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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 25, 2015)

```
LensTip has completed their review of the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens. As if we needed more reasons to buy this lens!</p>
<p>From LensTip:</p>
<blockquote><p>I think those who were waiting patiently for the Canon EF 100–400 mm f/4.5–5.6L IS II USM won’t be disappointed. Its predecessor was optically very good but the new lens is better in every single category. The evenness of performance, no matter what focal length you use and what place of frame you take into account, is truly impressive. The lens remains sharp even on the edge of full frame and doesn’t have any resolution slip-ups. If you add to that the much-improved stabilization, a huge step forward when compared to the older model, you get practically a lens as close to perfection as it is only possible; its flaws, connected to vignetting and flares, aren’t anything serious.</p></blockquote>
<p>Amazon currently has stock of the <a href="http://amzn.to/1fFufZe" target="_blank">EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens</a>.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/439.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_100-400_mm_f_4.5-5.6L_IS_II_USM.html" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></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/DFF/d10-v21-t1-x574561" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA1004002U.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <strong><a href="http://amzn.to/1fFufZe" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
```


----------



## Adelino (Jun 25, 2015)

Canon are hitting some home runs with lenses and barely getting base hits (if that) on cameras. Maybe a boost in R&D yen to the camera department is needed? Or getting more aggressive.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jun 25, 2015)

Adelino said:


> Canon are hitting some home runs with lenses and barely getting base hits (if that) on cameras. Maybe a boost in R&D yen to the camera department is needed? Or getting more aggressive.



Every time I ever make a serious consideration for changing systems, it's always the lenses that keep me with Canon. There isn't a body that is bad enough these days to change my mind of using the best lenses for my use. Camera body performance is getting to the point of diminishing returns on the improvements, but there are many lenses that are still far behind or non existent in the other lineups that need some serious effort. 

I think Canon is smart over the long run to invest so much of their industry leading skill into a dominating lens lineup.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 25, 2015)

It's a pity they didn't test it with the 1.4xTC so we could compare it with the Sigmas. I like the 100-400 II much we have a his and hers pair. Just wish Canon would put out an APS-C without a low-pass sensor so we could get the most reach from the lens. Maybe the 5DR would be worth a try.


----------



## docsmith (Jun 25, 2015)

AlanF said:


> It's a pity they didn't test it with the 1.4xTC so we could compare it with the Sigmas.



Agreed...but I think there is no doubt, the 100-400 II is a great lens. It is just that the supertelephoto zoom lens market is now pretty crowded with the two Sigmas and Tamron 150-600s, which are the primary alternatives to the 100-400 II if you want the longer end. So, it is too bad lenstip doesn't give us direct comparisons from 400-600 mm. Fortunately, TDP does.


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 25, 2015)

Sigh, this is another lens I obviously can't live without . . . when will it ever end? ;D


----------



## paolo80 (Jun 25, 2015)

would the performance be comparable with the 70-200 II + extender?


----------



## docsmith (Jun 25, 2015)

paolo80 said:


> would the performance be comparable with the 70-200 II + extender?



The 100-400 II should be better than the 70-200 II + extender (which I use)

2x extender at 400 mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

1.4x extender (280 mm vs 300 mm)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=3

IMO, the 70-200 II plus extenders does remarkably well. But the 100-400 II is better.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 25, 2015)

I enjoy fast lenses way too much. I'll stick with my 300 f2.8ii for now....at least until I can afford the 200-400 zoom.


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Jun 26, 2015)

I am still pondering if I should get the 100-400 II or any of the 150-600. On APS-C and in the overlapping parts of their focal range, the difference do not seem that huge to me:

Compare the Sigma C and the Canon 

at 200mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=1&LensComp=990&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

at 400mm:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=990&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Interestingly, the Sports looks horrible in that comparison, maybe there was a mistake done during the test shot?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=978&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Even compared to the Sigma C, the sports looks bad at 600m 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=978&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Unfortunately, there are no APS-C comparison shots for the Tamron.

