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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2015)

```
One thing is certain with DxOMark reviews, they will always stir up debate. DxOMark has completed their review of the brand new Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II, which has been highly regarded since photographers got their hands on it. It fixed everything that was wrong with the previous version and performs far better in the real world.</p>
<p>From DxOMark:</p>
<blockquote><p>As the replacement for the original model, Canon have improved just about everything they can from operation through to optical quality. However it’s the performance at the long-end that’s crucial and while Canon have made advances most of the gains are in the outer field where users of Canon’s crop bodies aren’t so likely to benefit. Sure the chromatic aberration is lower and sharpness at the edges is better than the old model but users aren’t going to see any improvement in the center.</p>
<p>The new model is also up against a capable and more accessibly priced rival in the form of the Tamron 150-600mm though it’s larger still and somewhat disappointing at 600mm. For all that, the Canon is an attractive option and a strong choice for the long term… <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-F4.5-5.6L-IS-II-USM-review-Worthy-upgrade" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p><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> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1fFufZe" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
```


----------



## NikonGuy (Jul 19, 2015)

> The original model featured a push-pull mechanism to zoom in and out, along with a friction collar to prevent “zoom-creep,” along with a separate manual focus collar. The new model dispenses with that and adopts a more modern two-ring design, yet it retains the friction collar as a part of the zoom ring rather than the focus ring, as was on the earlier model.



Am I the only one who really misses the push'n'pull??

Imho it was way faster and also easier to recall a certain focal length with some training.


----------



## Sashi (Jul 19, 2015)

Hated the push-pull. Keeps dropping out with a clunk in Safari jeeps.

Quick everyone, before pulling out the pitchforks look at the title; see, DxO, that's who we hate.
hehe forgotten about me already. 8)


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2015)

Sashi said:


> Hated the push-pull. Keeps dropping out with a clunk in Safari jeeps.
> 
> Quick everyone, before pulling out the pitchforks look at the title; see, DxO, that's who we hate.
> hehe forgotten about me already. 8)



I'm just daydreaming of how high the lens will be scored by DXO when 50 MP are sitting behind it. 

(Spoiler: it will be very high.)

- A


----------



## zim (Jul 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Sashi said:
> 
> 
> > Hated the push-pull. Keeps dropping out with a clunk in Safari jeeps.
> ...



So this lens was 'tested' Nov. 2014 but just appears now? or has the test been around for a while and just not reported on?

I have DxO Optics Pro and the 5Ds lens profile for Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM have been added so why would that camera not be available to select already?


----------



## lol (Jul 19, 2015)

NikonGuy said:


> Am I the only one who really misses the push'n'pull??



No, you are not alone.

Back on topic, I haven't paid attention to DxO lens scores for a while, even longer than sensor scores. Are they any more meaningful now?


----------



## zim (Jul 19, 2015)

lol said:


> NikonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one who really misses the push'n'pull??
> ...



Going by their scale of poor to excellent 21 is heading towards poor, what do yah think ;D


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 19, 2015)

lol said:


> NikonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one who really misses the push'n'pull??
> ...



No they're no more meaningful now. I actually consider their lens tests even less useful than their camera tests. They've several times had a lens linked with the data from different lens, lense scores on the 5d II have been dramatically different from on the 1ds III, simple straightforward lens specs simply not understood (think canon 11-24 referred to as a midrange zoom on aps-c) etc. Eventually they get their mistakes (the ones people catch them on at any rate) straightened out, but you've got to wonder about their competence... :-/


----------



## RGF (Jul 19, 2015)

lol said:


> NikonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one who really misses the push'n'pull??
> ...



I do not miss it. Always concerned that push pull would move air (and hence dust, sand, grit, especially while shooting in dusty environs in Africa) in to the lens.

Yes I was a good way to return to the same FL.

But as DxO and other have shown the new lens is much sharper.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2015)

RGF said:


> lol said:
> 
> 
> > NikonGuy said:
> ...



The new 100-400 seems to be just as susceptible to internal dust as the original was. It might actually be worse....


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 19, 2015)

NikonGuy said:


> > The original model featured a push-pull mechanism to zoom in and out, along with a friction collar to prevent “zoom-creep,” along with a separate manual focus collar. The new model dispenses with that and adopts a more modern two-ring design, yet it retains the friction collar as a part of the zoom ring rather than the focus ring, as was on the earlier model.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have the new lens, and am among those who prefer its twist zoom design over the previous push/pull, but can't you still zoom this lens in and out by push/pull?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 19, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > lol said:
> ...


