# How satisfied are you with the 100-400 II?



## J.R. (Dec 19, 2014)

Mine is on order and will arrive today. Unfortunately I'm out in the wild away from home and will be able to get my hands on it only on Christmas day. I must say I'm looking forward to shooting with it. 

Your feelings about this lens? 

PS: I voted for option 1


----------



## DanoPhoto (Dec 19, 2014)

Voted 1 - Initial satisfaction is same level as when I first used my 70-200 mark 2. Both lenses exceeded my personal expectations. Well worth the wait and pre-order "premium price" for me. YMMV


----------



## Al Chemist (Dec 19, 2014)

Just received it a few days ago. Test shots with 5D3 have been super. It was back focusing a bit so I added -1 AFMA and it's right on at my common shooting distance. Still a tad of back focus at 3 feet...but it takes only a few seconds to change, just need to figure out the value. It will be awesome for butterfly/dragonfly photography.
Works fine with my 6D and even with that fancy lens cap...the "M" LOL

Will not replace my beloved 70-300L for 6-8 mile hikes but definitely is my shorter hike wildlife lens!


----------



## adhocphotographer (Dec 19, 2014)

it came out just after I picked up my 500L, sooooo seems nice, but I'm good!


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 19, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> it came out just after I picked up my 500L, sooooo seems nice, but I'm good!



Lol


----------



## balvert (Dec 19, 2014)

It has exceeded my expectations. Works great with the 1.4 TC M3.


----------



## Runnerguy (Dec 19, 2014)

I got my version II on tuesday and so far i am extremely happy ,i owned version I then sold it 6 months ago to fund the upcoming 7d II .I might even sell my 300 II and get the 600 II because i am good up to 560mm with the 1.4x on the 100-400.


----------



## 20Dave (Dec 20, 2014)

Al Chemist said:


> ...Test shots with 5D3 have been super. It was back focusing a bit so I added -1 AFMA and it's right on at my common shooting distance. Still a tad of back focus at 3 feet...but it takes only a few seconds to change, just need to figure out the value. It will be awesome for butterfly/dragonfly photography.



This is exactly why I'm considering this lens as a replacement for my beloved 400 f/5.6 prime. The short MFD and IS seem to make it a terrific dragonfly (and birding) lens. I'd love to read a comparison between the 400 5.6 prime and the 100-400II, both in terms if IQ and focusing speed/accuracy. All of the comparative reviews have thus far (understandably) been between the two versions of the zoom.


----------



## JBSF (Dec 20, 2014)

I will be buying the 100-400 ii and 7D2 in 2015. I currently use 7d with 100 IS macro for insects, and M43 (Panasonic with 100-300) as a crossover rig for birds and insects (leps and odes). Although I would describe my subjects as “wildlife,” I don’t shoot eagles and sandhill cranes, instead devoting time to songbirds. I don’t shoot landscapes with lumbering megafauna, and don’t photograph at zoos or butterfly pavilions. I don’t refrigerate or raise insects in order to photograph them while incapacitated. I frequently hike 10 or more miles in search of my subjects. This is not to belittle the work of people who define wildlife photography differently than I do, it’s just to explain what I have been looking for in a camera.

The outstanding performance of the new 100-400 across its range, coupled with improved IS and *fantastic MFD* will make it perfect with the 7D2 as an upgraded crossover outfit for me. No other manufacturer offers a body and lens that come close to this combination’s performance, reach (near and far), speed, function with flash, compactness, and portability—at least not for my purposes.

M43 sucks for BIF, and flash is unusable with the 100-300 if one wants to act quickly. The 100-300 is capable of nicely detailed images of insects, especially when used with extension tubes, but images of birds are disappointing when the subject is more than about 30 feet away. Mirrorless has a long way to go before it can compete with DSLR for my purposes.

I’m new to the forum though I’ve read it daily for more than a year. This site provides lots of helpful information and insights. There is also a lot of astounding nonsense (put politely), though I have succeeded in biting my tongue all this time.

My first “real” camera was a Canon FTb purchased in 1973, replaced by Leica M3 with 50mm f:2 DR Summicron in 1978 (what a magnificent machine). I’m returning to photography now after a hiatus of about 25 years. Thanks to all who have provided useful information, and to CR for providing constant links to newsworthy developments.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 20, 2014)

It has met my expectations so far. Better IS, fast AF, and the images appear sharper, particularly away from the center. 