Then again, even if it there wasn't that great a difference in IQ, the Canon still has AF speed & precision, shorter MFD, lighter weight and other soft factors in its favor.
But still, getting 600mm for roughly the same (Sigma S) or roughly half the price (Tamron, Sigma C) is tempting.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 26, 2015)

*sigh*



Canon Rumors said:


> _ ... is better in every single category. The evenness of performance, no matter what focal length you use and what place of frame you take into account, is truly impressive. The lens remains sharp even on the edge of full frame and doesn’t have any resolution slip-ups. If you add to that the much-improved stabilization... _



Although lenstip is not my prefered reviewer, I must admit that my mouth is watering and I need to get my anti GAS pills. Because I cannot afford it yet. But one day...


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 26, 2015)

Grummbeerbauer said:


> I am still pondering if I should get the 100-400 II or any of the 150-600. On APS-C and in the overlapping parts of their focal range, the difference do not seem that huge to me ...


Hi Grummbeerbauer! 

From your name I conclude that you are coming from Germany.
The German "fotomagazin" tested in their latest issue all three 150 to 600 Tamron and Sigma lenses. 
The Tamron was the the IQ winner, esp. on APS-C, while the Sigma S was slightly behind but much better built.
The Sigma C fell behind both of them, but only slightly. But it was really nitpicking, not that much difference.
In a back issue they tested the Canon against Tamron and Sigma S. Canon was the overall winner in each category in the overlaping focal range with most advantage for FF. APS-C was much closer and I am not sure if I get it right out of my mind that the Tamron was slightly better at APS-C.

Conclusion:
If you need the reach, choose whatever you prefer from the 600. 
If you want the best system package (AF+IS+dust sealing) get the Canon.
I am into FF so you can guess what I would choose


----------



## Omni Images (Jun 26, 2015)

I can't believe people are still wondering about this lens.
I have had it since Christmas along with the 1.4III converter and am constantly in ore of some shots I getting with this combo. I was using the 70-200 with a 2xIII but never was happy with the iq, and went back to just 70-200 and cropping ...
Sure it would be nice to have one of those FAST big whites .... BUT ... they don't focus down to .98m like this lens does .. and for me that is the clincher .... and the advantage of it over the big whites.
If I did have the money for a big white, I really don't think I'd get one just for the min focus. The 600F4 would be my choice ... though I must confess the 400F2.8 has had me salivating for many years.
But after using the new 100-400II and in fact needing and using a lot.. the min focus it offers, the big whites to me have lost their luster.
The combo with the 1.4III is producing a great image for me ... a little slow at F8 .. I never use higher than iso400, usually iso200 and a flash is the go.

Here is a few shots from last week.
Male and female spotted Pardalote tiny tiny birds at maybe 1.2M away .. never would have got these with a big white.
and a surfing shot which was severely cropped from a long long away reef from a headland and I'm happy with the image quality.

Go get this lens NOW !


----------



## geonix (Jun 26, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Grummbeerbauer said:
> 
> 
> > I am still pondering if I should get the 100-400 II or any of the 150-600. On APS-C and in the overlapping parts of their focal range, the difference do not seem that huge to me ...
> ...



That would be the first lens test I have heard of in which the Tamron scored better in IQ tests than the two sigmas. All other tests/comparisons on the web and youtube suggest exactly the opposite. 

Anyway. I have the 100-400 Version II and had the Tamron. IQ and AF speed and accuracy on the Canon are noticeably better. If you really need 600mm than I would now prefer the Sigma. I guess with its USB dock you can at least install all firmware updates yourself and don't have to send it in.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 26, 2015)

geonix said:


> That would be the first lens test I have heard of in which the Tamron scored better in IQ tests than the two sigmas. All other tests/comparisons on the web and youtube suggest exactly the opposite.