Have you done a comparison? How much dust is there in the ones you have seen?


----------



## MiG31_Foxhound (Jul 19, 2015)

I was a *very* early adopter of this lens, as I had been waiting the better part of a year for the focal length but was reticent to buy the old one KNOWING for certain this was in the pipeline. I had been weighing it against the Tammy and upcoming (at the time) Sigma offerings but assumed Canon's cropped 400 would be as good or better than either alternative at 600mm. 

First off, image quality is amazing. Here's a shot of a blast furnace I took for my industrial history professor as part of a summer internship. This is with a 2x TC III: http://i.imgur.com/8FBn7ul.jpg Under really intense scrutiny, I can spot some blurring and CA on the right side of the structure - starts directly above the treeline. Also, there's some lost contrast. Here's the same shot with just the 100-400 doing the work: http://i.imgur.com/2UHRsf3.jpg

I'm not positive what DxO's testing process entails, nor am I familiar enough with the original 100-400 to comment, but this lens is spectacular, to my eye. It does what I need it to do better than I had anticipated it would. Add to this superb IS and surprisingly fast and accurate AF and I rank it just below my 70-200/2.8 IS II. 

Edit: Almost forgot to verify that YES you can push/pull this lens quite easily. I do it all the time at my part time job shooting youth flag football. Their closing speed is incredible, so push-pull works well for that application. Simply loosen the tension ring, grip the hood, and do your thing.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 19, 2015)

Man, I really don't understand DxO. I've used both versions of the 100-400 lens and I always found the images of the version one to be soft. When I used the newest version, I felt it rivaled my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II in sharpness, color, and aberration. For them to say it's not an improvement in sharpness at center makes me feel like either I'm on crack, or they're on crack.


----------



## MikeT (Jul 19, 2015)

LSXPhotog said:


> Man, I really don't understand DxO. When I used the newest version, I felt it rivaled my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II in sharpness, color, and aberration. For them to say it's not an improvement in sharpness at center makes me feel like either I'm on crack, or they're on crack.


I concur... I find my 100-400mm IS II to be every bit as enjoyable/sharp/high quality as my 70-200mm IS II. It is now my preferred outdoors lens, whereas the 70-200mm is my preferred indoor lens.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Have you done a comparison? How much dust is there in the ones you have seen?



I'm going to do a little article this week, all 5 that I have are full of dust.


----------



## zim (Jul 19, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > lol said:
> ...



Where do you get that from?


----------



## Diltiazem (Jul 19, 2015)

At 400mm the original version was pretty sharp at the center, new version is still a little better. The improvement outside the center and at shorter FLs is quite noticeable though. 

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=0


----------



## Diltiazem (Jul 19, 2015)

_"while Canon have made advances most of the gains are in the outer field where users of Canon’s crop bodies aren’t so likely to benefit. Sure the chromatic aberration is lower and sharpness at the edges is better than the old model but users aren’t going to see any improvement in the center."_

There is significant improvement in the midframe too, so crop bodies surely will benefit.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



That's like saying a car has great brakes. There is no scale/standard/criteria to make a claim other than gasketing and rubberized elements exist in places throughout the design. No one ever had to substantiate that it worked well formally.

Some background on how it varies: http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/02/14/how-a-lens-becomes-weather-sealed/#.Vaw8mbdKg40

It's one of the great claims of the industry that no one seems to wants to prove...

- A


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 20, 2015)

zim said:


> Where do you get that from?



From the 5 copies I own. I'm going to do a small post this week about it. It's as bad as the Nikon 80-400 and is much harder to clean than the first 100-400 (which was annoying at the best of times to clean).


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jul 20, 2015)

DXO hitting the crack pipe in the lens testing room again? 

Looks quite a bit better on crop wide open. Especially in the corners and midframe. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Read this lens review from DXO if you want a good laugh or cry depending on how you look at it. 