I'd have a tough time saying there is a difference in the center from my MK I version, it was very good. Meanwhile, the various lens tester's results are positive, but differing from their point of view as to increased acutance in the center.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 20, 2014)

I am inclined to stick with my beloved 400 f/5.6L. The new zoom's IS and minimum focusing distance of 1 meter beats the 400 f/5.6 no-IS and minimum focusing distance of 3 meters, so it does sound tempting, but I rarely get that close to birds, and for slow moving tiny critters (snakes, insects, etc), I use the 180 f/3.5L macro with or without the 1.4x TCII. There's a combo that autofocuses s-l-o-w-l-y when compared to the 400 f/5.6L :

I would really like to try the 500 f/4 or even the 600 f/4 - rent it for a migration week of shooting.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 20, 2014)

NancyP said:


> I am inclined to stick with my beloved 400 f/5.6L. The new zoom's IS and minimum focusing distance of 1 meter beats the 400 f/5.6 no-IS and minimum focusing distance of 3 meters, so it does sound tempting, but I rarely get that close to birds, and for slow moving tiny critters (snakes, insects, etc), I use the 180 f/3.5L macro with or without the 1.4x TCII. There's a combo that autofocuses s-l-o-w-l-y when compared to the 400 f/5.6L :
> 
> I would really like to try the 500 f/4 or even the 600 f/4 - rent it for a migration week of shooting.


 
The 400mm f/5.6 is a bargain lens, it would be a shame to see it replaced with a $2,000 lens. It allows photographers to get into a front line hand held 400mm lens for a reasonable price.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Dec 20, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The 400mm f/5.6 is a bargain lens, it would be a shame to see it replaced with a $2,000 lens. It allows photographers to get into a front line hand held 400mm lens for a reasonable price.



Indeed... but even if they stop making it, i think there are enough floating around the 2nd hand market to keep it a realistic option for a few years to come... it is a gateway lens, Canon would be foolish to completely abandon their excellent OEM (non-is etc) telephotos... 

the 100-400 appears to be a worthy up-graded model... In a way i'm glad i picked up my 500L before it was out, because otherwise i might have struggled more with the choice... no regrets!


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 20, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I am inclined to stick with my beloved 400 f/5.6L. The new zoom's IS and minimum focusing distance of 1 meter beats the 400 f/5.6 no-IS and minimum focusing distance of 3 meters, so it does sound tempting, but I rarely get that close to birds, and for slow moving tiny critters (snakes, insects, etc), I use the 180 f/3.5L macro with or without the 1.4x TCII. There's a combo that autofocuses s-l-o-w-l-y when compared to the 400 f/5.6L :
> ...



+1. It a great lens.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 20, 2014)

How you like your 1DX?


----------



## J.R. (Dec 20, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> How you like your 1DX?



Hi Dylan,

I've found it to be excellent. Seems like I made a good choice


----------



## LovePhotography (Dec 21, 2014)

DanoPhoto said:


> Voted 1 - Initial satisfaction is same level as when I first used my 70-200 mark 2. Both lenses exceeded my personal expectations. Well worth the wait and pre-order "premium price" for me. YMMV



I wish someone would take some identical comparison shots with the new 100-400 and the great 70-200 2.8 ii at the same focal length. Such as 100mm and 200mm. I'm thinking a lot of peeps with the 70-200 would enjoy seeing that. (Or not, if the 100-400 blows it away!)


----------



## Act444 (Dec 21, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> DanoPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Voted 1 - Initial satisfaction is same level as when I first used my 70-200 mark 2. Both lenses exceeded my personal expectations. Well worth the wait and pre-order "premium price" for me. YMMV
> ...



Have both, but haven't compared them head-to-head. However - keep in mind, between 135-200mm you're at f/5, a full 1 2/3 stops SLOWER than the 70-200 2.8...the difference between ISO 1600 and ISO 5000...

Having used the 70-200 2.8 a lot, though, I know it has excellent performance at 200 - and after test-shooting with the 100-400, it didn't seem to be noticeably better (or worse) to me at 200...

