyChuck (Dec 31, 2014)

vscd said:


> Has anyone experiences with this lens, handhold on a location? It seems to be quite heavy as the only drawback. And is the AF+IS better than the last 70-200 L IS II?



As I am used to shooting the 70-200 II, I find that hand holding the 100-400 II is actually slightly easier. It's a hair lighter (not much) but more importantly, the zoom ring is close to the lens hood. This distributes the weight better and makes the camera/lens combo feel more balanced. The 70-200 II has the zoom ring close to the camera, which puts a lot of weight past your hands.

Of course, if you're shooting the 80-200mm f4.5-5.6, you'll find either lens heavy. 

As for AF, the lenses perform pretty much identically as far as I can tell. They're near instant. 

On the IS, both are rated at 4 stops. I'm not sure I really ever need 4 stops on the 70-200, but on the 100-400 it's much more likely since movement is more noticeable. The 100-400 II does have a 3rd mode for IS (exposure only). It should save battery life and eliminate the sluggish behavior that can occur if you are panning while holding the shutter button halfway.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 31, 2014)

It looks great, but what I really want is more reach, which means a Big White, not a Little White. So, my beloved 400 mm f/5.6L still has an honored place, and I am still saving for the Big White.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2014)

docsmith said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



If you can afford it, get both. I cart around as well the 300/2.8 II, which is of similar weight and volume to the Sigma (but with better balance), for when I want the best resolution on kit that can be hand held by me. But, the 100-400 II is just so much easier for travel, much lighter for hand holding and so good that it is more of a pleasure to use. And it takes the 1.4xTC so well that it is competitive at longer f. 

The 100-400 II has 4 1/3 stops stabilization (according to TDP, and in my experience too) whereas the Sigma has only ~2.5 according to lenstip (Sigma doesn't state a figure). I bet your image jumps around a bit when you are holding the Sigma at 600mm with IS on - I found it did with the Tamron which has about 3 stops IS. The image is rock solid with the 100-400 + 1.4xTC or the 300/2.8 + 2xTC on my 5DIII.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 31, 2014)

AlanF said:


> If you can afford it, get both.



The thought has crossed my mind more than once.  

I am also waiting on more reviews of the 400 DO II. So far all we have is Roger's quick test, but, at least the resolution, looks exceptional. 

But, for now, the 150-600S will suffice. I can fit it in my backpack, but am using a Pelican Storm iM2500 with it when traveling. But it is great that the 100-400II seems to be such an exceptional lens.


----------



## sulla (Dec 31, 2014)

Hm, just what I expected from the 100-400 L II.
Too bad I have the 70-200 2.8L II already and the EF 2x converter. While not as crisp an image, it suffices for my needs.
To get more reach, I'll wait for Bryan's EF 400 f/4 DO II review... I'm sure this lens will give my bank clerk a hard time... 800 f/8 with AF just sounds very sweet...
And his review of the Sigma 150-600 S. Would be a good choice IF (capital!) its AF performance is ok...


----------



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2014)

sanj said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



They certainly do. The sharper the lens, the less the loss of IQ on going from FF to crop. DxO does a good job in comparing the same lens on different bodies if you can navigate their site, and TDP gives quite a bit of information. A lens like the 300/2.8 does really well on crop but a softer one like the old 100-400 takes quite a hit on going from FF to crop.


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 31, 2014)

I just took advantage of the great deal currently available on the 16-35 f/4L IS over at CPW. You'd think that would be sufficient to satisfy my G.A.S. today, but my fingers are still itching to pull the trigger on the 100-40 II on this, the last day of my fiscal year!


----------



## monkey44 (Dec 31, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> I just took advantage of the great deal currently available on the 16-35 f/4L IS over at CPW. You'd think that would be sufficient to satisfy my G.A.S. today, but my fingers are still itching to pull the trigger on the 100-40 II on this, the last day of my fiscal year!



IF you can find one -- have heard all vendors are sold out of V.2 -- and no more until end of Jan. That might be a rumor tho'


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 31, 2014)

monkey44 said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > I just took advantage of the great deal currently available on the 16-35 f/4L IS over at CPW. You'd think that would be sufficient to satisfy my G.A.S. today, but my fingers are still itching to pull the trigger on the 100-40 II on this, the last day of my fiscal year!
> ...



