May 28, 2015, 02:25:48 PM

Author Topic: Photozone review of 100-400 L II  (Read 1888 times)

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1383
Photozone review of 100-400 L II
« on: December 19, 2014, 02:50:20 PM »
The review I have been waiting for:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2

The measured MTFs are just so good. It is exceptional in the centre at 100-300mm, and still very high at 400mm. At 200mm, it nearly out resolves the 5DII sensor with a score of 3700 LW/PH out of a maximum of 3800, far better than the 70-200mm IS II. At 400mm, it resolves 3450 LW/PH. The sharpest aperture is f/5.6.

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

Comparing with the Mk I, it is way ahead for 100-300mm and significantly better in the centre at 400mm.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/609-canon100400f4556ff

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/609-canon100400f4556ff?start=1

It's even better than the 400/5.6.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1


« Last Edit: December 19, 2014, 03:17:42 PM by AlanF »
5D III, 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, 100-400 II, Sigma 10-20, EOS-M 18-55, f/2 22.

canon rumors FORUM

Photozone review of 100-400 L II
« on: December 19, 2014, 02:50:20 PM »

DanoPhoto

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 142
  • There is beauty in simplicity.
Re: Photozone review of 100-400 L II
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2014, 03:01:26 PM »
Thanks for sharing, Alan.  Objectively and subjectively better than I expected.  ;D
1DX | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 50L | 70-200/2.8L IS II | 100L Macro | 100-400L II | 300/2.8L IS II | 1.4x III TC | 2x III TC | 580EX II | MT24EX | lots of accessories & gadgets

jthomson

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 187
Re: Photozone review of 100-400 L II
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2014, 03:03:21 PM »

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10300
Re: Photozone review of 100-400 L II
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2014, 03:20:33 PM »
They are certainly glowing about it.  I love mine, but felt that the higher contrast tended to make the image appear sharper.  The greatly improved middle and outer edges also make the overall image look a lot sharper.  I believe there is less CA's, but it wasn't a issue on the MK I.
 
I've seen your tests, and they seem right to me, there is always lens variation, but they are as expected.
 
One interesting thing is that the lens center MTF is always highest wide open, and the edge MTF increases very little as you stop down, while the center MTF goes down a little.
 
It is still excellent at 400mm, where I would use it most, in fact, I have only used mine at 400mm, so maybe I should have went for the DO.
 
Roger at Lens Rentals tested 4 each with his new transmissive target.  He just looked at 400mm so far, but did not measure much difference between ver 1 and 2 in the center.  He does warn that he wants to test more lenses to get better data.

martti

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 394
Re: Photozone review of 100-400 L II
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2015, 11:33:14 PM »
The old version is still OK. All of a sudden there are lots of them on the used marked. Wonder why.
People keep complaining about Canon's policy of conservatism. They have ore of DSLRs and lenses out there in the field than any other manufacturer and the situation has remained about the same for many years. Obviously there are happy clients out there. It is so much easier to keep a client than to win over a new one.
This explains pretty well the slow going –which is not so slow after all! Quite a few improved versions of old classics out there as well as the new f/4 zooms of briliant optical quality.
The lens selection is a very good reason to stick with Canon.

Upgrading the dust pump, the version II on the 24-70 and still get the 16-35 f/4...Well, i'll have to stop somewhere. I have to stop reading this forum, calm down and go scare some birds with the dust pup!
"Don't wake up, it's just me"

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Photozone review of 100-400 L II
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2015, 11:33:14 PM »