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-STM-lens-review-Updated-EF-S-telephoto-zoom-no-improvement-on-predecessor


----------



## zim (Jul 20, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Where do you get that from?
> ...



Is the design that much different from the 70-300 L which I've had for over a year and is as clean as a whistle? 
I'd love to know what the people that used your 5 lenses do with them, photography or mud wrestling  ;D
Actually it would be useful to know the environments that they were all used in when your doing the review

Regards


----------



## candc (Jul 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I don't see how any pumper zoom can really be considered weather sealed. They all draw a lot of air in when zooming. I suppose they can try to filter it somehow but if it was "sealed" it would be an airspring.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 20, 2015)

+1 on the dust inside the 100-400 II. I had the original version, which gained dust at a fair clip, but I've never had any lens attract internal dust like the 100-400 II. This is double the rate that I saw the Tamron 150-600 accrete gunk. I'll send it in to CPS for a cleaning before it's a year old. I bet by then my transmission value is down by a quarter stop. 

All that said, it's my favorite lens. As sharp as my 70-200 2.8 IS II. My Mark I was definitely not - even in the center. I suspect my copy was worse than most others', given that the lens had such a following. 

I use it mostly on a 7DII, and the improvement of sharpness is definitely not limited to full frame cameras. 

The DXO review seems like someone was given some bench test results and told to write them up and to not under any circumstances actually mount the lens to a camera use it. 

Last note: I MFA'd my 100-400II, and it didn't need a huge adjustment. It was something like 3 on one side and 5 on the other. But the difference that made was absolutely immense. The lens went from being slightly better than the Mark I to being in a completely different class after I had the micro focus nailed. I'd not had such a moderate change in micro focus quite change the feel and capabilities of a lens before.


----------



## geonix (Jul 20, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Where do you get that from?
> ...





[email protected] said:


> +1 on the dust inside the 100-400 II. I had the original version, which gained dust at a fair clip, but I've never had any lens attract internal dust like the 100-400 II. This is double the rate that I saw the Tamron 150-600 accrete gunk. I'll send it in to CPS for a cleaning before it's a year old. I bet by then my transmission value is down by a quarter stop.



Hearing that is really surprising. 
These guys must have missed something.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/canon-100-400-is-l-mk-ii-teardown-best-built-lens-ever

I would like to hear more about this from the Canonrumors admin. How does dust acutally get into the lens? Mainly on the zoom tube? Why should this lens be more dust-sensitive than others?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 20, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Where do you get that from?
> ...



I own two - which I thought was excessive, and both of my are not dusty internally. Are you in the rental business?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 20, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



I am, so they get used.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 20, 2015)

geonix said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



Their teardown was more about the quality of the parts inside the lens and how it will hold up over time. It's nearly impossible to figure out if dust is going to penetrate.

I have spoken to Roger at LR.com and he has experienced the same thing I have.


----------



## glness (Jul 20, 2015)

I think the rating is accurate. I have the Canon 200-400 f/4L with built in 1.4x extender and that is a remarkable lens (with a DxO rating of 24), but it costs $9000 more and is a lot heavier and bigger! The new 100-400 II, in my view, is an amazing lens and the IQ of the new Canon 100-400, from the images i have seen, is wonderful. Even with the Canon 1.4x extender III (560mm) on the new 100-400, it considerably exceeds the quality of the Tamron 150-600 at the 600 end: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

I think anyone who purchases the new Canon 100-400 is getting an exceptional product and value!


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2015)

Just curious with all these comments of dust -- I presume this is the byproduct of being an externally zooming lens (i.e. there is a sliding external barrel, like with all 24-something standard zooms).

I know the 100-400 lenses were born out of being compact for travel, but has anyone ever made a long telephoto zoom that internally zooms? (It would be physically long like a 400 prime, so it ruins the whole 'compact' design direction.) The only one I know of is... the 200-400, correct? Any dust problems there?

- A


----------



## NNature (Jul 20, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Just curious with all these comments of dust -- I presume this is the byproduct of being an externally zooming lens (i.e. there is a sliding external barrel, like with all 24-something standard zooms).
> 
> I know the 100-400 lenses were born out of being compact for travel, but has anyone ever made a long telephoto zoom that internally zooms? (It would be physically long like a 400 prime, so it ruins the whole 'compact' design direction.) The only one I know of is... the 200-400, correct? Any dust problems there?
> 
> - A



Sigma 120-300/2,8


----------



## erjlphoto (Jul 21, 2015)

Just say NO to DXO!