And it's done! B&H took my phone order and gave me an invoice dated today. (Don't you just love accommodating vendors?) Now I just have to wait for the sucker to be stocked and shipped ...


----------



## AdamL (Dec 31, 2014)

Hi everyone!

This site has been a daily read for me, and the forum has been very useful in researching gear, so I thought I'd give back and share a gallery I put together of shots from the 100-400mm Mk II.

http://www.photosbyadamlee.com/Other/100-400-II/

I had the Mk I for 4-5 years and I loved that lens. I got a lot of really nice photos with it. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it was soft at anything wider than f/8. I tried 3 copies and they were all the same.

I sold the Mk I a few months ago in anticipation of the Mk II being announced. I was hanging out for the TDP review before pulling the trigger on this lens, but a 10% off Boxing Day sale sealed the deal for me.

I'm really happy with this lens. The AF is fast, even with the 1.4x extender on, and the sharpness wide open is impressive. Certainly night and day when compared to the Mk I IMO.


----------



## slclick (Jan 1, 2015)

Profeel will have the 100-400Mk2 in a couple days. I just received an update from them today. Just email David or Esther. Myself I am tempted but will wait for CPW street prices.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 1, 2015)

AdamL said:


> Hi everyone!
> 
> This site has been a daily read for me, and the forum has been very useful in researching gear, so I thought I'd give back and share a gallery I put together of shots from the 100-400mm Mk II.
> 
> ...



Welcome to CR! Thanks for posting so many shots and leaving the EXIF on them. They are all very sharp. How did you process them? Were they jpegs or RAW? What sharpening did you do?


----------



## AdamL (Jan 1, 2015)

Hi Alan. Thanks for the welcome.

They're all shot as raw then exported from Lightroom as 100% quality JPEG's. None have been resized. Some are just heavily cropped.

My stand sharpening in Lightroom is:
Amount: 90
Radius: 1.0 (unchanged)
Detail: 25 (unchanged)
Masking: 60

I thought about posting them unedited, and then I thought that it's not a fair comparison as every other photo I'd ever post would be edited.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 1, 2015)

Thanks. I usually suppress noise with DxO prime then do mild sharpening with 0.9 px/100% USM in PS. I tried your settings in PS, and they certainly sharpen more.


----------



## AdamL (Jan 1, 2015)

I'm not sure how those settings translate in PS. ACR would be the same though.

Adobe says Smart Sharpen is now the best sharpening option. I rarely use PS though, so for me it's easier to just batch process everything in LR.


----------



## JonAustin (Jan 1, 2015)

slclick said:


> ... Myself I am tempted but will wait for CPW street prices.



I can relate. I waited until yesterday for a sale price (through CPW) on the 16-35/4 that -- combined with the mail-in rebate -- dropped the net price to $996.

I doubt the 100-400 II will drop in price for a while, probably not for six months or so. I know I'm going to want to use one before then, so I went ahead and pulled the trigger.


----------



## slclick (Jan 1, 2015)

JonAustin said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > ... Myself I am tempted but will wait for CPW street prices.
> ...



I used the CPW Street Prices for the 16-35 as well as for the 24-70 2.8L Mk2. Best way to go if it's not available refurb, ymmv.


----------



## JonAustin (Jan 1, 2015)

slclick said:


> I used the CPW Street Prices for the 16-35 as well as for the 24-70 2.8L Mk2. Best way to go if it's not available refurb, ymmv.



I agree that the Canon refurb store is the best way to go, but I've not had any luck catching the gear I want there. The really good stuff always sells out too quickly. (Then, again, I'm not in front of my PC all day, either.)


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 2, 2015)

What profile are you shooting in? Standard or Neutral? I ask because 90 sharpening is pretty dang high. Pictures are very nice but look to me over sharpened and may be adding noise especially at 3200 ISO. 

I tend to either shoot in Neutral (zero in camera sharpening) and add some in post, usually no more than 50. or the default Standard which has sharpening in it already. You just have to tell Lightroom what profile you're using. Canon Standard or Canon Neutral


----------



## AdamL (Jan 2, 2015)

Profile doesn't matter as I'm shooting raw and importing into Lightroom so none of the profile stuff is added to the file. Even with the profile selected in LR there's no added sharpening. It's just a colour profile.