They all were really close to each other and when I get the time I can post the scores.
The differences could also come from copy variations.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Jun 26, 2015)

The 100-400 II is a dream of a lens. With a Kenko extender you still have af at f/8,0. To me iq with tc is perfectly okay. You can’t expect a zoom lens tc combo in the 400ish range to match a big white (EF 200-400 excluded). It’s simply a joy to use this lens.


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 26, 2015)

Juts for the record, the only thing I am "wondering" about this lens is how long it will take before I can afford it


----------



## tron (Jun 26, 2015)

AlanF said:


> It's a pity they didn't test it with the 1.4xTC so we could compare it with the Sigmas. I like the 100-400 II much we have a his and hers pair. Just wish Canon would put out an APS-C without a low-pass sensor so we could get the most reach from the lens. Maybe the 5DR would be worth a try.


Allow me to contribute to this. I have used it with 1.4XIII for a few distant shots. Instead of keep it fully open I closed 2/3s of a stop. At f/10 I was happy with the results (100% magnification). 

EDIT: The test have been with 5D3 not 7DII.


----------



## meywd (Jun 26, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> Juts for the record, the only thing I am "wondering" about this lens is how long it will take before I can afford it



+1


----------



## AlanF (Jun 26, 2015)

tron said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > It's a pity they didn't test it with the 1.4xTC so we could compare it with the Sigmas. I like the 100-400 II much we have a his and hers pair. Just wish Canon would put out an APS-C without a low-pass sensor so we could get the most reach from the lens. Maybe the 5DR would be worth a try.
> ...



I'd like to see the numbers for the MTFs with the 1.4xTC out of curiosity. My favourite combo is, in fact, the 7DII + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC III. It is as good as my 300 f/2.8 II + 2x TC III on the 7DII and a fraction of the weight and volume. But, the big lens on the 5DIII is till the best, but heavier.


----------



## Adelino (Jun 26, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Adelino said:
> 
> 
> > Canon are hitting some home runs with lenses and barely getting base hits (if that) on cameras. Maybe a boost in R&D yen to the camera department is needed? Or getting more aggressive.
> ...



Good points


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Jun 26, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> From your name I conclude that you are coming from Germany.
> The German "fotomagazin" tested in their latest issue all three 150 to 600 Tamron and Sigma lenses.
> The Tamron was the the IQ winner, esp. on APS-C, while the Sigma S was slightly behind but much better built.


You concluded correctly. 
Thanks for pointing it out, I will see if I can find that issue. 
However, when it comes to IQ, I am much in favor of reviews testing multiple copies... well, we all know that there is only one site that has the volume of lenses and the technical capabilities to do that... too bad that Roger at lensrentals.com hasn't measured any of the Sigma 150-600. The only lens he reported about was the Tamron (compare against the Sigma 50-500, the old Tamron 200-500 and the old Canon 100-400): 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout

I think that review was also the first to find that the Tammy's IQ pretty much falls apart beyond 500mm, later(?) confirmed by DPreview. 
But it is not only about measurements... most of the shots of any of the 150-600 I have seen so far - especially those done on an APS-C body - didn't really convince me (while the same shots, were often praised by others - either those posters were just being polite, or maybe my standards need adjusting ).



HarryWintergreen said:


> The 100-400 II is a dream of a lens. With a Kenko extender you still have af at f/8,0. To me iq with tc is perfectly okay. You can’t expect a zoom lens tc combo in the 400ish range to match a big white (EF 200-400 excluded). It’s simply a joy to use this lens.



I have an older Kenko 1,4 extender , its a reporting one, so no AF with the 100-400 II on my 7D Mk.I unless I try taping pins.
I bought it to use with my 70-200 F4 L IS. It hasn't seen that much use, though. It really kills the bokeh in many situations and 280mm wasn't just enough additional FL to accept these limitations.



Omni Images said:


> I can't believe people are still wondering about this lens.
> [...]
> Go get this lens NOW !