Perhaps this will help, though - a direct comparison at TDP at 200mm, wide open (f/5 vs. f/2.8!!)...seems close to me

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

200mm, Both at f5.6...can't tell a sharpness difference but the 70-200, being a 2.8 lens, has less corner darkening

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3

I'd say in less than good light, the ISO difference will have a much larger impact on IQ than any perceived optical difference between the two lenses...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 21, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> DanoPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Voted 1 - Initial satisfaction is same level as when I first used my 70-200 mark 2. Both lenses exceeded my personal expectations. Well worth the wait and pre-order "premium price" for me. YMMV
> ...


 
Go to TDP (The digital Picture) they are there for various focal lengths, with / without TC's, etc. 

However, they are very carefully setup still photos with manual focus, so AF speeds are not a factor. If you are taking photos a still objects, a 70-200mm MK II + 1.4X TC will be excellent, but with a 2X TC, its not good.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


----------



## Act444 (Dec 21, 2014)

I'd also like to add, re. handling:

The 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 are almost the same size...according to the stats the 100-400 is 80g heavier than the 70-200 2.8, yet it actually FEELS lighter when I'm using it. I'd say it's probably due to the orientation of the zoom ring in front on the 100-400, it's easier to balance the weight when handholding. I like that better as well....


----------



## adhocphotographer (Dec 23, 2014)

Act444 said:


> I'd also like to add, re. handling:
> 
> The 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 are almost the same size...according to the stats the 100-400 is 80g heavier than the 70-200 2.8, yet it actually FEELS lighter when I'm using it. I'd say it's probably due to the orientation of the zoom ring in front on the 100-400, it's easier to balance the weight when handholding. I like that better as well....



Good to know, i was considering grabbing one for my wife, and the weight was a concern...


----------



## Houndog (Dec 23, 2014)

Got mine last week. Took shots this past weekend. Image quality and auto-focus speed exceed my expectations. Unhappy that Canon did not implement autofocus on my new 70D with the 1.4 II TCE on the 100-400 II. Maybe magic will happen later.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Dec 23, 2014)

Houndog said:


> Got mine last week. Took shots this past weekend. Image quality and auto-focus speed exceed my expectations. Unhappy that Canon did not implement autofocus on my new 70D with the 1.4 II TCE on the 100-400 II. Maybe magic will happen later.



One can only hope.. though this does sound like a perfect excuse to go full-frame... you know, to get the most out of your expensive glass?


----------



## K-amps (Dec 23, 2014)

balvert said:


> It has exceeded my expectations. Works great with the 1.4 TC M3.



This is exactly what I wanted to hear. Looking at TDP comps, it fares well against the tamron with 1.4x, but I am curious how it stacks up against the 2 Sigmas.


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 23, 2014)

I don't have the lens yet; I plan to pick one up at the first "great deal" opportunity, or before a planned photo shoot in May, whichever comes first.

I voted for option 1 in the poll, even though I wouldn't have objected to a higher launch price (say, up to $2,500) for even better optical performance than what has been reported by early reviews / user experiences.

Still a worthy successor to the original 100-400 (which I refrained from purchasing) and an excellent product overall IMHO, for those infrequent occasions when I want longer reach (which I have reluctantly satisfied up until now by using a 1.4x TC with my 70-200).


----------



## PhotosbyChuck (Dec 23, 2014)

Being that I just registered, I can't set my signature, so I'll say I shoot a lot with a 5DM3 and 70-200 f2.8L II. I sometimes use a 1.4x III or even a 2x with it. (The latter is rare, of course ... but I've done it!) Having had the 100-400 II for just a little over a week...which isn't much, I know...I'd say:

1) I may never shoot with an extender on the 70-200 again. In my opinion (I shoot a lot of action shots with a lens like this) the slower aperture is traded for the better IS. I can get sharp photos. That's what's important to me.

2) Focus is fast. Given I'm used to the 70-200 ... I was expecting the 100-400 to feel slower focusing. It doesn't.

As for things I don't like, there aren't any. But, there are 2 minor nits to offer:

1) I don't always remove it, so I wish the tripod foot was a little wider and longer. Or maybe, just have a "squared" off back to the foot rather than the curve it has. As-is, it shifts the "tip point" more forward. The 5DM3 barely balances. It will not balance with a flash. In most shooting situations, it's fine. I'll get into the habit of removing the ring!