I usually sharpen to 80-90. There's no halos forming from too much sharpening, so I don't consider them over sharpened, but sharpening varies according to personal taste.

I'd also usually add a hint of noise reduction to high ISO files, but I didn't see the sense in that for this test.


----------



## weixing (Jan 2, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> What profile are you shooting in? Standard or Neutral? I ask because 90 sharpening is pretty dang high. Pictures are very nice but look to me over sharpened and may be adding noise especially at 3200 ISO.
> 
> I tend to either shoot in Neutral (zero in camera sharpening) and add some in post, usually no more than 50. or the default Standard which has sharpening in it already. You just have to tell Lightroom what profile you're using. Canon Standard or Canon Neutral


Hi,
Hmm... I always thought the in camera sharpening does not affect RAW in LR as LR applied it's own profile by default.

Have a nice day and Happy New Year!


----------



## AdamL (Jan 2, 2015)

weixing said:


> Hmm... I always thought the in camera sharpening does not affect RAW in LR as LR applied it's own profile by default.



Correct.

I believe only DPP honours the profile settings.


----------



## Crapking (Jan 2, 2015)

GBBX2011.jpg by NAVBPhotos, on Flickr

This is an example of the version I lens - does anyone else always get this much CA ? Notice the outline around the osprey as it contrasts with sky. I purposely did not eliminate it to illustrate my only complaint with this lens. Does the ver II do a better job ?
I have no problem with the push - pull, AF ability and overall image quality with this lens, but I would consider upgrading to ver II if the CA is less noticeable.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 2, 2015)

JonAustin said:


> I agree that the Canon refurb store is the best way to go, but I've not had any luck catching the gear I want there. The really good stuff always sells out too quickly. (Then, again, I'm not in front of my PC all day, either.)



Set up an alert at CPW, then whenever something pops up, you will get an email.

Just be ready to buy right then and there.

The alert can include official sources like Canon refurbs or grey market.

It does work.

My phone gets emails, and I can buy stuff via phone. No need to sit in front of the PC all day.


----------



## JonAustin (Jan 2, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that the Canon refurb store is the best way to go, but I've not had any luck catching the gear I want there. The really good stuff always sells out too quickly. (Then, again, I'm not in front of my PC all day, either.)
> ...


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 2, 2015)

JonAustin said:


> Just be ready to buy right then and there. *That's the hard part for me!*



I have picked up a couple of things only because I did the purchase on my phone. For the low inventory deals, it is the only way to go.


----------



## Omni Images (Jan 2, 2015)

Crapking said:


> GBBX2011.jpg by NAVBPhotos, on Flickr
> 
> This is an example of the version I lens - does anyone else always get this much CA ? Notice the outline around the osprey as it contrasts with sky. I purposely did not eliminate it to illustrate my only complaint with this lens. Does the ver II do a better job ?
> I have no problem with the push - pull, AF ability and overall image quality with this lens, but I would consider upgrading to ver II if the CA is less noticeable.



The version II is pretty good !
Here are some shots I posted up in another 100-400II thread.
The three shots are taken using the 2XIII TC manual focus.
I pushed the shadows a little as it was such a strong back lit shot.
The first shot was full frame shot.
Second shot 100%crop
Third shot 300% crop
You can see a tiny bit of CA on the 300% ... but pretty good considering using a 2x converter.
This lens works great with the 1.4III


----------



## LovePhotography (Jan 3, 2015)

Crapking said:


> GBBX2011.jpg by NAVBPhotos, on Flickr
> 
> This is an example of the version I lens - does anyone else always get this much CA ? Notice the outline around the osprey as it contrasts with sky. I purposely did not eliminate it to illustrate my only complaint with this lens. Does the ver II do a better job ?
> I have no problem with the push - pull, AF ability and overall image quality with this lens, but I would consider upgrading to ver II if the CA is less noticeable.



Any ideas on why the CA seems to show up more on the ends of the wings than the leaves or branches? Makes me wonder if it's more motion artifact or something...


----------



## monkey44 (Jan 3, 2015)

Regards the osprey photo (CA?) - enlarging that view seems to illustrate wing tip movement in my eyes anyway.

