Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I just noticed some updated release info on the B&H website about this lens:
"Pre order. Released in limited qty.
Expected availability: December 15 2014"
(not sure if anyone else has posted this yet or not...)
"Pre order. Released in limited qty.
Expected availability: December 15 2014"
(not sure if anyone else has posted this yet or not...)
Upvote
0
MadHungarian said:
Thank you for posting this, that's great news! Hopefully cameracanada will also ship that date.
Upvote
0
JorritJ said:
And... they just shipped mine, should arrive tomorrow. These guys... original estimate of delivery 2nd week of December, then updated to last few days of December, then shipped the 2nd week of December.
Assuming I'm home when the delivery guy comes by, I will have it in-hand tomorrow.
Upvote
0
rossstevens said:Anybody know when this lens is coming out?
I think it comes out when you turn the zoom ring!
Upvote
0
Finally broke down -- tried to resist the 100-400 v2 and just keep my v1 ... as it is sharp and still looks great, works great. Never been a fan of push-pull design tho, and after watching a few images, decided to bit the bullet.
I ordered it from Adorama Sunday afternoon, it arrived yesterday (Wednesday = seventy three hours later) and this lens was worth the wait! Incredible! My v1 is always a tiny bit soft at 400 and with any light loss, altho', still has always been the favored lens in my bag - and I have NO complaints over the years. Altho lately, the 70-200 L IS has gotten lots of use since I quit shooting so much sports. But this v.2 lens became the favorite as soon as it left it's shipping box and I spun it on the 7D2 ... One very amazing lens.
I read a lot of "negative posts" about Canon gear in general, and as with any manufactured equipment, every once in a while, one may get a bad one. I've never had that experience with Canon gear -- so can't even get into those discussions. My luck holds - this lens is as good as it gets in the Zoom category.
So for any Canon naysayers that immediately jump out and scream about Canon 'inferior' products -- this one will stick those back in a closet for awhile. Looks like the 7D2 and the 100-400 v2 were made for one another!
I ordered it from Adorama Sunday afternoon, it arrived yesterday (Wednesday = seventy three hours later) and this lens was worth the wait! Incredible! My v1 is always a tiny bit soft at 400 and with any light loss, altho', still has always been the favored lens in my bag - and I have NO complaints over the years. Altho lately, the 70-200 L IS has gotten lots of use since I quit shooting so much sports. But this v.2 lens became the favorite as soon as it left it's shipping box and I spun it on the 7D2 ... One very amazing lens.
I read a lot of "negative posts" about Canon gear in general, and as with any manufactured equipment, every once in a while, one may get a bad one. I've never had that experience with Canon gear -- so can't even get into those discussions. My luck holds - this lens is as good as it gets in the Zoom category.
So for any Canon naysayers that immediately jump out and scream about Canon 'inferior' products -- this one will stick those back in a closet for awhile. Looks like the 7D2 and the 100-400 v2 were made for one another!
Upvote
0
Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
Seems like the only thing missing is the much improved IQ. Roger's initial, cursory tests over at the rental place indicate it's only around 4% sharper on average. Of course there are other IQ considerations like flare, CA, distortion, contrast, color reproduction, etc., but 4% better sharpness isn't exactly a slam dunk. ???
To be clear, I'm looking forward to getting this guy and I want to love the heck out of every aspect of it. But 4% pales in comparison to the 40% improvement of the 400 DO II over its predecessor.
sagittariansrock said:
Seems like the only thing missing is the much improved IQ. Roger's initial, cursory tests over at the rental place indicate it's only around 4% sharper on average. Of course there are other IQ considerations like flare, CA, distortion, contrast, color reproduction, etc., but 4% better sharpness isn't exactly a slam dunk. ???
To be clear, I'm looking forward to getting this guy and I want to love the heck out of every aspect of it. But 4% pales in comparison to the 40% improvement of the 400 DO II over its predecessor.