2) I do not understand the point of the zoom tightness ring. I do not see any drift in focal length with the lens pointed at the ground or straight up in the softest setting. In the tightest setting, the zoom is pretty much locked. The softest setting feels right to me. For now, it's a bit of extra cost for nothing. Maybe wear will make the zoom looser and I'll be glad it's there.


I will shoot a few comparisons as requested, but I don't expect anyone to change their minds based on them. Both lenses are amazing. The 100-400 is a better lens than a 70-200 with 2x converter. Not to mention, it also works well with the 1.4x, pushing the focal length to 560 -- which isn't attainable with the 70-200.


----------



## Act444 (Dec 23, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd also like to add, re. handling:
> ...



NB: it is still not a "light" lens by any means...if you're used to a 70-200 you'll be fine, but if she's using, say, a 55-250 it'll feel like a ton of bricks...it's all relative


----------



## Besisika (Dec 23, 2014)

PhotosbyChuck said:


> 1) I may never shoot with an extender on the 70-200 again. In my opinion (I shoot a lot of action shots with a lens like this) the slower aperture is traded for the better IS. I can get sharp photos. That's what's important to me.
> 
> 2) Focus is fast. *Given I'm used to the 70-200* ... I was expecting the 100-400 to feel slower focusing. It doesn't.


Thanks for sharing your opinion. That's exactly what I wanted to know.


----------



## DanoPhoto (Dec 23, 2014)

@PhotosByChuck - welcome to CR. Great info, thanks for sharing. I agree with the comments about the tripod ring...odd design, but will adapt to it.


----------



## Joey (Dec 23, 2014)

My 100-400 mkII is the final stage of my equipment overhaul which started with my 7DmkII. I had the 70-300L which I donated to my grandson in preparation for the purchase of the new lens. Loved the 70-300, hated the fact it wasn't compatible with Canon extenders, and didn't come with a tripod foot. So my new lens ticks all the boxes - image quality as good or possibly slightly better than the 70-300, neat tripod foot, plays nice with the 1.4x extender - even the lens hood is cool. Picked up the lens this afternoon, initial test photos handheld with and without extender at around 1/100th sec(!) indicate the AF and IS are better than anything I've used before.


----------



## Harv (Dec 23, 2014)

I took delivery of my new 100-400 last week and have been out a number of times shooting with it..... both with and without the 1.4xTC III on my 5D III.

I'm delighted with the performance of this new lens. I have owned a number of the v.1 offerings, and never had one that would deliver sharp images wide open. f/8 was my go-to aperture for keeper images, not to mention it was a very slow AF lens. I have also owned a number of 400 f/5.6L lenses. I still have one but it will likely go up for sale soon.

The new 100-400 is well balanced on a gripped 5D III and handles beautifully. I like the new forward location of the zoom ring and find it is really easy to use when resting the tripod foot on the heal of my left hand and extend my fingers forward to turn it.

The AF is both fast and accurate. Much faster than the previous version and in my opinion, at least as fast as the 400 f/5.6L. The lens is also much sharper than the previous versions I owned, and in my opinion may actually be a bit sharper than the 400 f/5.6L. I shoot this new lens wide open all the time. Perfect.

I have also used it with the 1.4xTC III on birds in flight and if I do my job of getting the focus point on the target, the lens focuses without hesitation and very accurately.

It now has a permanent home in my bag.


----------



## PhotosbyChuck (Dec 23, 2014)

DanoPhoto said:


> @PhotosByChuck - welcome to CR. Great info, thanks for sharing. I agree with the comments about the tripod ring...odd design, but will adapt to it.



Thanks, DanoPhoto. I probably should have mentioned that the extra stability peg hole in the tripod foot is nice. It's something I have often wished was on the 70-200 foot as well.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 23, 2014)

PhotosbyChuck said:


> DanoPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > @PhotosByChuck - welcome to CR. Great info, thanks for sharing. I agree with the comments about the tripod ring...odd design, but will adapt to it.
> ...



Yeah, I never understood why Canon's DSLR cameras lack that hole (or at least the ones I've owned). Every piece of gear I've ever owned has had that hole except for gear built by Canon. ???