But, I have experienced the "ghosting" you're talking about on occasion with the 30D and 100-400 v.1 lens -- but only in distant live targets (enlarged) if I'm remembering properly. I have not experienced it at all (yet) with the V.2, but have only had it a couple weeks, and only been out with it a few times briefly. 

Also tho', shooting the V.2 with a 7D2 as well, so have no idea if that ghosting comes from the 30D or the V.1 lens, tho', almost assuredly, it would be the V.1 lens effect. As I recall it without looking back at old images -- that ghosting (CA?) only occurred on very heavy crops and blown up. 

I just looked back at the recent images from the V.2 and can find NO evidence of that ghosting. But, I don't have much very distant moving targets to judge from either. My gut reaction, based on the quality of the V.2 shots so far tho', I'd not expect to see that ghosting with V.2 -- no proof one way or the other at this point.


----------



## Omni Images (Jan 3, 2015)

Any ideas on why the CA seems to show up more on the ends of the wings than the leaves or branches? Makes me wonder if it's more motion artifact or something...

Yes, I'd say so too, more to it for sure, motion blur with CA plus perhaps over sharpening all adding to it ?
You can see plenty of CA in the leaves and branches also ... looking down lower left corner. but CA is noticeable through to the middle also, it usually get worse the further to the edges you get.

Version II is so much better.... even with a tele converter it's better than that for sure .. so answer your question Crapking, YES version II is great, go buy it.. !


----------



## JonAustin (Jan 3, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> I have picked up a couple of things only because I did the purchase on my phone. For the low inventory deals, it is the only way to go.



That's a great tip ... thanks, Danski!


----------



## pato (Jan 29, 2015)

Has anybody seen some comparison pictures between this lens at 400mm vs. the Tamron 150-600 at 600mm?
What I search for is some cropped pictures from the 400mm compared to the 600mm ones, to see if the canon is better and by how much visible. Oh and if possible tested on full-frame. 
I do know that the Canon has faster AF and some weather sealing, but in the end it comes mostly down to optical quality.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2015)

Tony Northrup in a sickly review on Youtube has a supposedly a double blind comparison of the Sigma 150-600 and the Tamron 150-600 both at f/6.3 and 600mm vs the 100-400 II and 400/5.6 at f/6.3, scaled up. According to I think an audience vote, the 100-400 II came first, the 400/5.6 second, the Sigma 3rd and the Tamron a poor 4th. However, this test was flawed in many different ways.

1. There wasn't sufficient fine detail in the chart used, which was against the true 600mm lenses.
2. It was very unfair on the Tamron because it improves greatly on stopping down to f/8.
3. It was unfair on the 100-400 II as it is sharpest at f/5.6.

My feeling from my own shots is that the 100-400 II at f/5.6 and 400 mm on the 7DII is better than the Tamron at f/8 and 600mm on the 5DIII. And I would not use the Tamron at 600mm on the 7DII as it is not as good on crop as FF, but others might disagree with that. The 100-400 II on the 5DIII is not only exceptionally sharp but very contrasty and brings out colours superbly. I do regret having sold my Tamron, which I could use on occasion, but I do prefer the 100-400 II.


----------



## Rahul (Jan 29, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Tony Northrup in a sickly review on Youtube has a supposedly a double blind comparison of the Sigma 150-600 and the Tamron 150-600 both at f/6.3 and 600mm vs the 100-400 II and 400/5.6 at f/6.3, scaled up. According to I think an audience vote, the 100-400 II came first, the 400/5.6 second, the Sigma 3rd and the Tamron a poor 4th. However, this test was flawed in many different ways.
> 
> 1. There wasn't sufficient fine detail in the chart used, which was against the true 600mm lenses.
> 2. It was very unfair on the Tamron because it improves greatly on stopping down to f/8.
> ...



Excellent summary. Just to add though that sharpness is very well retained on the 100-400 II even if a 1.4x TC is used. The IQ at 560mm is pretty good if you can get by the f/8.


----------



## pato (Jan 29, 2015)

Thanks a lot for your answers!


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2015)

Very good point about the 1.4xTC. I think that the I00-400 II + 1.4xTC at f/8 is about the same at the centre as Tamron at f/8 but sharper as you go out, and is highly recommended. My initial reservations about the 1.4xTC plus 100-400 on the 7DII were wrong and it does give slightly better resolution than the bare lens and is not difficult to handle. 

