EF 100-400mm II - first impressions

[AlanF]

My 100-400 II arrived today at the local store, collected it at 2.45 pm, adjusted microfocus on Focal by 3.45, when it was nearly dark here, ± 1.4xTC.

I fired 6 quick shots of the local chimney in the near dark at 560 mm (with the 1.4xTC) at f/8, iso 2500 and 1/25 s. All were spot on sharp. The IS is excellent, at least 4 stops, compared with 3 on my Tamron at 600. The image looks really sharp. I couldn't do any extensive testing as I had to photo all the kids at a Christmas party, but I have just done some quick shots of the centre of the iso 1223 chart to compare with the 300/2.8 II and Tamron on the 5DIII. (My 70D is at WEX being assessed for part exchange).

1. At 400mm and f/5.6, it is not as sharp as the 300 + 1.4xTC at 420mm and f/4. I was only at about 8m from the target, and the focal length appeared to be only about a real 370mm.
2. At 560mm and f/8 with the 1.4xTC it is really sharp, and much better than the Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm and f/8.

I am really surprised about how good it is with the 1.4xTC. With it's superb IS and performance at 560mm, I am really pleased I bought it. A little disappointed at 400mm, but maybe microfocus isn't quite right yet. I'll play around with it more in the next few days to see how it shapes up at 400.

Left hand side shots are raw converted to jpeg with no sharpening whatsoever. Right is applying unsharp mask at 0.9 px and 100%.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I'm a bit confused. What are the left and right images on each row? They are a comparison of some type by your titles don't describe it well.

 

[wickidwombat]

awesome so IQ is better than the tamron, how about Af performance with the 1.4? are you using the 1.4 TC mk3?
also that tamron shot looks too blurry for f8 maybe wide open... are you sure you didn't get any shake in that?

the tamron is a bit too big for travel and this looks like a much better option and has panning mode IS which IMO is a massive fault on the tamron.

 

[AlanF]

awesome so IQ is better than the tamron, how about Af performance with the 1.4? are you using the 1.4 TC mk3?
also that tamron shot looks too blurry for f8 maybe wide open... are you sure you didn't get any shake in that?

the tamron is a bit too big for travel and this looks like a much better option and has panning mode IS which IMO is a massive fault on the tamron.

Using the MkIII. Haven't been able to check AF outside yet, will do that tomorrow. The thing about the 300/2.8 is that you sometimes feel a bit sick about what it cost, then you compare other lenses with it and it just wins.

Maybe there was some shake, but I'll never know from now as I sold the Tamron. I don't regret buying it and making a loss as it is a very good lens and I had a lot of fun with it and have some photos I treasure.

 

[wickidwombat]

awesome so IQ is better than the tamron, how about Af performance with the 1.4? are you using the 1.4 TC mk3?
also that tamron shot looks too blurry for f8 maybe wide open... are you sure you didn't get any shake in that?

the tamron is a bit too big for travel and this looks like a much better option and has panning mode IS which IMO is a massive fault on the tamron.

Using the MkIII. Haven't been able to check AF outside yet, will do that tomorrow. The thing about the 300/2.8 is that you sometimes feel a bit sick about what it cost, then you compare other lenses with it and it just wins.

Maybe there was some shake, but I'll never know from now as I sold the Tamron. I don't regret buying it and making a loss as it is a very good lens and I had a lot of fun with it and have some photos I treasure.

cool i'm really keen on seeing your feelings since you know what you are doing, as i'm looking at getting this and selling the tamron too, can you try some panning shots with the panning mode IS at long range too to see how it performs?

 

[Runnerguy]

awesome so IQ is better than the tamron, how about Af performance with the 1.4? are you using the 1.4 TC mk3?
also that tamron shot looks too blurry for f8 maybe wide open... are you sure you didn't get any shake in that?

the tamron is a bit too big for travel and this looks like a much better option and has panning mode IS which IMO is a massive fault on the tamron.

I just got my 100-400 II and played around shooting at seagulls with and without the 1.4x on the 7d II and I am very impressed .The AF was slightly slower with the 1.4x but still worked very well for BIF in low light and I compared shots at stationary targets with my 300 II and the 100-400 held its own.I will be keeping this lens for a long time .

 

[JonAustin]

Thanks for the comparison shots. I'm really looking forward to picking one up, possibly before the end of the year.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I have the 300 II so based on this I don't see the need right now for the 100-400. I used to own the mark 1 model but always used it at 400 and realized I didn't need a zoom.

400 seems a bit soft to me. Still better than the sigma. Since you used focal it's possible the afma is still off some. I would verify that with a better tool, something like a spyder lenscal. I'm not a big fan of focal. I think it causes more harm than good whereas a good target and ruler doesn't lie.

So based on this initial test I can say I'm holding off for a bit. Thanks for taking the time to post the comparisons.

 

[AlanF]

Sorted out the problem why 400 mm seemed soft. The focal length of the 100-400mm at that distance from the target was 370mm, compared with a true 420 for the 1.4x300 with the prime. The smaller focal took the size of the central rings of the chart below what could be resolved. So, I repeated the shots at 400mm (= 370mm) closer to the target so the image is the same size as that from the 420mm. The rings are now very nicely resolved (phew!). Here are the comparisons with my usual procedure. RAW, DxO 10, PRIME noise reduction, exported into PS. On the left there is zero sharpening, on the right 0.9 px at 100% USM.