Upvote
0
Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
As I keep telling people, the old one was very good optically, but only under ideal conditions (IS off or stopped down a stop). The new one seems to be massively better under regular high stress conditions (wide oopen with the IS in, and in resisting flare and CA.
curby said:
As I keep telling people, the old one was very good optically, but only under ideal conditions (IS off or stopped down a stop). The new one seems to be massively better under regular high stress conditions (wide oopen with the IS in, and in resisting flare and CA.
Upvote
0
Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
The mkI 100-400L has some notoriously bad copies out there. I've tried a number of copies over the years. Back in early 2008, I tried a copy which was just awful. Soft every where and it wasn't the AF system....something in the lens alignment must have been really out of place. Earlier copies which I had tried were like night and day on comparison. When I chose a 400L f5.6 over a 100-400, there were a few reasons why. The AF on every 100-400 which I tried was pretty slow, especially in lower light. I found the push pull at 400mm caused the lens to unbalance on a tripod and the 2 stop IS wasn't that great.
But that was then and this is now...the new lens looks like it's address all these issues and it's got slightly better IQ than the sharpest and best 100-400L's which came off the Canon line. It's it's reliable, sharp, quick and accurate AF with a great IS implementation and it's handling works better...then it's a worthy successor!
Will I be buying one? Not yet, I'll wait until the prices have stabilised a bit more.
Lee Jay said:
The mkI 100-400L has some notoriously bad copies out there. I've tried a number of copies over the years. Back in early 2008, I tried a copy which was just awful. Soft every where and it wasn't the AF system....something in the lens alignment must have been really out of place. Earlier copies which I had tried were like night and day on comparison. When I chose a 400L f5.6 over a 100-400, there were a few reasons why. The AF on every 100-400 which I tried was pretty slow, especially in lower light. I found the push pull at 400mm caused the lens to unbalance on a tripod and the 2 stop IS wasn't that great.
But that was then and this is now...the new lens looks like it's address all these issues and it's got slightly better IQ than the sharpest and best 100-400L's which came off the Canon line. It's it's reliable, sharp, quick and accurate AF with a great IS implementation and it's handling works better...then it's a worthy successor!
Will I be buying one? Not yet, I'll wait until the prices have stabilised a bit more.
Upvote
0
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/12/a-brief-400mm-comparison
A very brief IQ comparison is at the link above. First they compare the 400 DO lenses, and then they report sharpness data for the white unicorns against its predecessor, but he only reported wide open data at 400mm.
More to come, hopefully, but it appears we'll be waiting for LensTip or Photozone to get the lens and do their thing.
- A
A very brief IQ comparison is at the link above. First they compare the 400 DO lenses, and then they report sharpness data for the white unicorns against its predecessor, but he only reported wide open data at 400mm.
More to come, hopefully, but it appears we'll be waiting for LensTip or Photozone to get the lens and do their thing.
- A
Upvote
0
Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
My 100-400 was very sharp. I think a key criterion for the MkII will be performance with the 1.4xIII, given the availability of f/8 AF on multiple bodies including the 7DII. The MkI didn't take a TC well. Given the 3rd party 150-600 options which are substantially larger and heavier, a lighter, more easily transportable 560mm f/8 would be a great option. Looking at the TDP crops, the 100-400 II takes a 1.4x quite well, and the resulting combo delivers better IQ than the Tamron 150-600 @ 600mm.
Lee Jay said:
My 100-400 was very sharp. I think a key criterion for the MkII will be performance with the 1.4xIII, given the availability of f/8 AF on multiple bodies including the 7DII. The MkI didn't take a TC well. Given the 3rd party 150-600 options which are substantially larger and heavier, a lighter, more easily transportable 560mm f/8 would be a great option. Looking at the TDP crops, the 100-400 II takes a 1.4x quite well, and the resulting combo delivers better IQ than the Tamron 150-600 @ 600mm.
