August 27, 2014, 02:56:30 PM

Author Topic: Review: Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM by DxO Mark  (Read 3861 times)

dufflover

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 102
  • OH YEAH!
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM by DxO Mark
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2014, 07:02:51 AM »
100-400 is one of my staples; good 'ol 70-200 sized (in terms of transport) 400mm telephoto and pretty good performance. Almost in the same bucket as the 7D thoughts; the current is good, passable, aging by today's standards, but rumour of a replacement coming which should be kickass.

For the lens specifically just looking at the refreshes like the 70-200 II, a new 100-400 would be bloody sharp and kickass ... but sadly also pretty expensive :P
Hurry up Canon and do something with your sensors! :P

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1035
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM by DxO Mark
« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2014, 08:57:04 AM »
I sold my excellent mint copy last week while I can still get a good price. Whereas it is OK on FF, DxO gives it a rating of 13 Mpix sharpness on the 6D or 5DIII, it drops to only 6 Mpix on the 7D or 7Mpix on the 70D, echoing what most of us know already that crop requires sharp lenses. And, I found the 100-400 on the 5DIII pretty good and not so good on the 7D,

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-7D__619

A supersharp lens like the 330/2.8 II drops from 21 Mpix on the 5DIII to a still excellent 14 on the 7D and 17 on the 70D. Ok, DxO tests aren't perfect and they can make mistakes, but testing the same lens on different bodies is a pretty fair comparison.

If I want zoom in the 100-400mm region, I am going to use as a stop gap until a new 100-400 or what else the 70-200mm f/4 IS with or without extenders. I found it better or at least as good as the 100-400 on the 5DIII, and you can see this is general on the TDP site or lenstip, and not just me.
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

DocSanjeev

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM by DxO Mark
« Reply #17 on: February 01, 2014, 10:41:02 PM »
I sold my 100-400 yesterday (sob boo hoo) since I am getting a 70-200 f/2.8 II and I have the 500 II. I will wait for it's replacement and till that time use the 2.8 with extenders as stop gap. I liked the 100-400 very much though.

DJD

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM by DxO Mark
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2014, 11:29:17 PM »
I've had mine for several years and have never been disappointed with it. I shot the America Cup races with it on a monopod using the 1.4 and 2.0 TC together for 1120 mm total. Shooting the Cats at 50 MPH it did great. You can see the images at FM Forums under sports.
Paul

SJPRG,
Could you include a link to your pics on FM Forum. I'd love to see them but there are so many in the sport corner I gave up searching :(
Thanks,
DJD
7D, 400D, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, Lightroom 5.6

Orangutan

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM by DxO Mark
« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2014, 05:09:46 PM »
I sold my excellent mint copy last week while I can still get a good price. Whereas it is OK on FF, DxO gives it a rating of 13 Mpix sharpness on the 6D or 5DIII, it drops to only 6 Mpix on the 7D or 7Mpix on the 70D, echoing what most of us know already that crop requires sharp lenses. And, I found the 100-400 on the 5DIII pretty good and not so good on the 7D,

I just did a quick & dirty test of my 100-400 vs 70-200 f/4.  From about 30ft away I photographed a Canadian $20 bill using my 60D, then cropped each to the size of the bill.  The 100-400 showed much more detail. 

I just wanted to get a "ballpark" idea of the relative detail each would give me for birds.  I don't purport this to be anything like a definitive test since I don't have AFMA, and I used PD focus because the movement (without IS) made manual focusing a major challenge.  I think I'll keep the 100-400 for now, but may try some bird photos with the 70-200 and see how they compare.

hoodlum

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr Birds