I am much happier now.

 

[FEBS]

Thanks for sharing Alan,

I'm really impressed by the results. Maybe I will buy one soon for travelling lighter.

 

[AlanF]

I am not feeling well this morning so took first photos of birds rather than work!
These are all 100% crops, f/8 at 560mm iso 640 on the 5DIII. DxO prime followed by 0.9px USM at 100% (not necessary but that's my routine).

What's impressive is the Robin was at 1/50 s and the crow at 1/60 s. I took several shots and they were all keepers at those times. The IS is stupendous.

 

[LovePhotography]

I am not feeling well this morning so took first photos of birds rather than work!
These are all 100% crops, f/8 at 560mm iso 640 on the 5DIII. DxO prime followed by 0.9px USM at 100% (not necessary but that's my routine).

What's impressive is the Robin was at 1/50 s and the crow at 1/60 s. I took several shots and they were all keepers at those times. The IS is stupendous.

Looks like they may have focused a couple inches forward of the subject. (See the gutter on the crow, and the branch for the squirrel).

 

[AlanF]

I am not feeling well this morning so took first photos of birds rather than work!
These are all 100% crops, f/8 at 560mm iso 640 on the 5DIII. DxO prime followed by 0.9px USM at 100% (not necessary but that's my routine).

What's impressive is the Robin was at 1/50 s and the crow at 1/60 s. I took several shots and they were all keepers at those times. The IS is stupendous.

Looks like they may have focused a couple inches forward of the subject. (See the gutter on the crow, and the branch for the squirrel).

I focussed on the squirrels nose, which is very sharp. As he is leaning forwards, the plane of focus is forward of his body. The crow was very close, and the depth of field very thin.

 

[Jack Douglas]

AlanF sorry to hear how unwell you are, not able to work! Reminds me of my kids years back.

Jack

 

[AlanF]

AlanF sorry to hear how unwell you are, not able to work! Reminds me of my kids years back.

Jack

It's the first time I have been ill for ages and am meant to hosting a 120 people at a party tonight. Everything now depends on the therapeutic efficacy of my wife's chicken soup.

 

[JonAustin]

I am not feeling well this morning so took first photos of birds rather than work!
These are all 100% crops, f/8 at 560mm iso 640 on the 5DIII. DxO prime followed by 0.9px USM at 100% (not necessary but that's my routine).

What's impressive is the Robin was at 1/50 s and the crow at 1/60 s. I took several shots and they were all keepers at those times. The IS is stupendous.

If I can get my hands on a copy that is as sharp without a TC as yours is with the 1.4x, I'll be a happy camper!

Feel better!

 

[AlanF]

Sorted out the problem why 400 mm seemed soft. The focal length of the 100-400mm at that distance from the target was 370mm, compared with a true 420 for the 1.4x300 with the prime. The smaller focal took the size of the central rings of the chart below what could be resolved. So, I repeated the shots at 400mm (= 370mm) closer to the target so the image is the same size as that from the 420mm. The rings are now very nicely resolved (phew!). Here are the comparisons with my usual procedure. RAW, DxO 10, PRIME noise reduction, exported into PS. On the left there is zero sharpening, on the right 0.9 px at 100% USM.

I am much happier now.

...so at what distance did you actually take your readings?

If the effective focal length is reduced from 400 to 370 it looks as if it is at close range.

8-10 m

I'll check out the focal length at infinity soon.

 

[Plainsman]

Sorted out the problem why 400 mm seemed soft. The focal length of the 100-400mm at that distance from the target was 370mm, compared with a true 420 for the 1.4x300 with the prime. The smaller focal took the size of the central rings of the chart below what could be resolved. So, I repeated the shots at 400mm (= 370mm) closer to the target so the image is the same size as that from the 420mm. The rings are now very nicely resolved (phew!). Here are the comparisons with my usual procedure. RAW, DxO 10, PRIME noise reduction, exported into PS. On the left there is zero sharpening, on the right 0.9 px at 100% USM.

I am much happier now.

...so at what distance did you actually take your readings?

If the effective focal length is reduced from 400 to 370 it looks as if it is at close range.

8-10 m

I'll check out the focal length at infinity soon.

Thanks Alan but really I would not bother doing an infinity check - its a Canon so its bound to be as stated on the lens!!

 

[Cosmicbug]

Thanks for the tests and so far so good though I am hoping 400mm is as stated at longer distances.
...
Would be great to see comparisons with the Mk1 and 400 f5.6 prime

 

[AlanF]

The comparisons are now out on The-Digital-Picture site - no full review but the iso1223 crops.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972

vs 400/5.6

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=278&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

nothing between them

vs 200-400 @ 200

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Nothing between them

vs 200-400 @ 400

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=278&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

very little between them

vs 200-400 @ 560

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

200-400 has edge in corners

vs 200-400 @ 800

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

200-400 significantly better in corners and will AF

vs 100-400 I @ 400

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=2

Mk II significantly better.

vs 100-400 I @ 560

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=8&APIComp=2

Mk II significantly better.

So, the new zoom is as sharp as the old favourite 400/5.6 and has 4 stops at least of IS and zoom. It stands up well against the 200-400 at 5x the the price (and a multiple of the weight).