Upvote
0
Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
Yeah, it did. But the new one is quite a bit better, especially off-axis.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=8&APIComp=2
neuroanatomist said:
Yeah, it did. But the new one is quite a bit better, especially off-axis.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=8&APIComp=2
Upvote
0
Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
Like all the recent mkII models from Canon. There's probably not enough to justify buying the mkII if you already have a great copy of the mkI....but if you don't already have one or it's a bit iffy...then they mkII makes a lot of sense.
Yep, my experience with the mkI was that it's weakest points were it's bokeh when compared to the 400 f5.6L prime and it's pedestrian AF speed in anything other than bright light. It's optical performance (with a good sample) was excellent. I didn't particularly like the tripod collar placement when on a tripod racked out to 400mm, which still looks to be the case with the new one...but at least the old issues have been more than rectified.neuroanatomist said:
Like all the recent mkII models from Canon. There's probably not enough to justify buying the mkII if you already have a great copy of the mkI....but if you don't already have one or it's a bit iffy...then they mkII makes a lot of sense.
Upvote
0
Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
I think those ideal conditions must also include using a full frame sensor with relatively large subsensors. I was reading another thread here yesterday that discussed how high density sensors put more stringent requirements on lenses. Something tells me that the first version's proponents were more likely using full frame bodies with it than crop bodies.* If the new version also excels on crop bodies, then that in itself is a big improvement.
* I'm a newbie, so of course there could be another explanation. But quality reports on the first version are unarguably widely varying. It's likely that Canon had silently been improving the design and tolerances over the decade+ span of the first version. It's possible that there was a lot of sample variation. But it could also be that those factors were at times combined with sensors of varying pickiness. So ultimately, the optical benefit of the new design might not be that it's improving the best samples, but rather that it's decreasing sample variation (so they're all the "best" ones) and thereby offering more consistently positive performance even on dense sensors.
Lee Jay said:
I think those ideal conditions must also include using a full frame sensor with relatively large subsensors. I was reading another thread here yesterday that discussed how high density sensors put more stringent requirements on lenses. Something tells me that the first version's proponents were more likely using full frame bodies with it than crop bodies.* If the new version also excels on crop bodies, then that in itself is a big improvement.
* I'm a newbie, so of course there could be another explanation. But quality reports on the first version are unarguably widely varying. It's likely that Canon had silently been improving the design and tolerances over the decade+ span of the first version. It's possible that there was a lot of sample variation. But it could also be that those factors were at times combined with sensors of varying pickiness. So ultimately, the optical benefit of the new design might not be that it's improving the best samples, but rather that it's decreasing sample variation (so they're all the "best" ones) and thereby offering more consistently positive performance even on dense sensors.
Upvote
0
Eventually got my copy.
It's a great lens. I've probably been using it under fairly ideal conditions but it's performing great.
Autofocus is fast and slick.
I love the feel of the photos out of it .
The 70-200mm II is in danger of becoming my second favourite.
Has worked very well with both the 5D Mark III and 7D Mark II .
10FPS is a nice experience with it (the downside being the number of similar photos you get. Lots of post deleting required).
An expensive lens but undoubted quality.
I'm looking forward to taking more great photos with it.
It's a great lens. I've probably been using it under fairly ideal conditions but it's performing great.
Autofocus is fast and slick.
I love the feel of the photos out of it .
The 70-200mm II is in danger of becoming my second favourite.
Has worked very well with both the 5D Mark III and 7D Mark II .
10FPS is a nice experience with it (the downside being the number of similar photos you get. Lots of post deleting required).
An expensive lens but undoubted quality.
I'm looking forward to taking more great photos with it.
Upvote
0
Got mine too.Hector1970 said:
Will test it this week-end during Montreal pond hockey - good conditions (but cold - frozen river).
Pre-test shows great results. Mine will be used mainly under tough conditions and I foresee satisfaction. Tried to handheld it, for non-moving subject, at 1/50s ISO 6400 at 400mm and I really liked what I saw. The slight handshake can easily be removed in post.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)