Here are 3 shots. Top is a 100% crop of two grebes starting courtship, from the 100-400 on 5DIII. The birds occupy a tiny 600x280 pixels. Below is a shot at the same time with the 300/2.8 + 2xC on 7DII. Despite being a much larger 1400x670 pixels, it is far less contrasty (wh ch can be corrected) and not much more detailed. Bottom is a buzzard hovering taken with the 7DII + 1.4xTC + 100-400 II. Despite being f/8 and only the centre point AF, the focussing was very fast and accurate (I tend to use the centre point spot focus even when the others are available).


----------



## Rahul (Jan 29, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Very good point about the 1.4xTC. I think that the I00-400 II + 1.4xTC at f/8 is about the same at the centre as Tamron at f/8 but sharper as you go out, and is highly recommended. My initial reservations about the 1.4xTC plus 100-400 on the 7DII were wrong and it does give slightly better resolution than the bare lens and is not difficult to handle.
> 
> Here are 3 shots. Top is a 100% crop of two grebes starting courtship, from the 100-400 on 5DIII. The birds occupy a tiny 600x280 pixels. Below is a shot at the same time with the 300/2.8 + 2xC on 7DII. Despite being a much larger 1400x670 pixels, it is far less contrasty (wh ch can be corrected) and not much more detailed. Bottom is a buzzard hovering taken with the 7DII + 1.4xTC + 100-400 II. Despite being f/8 and only the centre point AF, the focussing was very fast and accurate (I tend to use the centre point spot focus even when the others are available).



Hi Alan, 

Nice, sharp photos!. But won't the birds in the first two photos be Great Created Grebes? Apologies if I'm being pedantic but I seemingly learnt about these birds mostly because they were spotted in my part of the woods after about a decade or so.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2015)

Yes indeed. "The great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) is a member of the grebe family of water birds noted for its elaborate mating display." Wikipedia And they certainly were doing a bit of foreplay. However, they were not spotted and they weren't in woods but on a river.


----------



## Rahul (Jan 29, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Yes indeed. "The great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) is a member of the grebe family of water birds noted for its elaborate mating display." Wikipedia And they certainly were doing a bit of foreplay. However, they were not spotted and they weren't in woods but on a river.



That's fair enough! ;D

These birds were seen after more than 10 years at a bird conservation site close to where I live. They were cause of a lot of excitement for the birders here.


----------



## anolis23 (Jan 30, 2015)

I have to say this lens is great, coming from the 400 5.6, this is a much more dynamic and useful lens. You can check out a few pictures with the new 100-400 here, sadly I don't have too many since its brand new and I am now in the dead of winter in upstate NY  https://www.flickr.com/photos/puertoricanwildlifephotography/


----------



## bholliman (Jan 30, 2015)

anolis23 said:


> I have to say this lens is great, coming from the 400 5.6, this is a much more dynamic and useful lens. You can check out a few pictures with the new 100-400 here, sadly I don't have too many since its brand new and I am now in the dead of winter in upstate NY  https://www.flickr.com/photos/puertoricanwildlifephotography/



Have you done any side-by-side IQ testing vs. the 400/5.6? I'm looking to buy either the 400/5.6 or the 100-400 II. Obviously the zoom is much more flexible, but expect to shoot mostly at 400mm anyway. I'm trying to decide if the zoom versatility and IS is worth the extra $1K.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 31, 2015)

bholliman said:


> anolis23 said:
> 
> 
> > I have to say this lens is great, coming from the 400 5.6, this is a much more dynamic and useful lens. You can check out a few pictures with the new 100-400 here, sadly I don't have too many since its brand new and I am now in the dead of winter in upstate NY  https://www.flickr.com/photos/puertoricanwildlifephotography/
> ...



There have been several comparisons on the web - there isn't much between them in IQ at 400mm. The MTFs etc on photozone.de favour the 100-400, TDP has them very similar on FF, but the 100-400 seems to gain a bit on crop. Tony Northrup has the 100-400 the winner. I wouldn't worry about the difference in IQ. The 400mm is an excellent lens and very good value. The 100-400 is much more versatile and the IS enables a much wider range of possibilities. I'd miss about 80% of my shots if I didn't have IS, but that's the way I use it.


----------