Actually, I already ordered one when it was listed for a "good" price (still ~1900€...) by a decent retailer, however, it was - and still is - on backorder. I am pretty sure that the aside from plain reach, it is the best option for me. Neither Sigma C nor Tamron look good enough on the long end and the Sigma S weighs a ton.


----------



## Runnerguy (Jun 27, 2015)

AlanF said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


I agree totally , I also have the same setup with the 300 f 2.8II +2x III and can hardly see any difference with the 100-400 III +1.4xIII and am thinking of selling the 300 f2.8 III and getting the 600 f4 II.The 100-400II is that good !!!


----------



## weixing (Jun 27, 2015)

Hi,


Grummbeerbauer said:


> HarryWintergreen said:
> 
> 
> > The 100-400 II is a dream of a lens. With a Kenko extender you still have af at f/8,0. To me iq with tc is perfectly okay. You can’t expect a zoom lens tc combo in the 400ish range to match a big white (EF 200-400 excluded). It’s simply a joy to use this lens.
> ...


 I had the Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DGX (blue dot) and it does not work on 7D2 with Canon lens or at least not with EF 400mm F5.6L and EF 100-400mm II:
7D2 + Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DGX + EF 400mm F5.6L: 7D2 hang.
7D2 + Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DGX + EF 100-400 II: when power on, 7D2 display the message: "Firmware update failed. Try update again." ??? 
60D + Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DGX + EF 400mm F5.6L: Work normally.
60D + Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DGX + EF 100-400 II: Work normally.

So I thought the problem is the 7D2, but when I try 7D2 + Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DGX + Tamron 150-600mm, it work... although AF and IQ is lousy, but at least it can AF and working normally. :

Have a nice day.


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 27, 2015)

I couldn't get past the beginning of the 2nd paragraph of the review: "_Several dozen years passed _from that launch [of the original 100-400L] and such a long period of time alone was enough to make the successor of the 100-400L one of the most often listed lenses in rumours circulating around the incoming premieres."

"Several dozen years ..." Wait ... what? It's difficult for me to take a review seriously if the writer fails to grasp basic arithmetic.

I bought my copy of the 100-400 II at the beginning of the year, anyway. Love it.


----------



## dufflover (Jun 28, 2015)

I love my 100-400mm mk1 as an old workhorse. I would be thrilled to improve on the IQ even more, but every few weeks I come across a situation where my 70-200 II would've been better (simply down to the scene FL and lighting at the time) and concede that it is still the same specs (like FL/apertures) as my mk1.

... some day


----------



## wallstreetoneil (Jun 30, 2015)

IMO, the new 100-400II is Canon's best lens period.

I have been shooting it exclusively these last two last weeks on a 5DSR (wedding, birding, landscapes) - simply cannot be beat - all handheld at reasonable SS and you get tack sharp images revealing completely amazing detail. 

I would recommend this lens to everyone - when Canon's next gen higher ISO cameras come out, I might even consider selling what use to be my favourite lens - the 70-200 II F2.8 - keep my 70-200 F4 IS and this lens - no need for the F2.8.

By far my favourite lens - and it isn't even close.


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 2, 2015)

wallstreetoneil said:


> ... I would recommend this lens to everyone - when Canon's next gen higher ISO cameras come out, I might even consider selling what use to be my favourite lens - the 70-200 II F2.8 - keep my 70-200 F4 IS and this lens - no need for the F2.8 ...



Ditto. My 70-200 II has -- with the exception of one 3-day-long portrait gig -- been sitting idle since I got the 100-400 II. I'm very pleased with its performance and image quality, and quite surprised at how much I've been using it.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jul 2, 2015)

Might be a fine lens but I still cannot get past 400mm at F5.6! The loss of light is so severe that it's practically useless for wildlife during sunrise or sunset or under a forest canopy. Add a couple of clicks to tighten the lines and you are at F8! May be fine for air shows and surfing which are typically occurring in bright sun but for a wildlife lens, this is for harry homeowner.

I will stick with my 300 f2.8 and crop a bit.


----------