----------



## FTb-n (Jul 21, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...


With or without a filter? Will a good clear filter keep the dust out?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2015)

On close inspection of my lenses with a very powerful cycle headlight and a magnifying lens I do detect a tiny amount of dust. One of the lenses has a filter and the other doesn't. So, I don't think that the filter is important. The fault may lie in the dimpled paint on the extending lens barrel: the hollows in the surface can harbour dust and the sealing ring that sweeps over the barrel will glide over the dirt particles at the bottoms. A smooth paint finish would give a better seal.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2015)

There is so much variation in the reports of the sharpness of the lens at 400mm at different apertures. The Canon MTFs have f/8 slightly sharper than f/5.6, but they are simulated and do not allow for diffraction, which would negate the difference. Lenstip has f/8 some 2-3% sharper than f/5.6, but that is within the margin of error of their measurements (~±2%). Photozone has f/5.6 much sharper than f/8. ePhotozine on the other hand has f/8 much sharper than f/5.6 or f/11. TDP has f/8 sharper than f/5.6. I have done several repeat runs of sharpness vs aperture using Focal, which I think measures acutance as its quality. Both my copies are sharpest at f/5.6, definitely above f/8 and maybe not distinguishable from f/6.3.

The differences may result from copy variation or technique of measurement. The one person I trust is Roger from Lensrentals and his crew as they have a deep understanding of the statistics and measure multiple copies. They have the centre of the 100-400 II slightly sharper than that of the old 100-400, in contrast with the DxO measurements which have the old one marginally sharper. Just take an average of all the sites, heavily weighted to Lensrentals! And keep up with their measurements of the variance of lenses.


----------



## MDR (Jul 23, 2015)

I have (had got rid of mk1) both lenses without a doubt the mkII is better one thing I felt was autofocus was faster and more accurate with the new one ( on 1mk4D) very happy with the changr


----------



## MJ (Jul 27, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> I'm going to do a little article this week, all 5 that I have are full of dust.



Hey there, I was just wondering about your findings on internal dust accumulating inside the 100-400 II. 

cheers


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 28, 2015)

MJ said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to do a little article this week, all 5 that I have are full of dust.
> ...




Dust, huh?

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/i-dont-know-why-it-swallowed-a-fly-weather-sealed-lens-with-a-fly-inside



> We took dozens of images with the lens before taking the fly out. We shot stopped down, we shot at all parts of the zoom range. We focused close, we focused far. And in no image could we find the slightest hint that there was a fly in the lens.


 ;D


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 28, 2015)

Mikehit said:


> MJ said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Yep, my 24-105L is full of dust, to the point that is is causing flare when shooting into the sun. I'm going to have to get it cleaned.


----------



## Mick (Aug 1, 2015)

I just got my new 100-400 and had a go with my 1DX. I have the latest 70-300, 70-200, 300 and 500 primes. I have never needed to adjust any of the len's, they were all perfect right out the box. I just get on shooting and look at the images I get which are all bang on sharp. What I can say is the new 100-400 focus's fast, feels great to handle and the level of sharpness just blew me away. I get really nice contrast and colours its just one amazing lens and a real worthy upgrade to the old one. Ok its not quite the 300 prime but that's just the best lens i've ever used and over three times the cost but I tell you its not that far off in real world shooting and a real good match when using the extender on the prime. Its also lighter and easier to use as I get older. Possibly...no it is the best "all round" does everything lens ive ever used. Ill give it a go on the new 7D tomorrow and expect equally good results. It may be a few £'s more than some competitors but like many things in life...you get what you pay for. Now...how do I tell my wife ive been shopping again..........


----------



## FTb-n (Aug 29, 2015)

Mick said:


> I just got my new 100-400 and had a go with my 1DX. I have the latest 70-300, 70-200, 300 and 500 primes. I have never needed to adjust any of the len's, they were all perfect right out the box. I just get on shooting and look at the images I get which are all bang on sharp. What I can say is the new 100-400 focus's fast, feels great to handle and the level of sharpness just blew me away. I get really nice contrast and colours its just one amazing lens and a real worthy upgrade to the old one. Ok its not quite the 300 prime but that's just the best lens i've ever used and over three times the cost but I tell you its not that far off in real world shooting and a real good match when using the extender on the prime. Its also lighter and easier to use as I get older. Possibly...no it is the best "all round" does everything lens ive ever used. Ill give it a go on the new 7D tomorrow and expect equally good results. It may be a few £'s more than some competitors but like many things in life...you get what you pay for. Now...how do I tell my wife ive been shopping again..........


The 100-400 is a great fit for the 1Dx, especially for outdoor sports. What did you find out about the lens on the 7D2? 
So, what did you find out about the 100-400 on the 7D?


----------