----------



## PhotosbyChuck (Dec 23, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> I wish someone would take some identical comparison shots with the new 100-400 and the great 70-200 2.8 ii at the same focal length. Such as 100mm and 200mm. I'm thinking a lot of peeps with the 70-200 would enjoy seeing that. (Or not, if the 100-400 blows it away!)



Neither lens is going to blow the other away. It's all in what focal length you need, IMHO. I can't see much else at all that makes or breaks either lens in a comparison. The 100-400 II is every bit as good as you'd hope.

Here are a few samples. Sorry, I didn't have more time. I just grabbed a few of my kid's Legos and shot a few comparisons for you. The shot was set up for 200mm and *all were shot at 1/200 f/5.6 ISO 200*. The tripod stayed in the same spot for focal length and lens changes. 

Bokeh at 100mm is shown enlarged close to 100%. Note that since the 70-200 f2.8 is stopped down to match the 100-400 at f/5.6, the blades have a greater effect with the faster lens. Also, the bokeh in the 400mm for the 70-200 is definitely dimmer as a result of the 2x converter. That too, is to be expected. But I show the shot to complete a comparison of just how close the lenses compare.






































If you want RAW files, please let me know...but keep in mind, we're dealing with a 1mm DOF on a shot like this at 400mm. Pixel peeping will not really get you much on these.

And -- I'm new to the forum (as a poster...I have read the rumors practically daily since the site launched) so if these are considered spam in this forum and should be placed elsewhere, please forgive me and let me know. I am posting here as the question was asked here.


----------



## Omni Images (Dec 24, 2014)

Wow .... just been out for a quick test.
This shot was on my 1Dmk4 .. using the 2xIII converter and of course the new 100-400 at F11 800iso, as it's a very dull rainy day here ... the bird landed about 8 to 10m away from me on a roof of a shed out back ..
manual focus.
One shot as is full frame.
another one at 100% .. and the last one at 300% ...
What I am amazed at is the very good control of CA ... at 300% you can see it creep in at the birds lower beak ... but wow you can still plenty of detail in the bugs in it's beak ... using the 2x hand hold 1/1000 F11 at 800iso
I did lighten up the beak area a bit as it was well back lit .. so maybe a bit of noise crept in .. only sharpened very slightly, no noise reduction ... RAW saved as for web at 80% quality jpgs


----------



## Besisika (Dec 24, 2014)

PhotosbyChuck said:


> And -- I'm new to the forum (as a poster...I have read the rumors practically daily since the site launched) so if these are considered spam in this forum and should be placed elsewhere, please forgive me and let me know. I am posting here as the question was asked here.


Thanks for sharing and for the effort. At first, I thought it wouldn't fair to compare it this way, as one is wide open while the other one is 2 stops stepped down. However the results give me a clear idea of what the new lens can do. It doesn't matter to me which one is better, as long as it is close to the 70-200 ii, it is a very good lens.
Again, thanks for the test.


----------



## Gino (Dec 26, 2014)

I finally got around to taking a few test shots with my new 100-400L II mounted on my 1DX, and I'm very happy with this lens!!! 

I used to own the Nikon 80-400mm AF-S, and used it with the Nikon D4. From what I've seen so far, the 1DX and 100-400L II combo is going to produce better results compared to the Nikon D4 with the 80-400mm AF-S...the icing on the cake is the 100-400L II is $500 less expensive as the Nikon 80-400mm!


----------



## PhotosbyChuck (Dec 29, 2014)

Besisika said:


> Thanks for sharing and for the effort. At first, I thought it wouldn't fair to compare it this way, as one is wide open while the other one is 2 stops stepped down. However the results give me a clear idea of what the new lens can do. It doesn't matter to me which one is better, as long as it is close to the 70-200 ii, it is a very good lens.
> Again, thanks for the test.



Yeah, that's exactly why I tested it this way. The question I saw was for a comparison to the 70-200. I saw it less as a question of "better" and more a question of whether the 100-400 II is "as good" a lens as the 70-200 II. For me, the answer is, "Absolutely!"

That said, I do realize that it's not something a few test shots can portray. Test shots just don't give the feel for how fast the AF is...or how the IS works for your shooting style...or the 100 other little things we all consider part of our experience.


----------

