100-400L IS I vs 400L/5.6 for beginner wildlife/birds/sports

[Snzkgb]

So today I've bought 100-400L IS first version. It appeared to be not so big and heavy, as I'd expected it to be.
Tomorrow I'll take it to the canon service to tune the AF to be deadly accurate on both of my bodies. I've only made a couple of photos, but from what I see, my copy is pretty good and sharpness is not bad at all.

 

[Mikehit]

Enjoy your new toy! ;D

Do the Canon centre actually AFMA your lens/camera for you? As far as I am aware in UK they will check each item (lens and body) to make sure they are within manufacturing tolerance but do not check and calibrate them as a pair.

 

[Snzkgb]

Enjoy your new toy! ;D

Do the Canon centre actually AFMA your lens/camera for you? As far as I am aware in UK they will check each item (lens and body) to make sure they are within manufacturing tolerance but do not check and calibrate them as a pair.

In Russia you can get your gear (body and lens) to the Canon service centre, tell that you need to fine tune AF on your gear, give gear away and come back after 3-5 hours to pay like 20$ for the service and to get your tuned gear back. I prefer to do that rather than microadjusting AF in camera by myself.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

In regard to the 70-200 with 2xTCIII, I did use this along side the 200-400 on a trip to Borneo back in 2014. I found the IQ to be very similar to the 100-400. However the AF takes a big hit and u less you leave the limiter on the outer range it is actually unusable when full range is selected.

However it is a versatile combo because sometimes you can get closer and use it with 1.4TC or with the bare lens, gaining a stop of light each time.

But the above only applies to the newest ISII version.

Actually, you've brought up a very good point about the 100-400L mkI and 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 2x TC. Their image quality is about the same, but in both cases their AF speed and accuracy are quite poor (compared to the 400mm f5.6 L prime and native 70-200). Both show very similar results to the 400mm f5.6 L when shooting charts in a studio. But in the real world their AF is very pedestrian, but do have very useful IS systems. Where the newer mkII 100-400L improves over all the other options (including the prime) is that it's AF system is vastly superior in both accuracy and speed. It's IQ is a little better too, and it's IS is probably the best implementation on a camera lens so far....but it's big selling point is the AF system...and maybe it's slightly closer MFD.

 

[Snzkgb]

In regard to the 70-200 with 2xTCIII, I did use this along side the 200-400 on a trip to Borneo back in 2014. I found the IQ to be very similar to the 100-400. However the AF takes a big hit and u less you leave the limiter on the outer range it is actually unusable when full range is selected.

However it is a versatile combo because sometimes you can get closer and use it with 1.4TC or with the bare lens, gaining a stop of light each time.

But the above only applies to the newest ISII version.

Actually, you've brought up a very good point about the 100-400L mkI and 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 2x TC. Their image quality is about the same, but in both cases their AF speed and accuracy are quite poor (compared to the 400mm f5.6 L prime and native 70-200). Both show very similar results to the 400mm f5.6 L when shooting charts in a studio. But in the real world their AF is very pedestrian, but do have very useful IS systems. Where the newer mkII 100-400L improves over all the other options (including the prime) is that it's AF system is vastly superior in both accuracy and speed. It's IQ is a little better too, and it's IS is probably the best implementation on a camera lens so far....but it's big selling point is the AF system...and maybe it's slightly closer MFD.

I used to test shoot my 100-400L and I find AF speed is fine enough, at least for me. I thought it would be worse.

 

[NancyP]

Mixed use? 100-400 f/variable L IS I is a bargain and is good enough if you don't know that you will need to be at 400 all the time. Lots of my IRL nature photographer friends, including pros, have this lens.

Major amount of sports? Enough money to buy a used Big White? Feel comfortable hauling around a Big A** Lens? Consider one of the 300mm f/2.8 L IS lenses (I or II) and Canon v. III teleconverters.

I have and love the 400mm f/5.6L no-IS, but I use it mostly for birds, in flight, and on monopod or tripod in really low light. But then again, I don't mind a little (or even a lot of) noise in bird / wildlife action shots. I am not shooting for some advertising campaign that requires medium format, high pixel count detail.

 

[Snzkgb]

I'm quite pleased with what this lens in combination with 7D can do. Today I spent a couple of hours shooting some birds, and I think I've done OK.

 

[Click]

I'm quite pleased with what this lens in combination with 7D can do. Today I spent a couple of hours shooting some birds, and I think I've done OK.

It's more than OK

 

[Snzkgb]

I'm quite pleased with what this lens in combination with 7D can do. Today I spent a couple of hours shooting some birds, and I think I've done OK.

It's more than OK

Thank you!

 

[serendipidy]

I'm quite pleased with what this lens in combination with 7D can do. Today I spent a couple of hours shooting some birds, and I think I've done OK.

Very nice!

 

[neonlight]

Nice pic!
Another point to mention - the 100-400 I is pretty sharp in the centre; so using it with APS-C bodies is probably better than using it on FF. For FF you would probably b e better with the 100-400II

 

[Snzkgb]

Nice pic!
Another point to mention - the 100-400 I is pretty sharp in the centre; so using it with APS-C bodies is probably better than using it on FF. For FF you would probably b e better with the 100-400II

100-400 II is just too expensive for me.

 

[AlanF]

Nice pic!
Another point to mention - the 100-400 I is pretty sharp in the centre; so using it with APS-C bodies is probably better than using it on FF. For FF you would probably b e better with the 100-400II

My 100-400mm I performed much better on FF than on APS-C. TDP found the same with theirs as can be seen vs the Mk II on two bodies. The smaller pixels of APS-C are less forgiving.

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

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Both the 400 and 100-400 Mk I are good places to start. If you find you are limited in what you can do with them, you will upgrade. But, they might satisfy your needs enough - they do for many.

 

[Snzkgb]

Nice pic!
Another point to mention - the 100-400 I is pretty sharp in the centre; so using it with APS-C bodies is probably better than using it on FF. For FF you would probably b e better with the 100-400II

My 100-400mm I performed much better on FF than on APS-C. TDP found the same with theirs as can be seen vs the Mk II on two bodies. The smaller pixels of APS-C are less forgiving.

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

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Both the 400 and 100-400 Mk I are good places to start. If you find you are limited in what you can do with them, you will upgrade. But, they might satisfy your needs enough - they do for many.

Sure I've already found that I'm limited with 100-400 Mk I and 7D, but I have no money on Mk2 and 7D2. I'd like to have some of big whites, like 500mm f/4, but, again, my hobbie do not bring me money, I only spent money on it.

 

[neonlight]

"The smaller pixels of APS-C are less forgiving"

Indeed.
I bought my 100-400 I two years before the II appeared. But I would not have been without it for two years, and it can turn in some good quality shots, perhaps needing slightly more favourable conditions.