A Classic EF Lens Reaches the End of Production

[Canon Rumors]

One of my favourite lenses for the EF mount is the EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 L IS USM II, if there was ever a version II of a lens that was better in every single way, this was it. It had wonderful optics, build quality, a new trick lens hood, great balance and a tripod collar […]

See full article...

 

[P-visie]

It is/ was a great lens, except for the removable foot of the tripod collar. Mine had to be repaired within a year. The same intern who designed this removable foot went on to design lens and body caps that can only be attached in one way and the R5 Mk II hot shoe cover……

 

[candyman]

It is/ was a great lens……

I am still using it with great pleasure. A real joy. Since it performs so well, I am not motivated to replace it with the RF100-500.

 

[AlanF]

The EF 400mm f/5.6 L had quite a following, who thought it very sharp. Then along came the EF 100-400mm ii that was sharper than the prime, had excellent IS, not much heavier and was a zoom. A splendid lens, fully worth its price. Fortunately, it morphed into the RF 100-500 so I don't miss my two 100-400s.

 

[HeavyPiper]

It is/ was a great lens, except for the removable foot of the tripod collar. Mine had to be repaired within a year

I replaced my foot with a RRS after market foot.

 

[erader]

I am still using it with great pleasure. A real joy. Since it performs so well, I am not motivated to replace it with the RF100-500.

famous last words haha? i made the swap in december after buying an R5 and selling all my ef lenses. wow I love the extra reach with no weight/size/IQ penalty but do dump the bucket hood for the 50L f1.2 hood for much improved packability. and while you're at it dump the bucket hood on the miniscule 70-200L F4 for the RF 24-105 hood

 

[erader]

I replaced my foot with a RRS after market foot.

yeah because the OEM foot was terrible, and does anyone really use a polarizer with a lens hood? i hated that hood and glued the window shut

 

[Gino_FOTO]

I am still using it with great pleasure. A real joy. Since it performs so well, I am not motivated to replace it with the RF100-500.

It might be a bit cliché to call a lens special, but this one, honestly, it’s the one with that mojo.

 

[candyman]

famous last words haha?

Famous last words? I will join Craig: "Hats off"

 

[mangobutter]

I love my beast of a lens, the 100-400L II. The all metal feel, aesthetic, and construction is top notch and the IQ is stellar. I double purpose this lens and use it with my Fujifilm bodies and works essentially like native on it. I replaced the collar with one from RRS.

 

[DocInfoSci]

I think if I bought into tele primes at this point I'd switch to RF, but since I have enough nice EF gear as it is I am actually tempted to grab one of these at the end of the year. Just to have one for walk-abouts in the wet autumn weather along the beaches. It does seem well loved by all who speak of it.

Oddly, I don't know anyone in arms reach who owns one for which I could borrow to play with; they have other tele options that I get to play with (and that's also nice). Just a weird wrinkle of circumstance I guess.

I have to laugh at people's aversion to removable tripod collars, though. Yeah, I've heard the horror stories. That's never happened to me or anyone I know, and I really appreciate that I can yank the collars off my 70-200, 300, and 100 macro. When I put the collars on, I tighten the knob...

(Yes. I know. Those who have dumped thousands of dollars onto the ground thanks to a loose collar will flame me. I feel for them. That would truly be terrible. But I still like my removable collars for hand-held parties.)

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Absolutely loved this lens!!! I bought it with the EOS R (besides the 24-105mm basically my first chosen L lens) and it was a top notch combo for several years. I´m glad Canon has a worthy successor with the RF 100-500mm for which I traded my 100-400mm for. While the RF has the edge on weight, reach, better AF with higher f-numbers, the EF version just felt better (metal construction) and the usage of extenders throughout the entire zoom range.

I was very glad that I was able to sell my copy to a young man who - in his words - saved up for several years to purchase this lens. He paired it with the 90d for birding. I can still remember how excited he was. So much, I even gave him a rebate although we had already agreed on the price. I told him to get some kind of accessory for this lens one of the very few sales that stuck with me, probably only happens with special lenses

 

[justaCanonuser]

The EF 400mm f/5.6 L had quite a following, who thought it very sharp. Then along came the EF 100-400mm ii that was sharper than the prime, had excellent IS, not much heavier and was a zoom. A splendid lens, fully worth its price. Fortunately, it morphed into the RF 100-500 so I don't miss my two 100-400s.

Indee, the prime was superior as long as Canon only offered the Mk I "dust pump", which wasn't really sharp @400mm. After I've seen tests I bought the 400mm prime and liked it much: quite light for that time, and a perfect shape for the hand. The Mk II of the zoom changed that picture completely.

 

[AlanF]

Indee, the prime was superior as long as Canon only offered the Mk I "dust pump", which wasn't really sharp @400mm. After I've seen tests I bought the 400mm prime and liked it much: quite light for that time, and a perfect shape for the hand. The Mk II of the zoom changed that picture completely.

The EF 100-400mm (original) was the worst lens I have ever had. My copy was soft, and the AF failed on the last day of a birding trip to the Pantanal. Lucky it lasted until then. I had sold a 400/5.6 prime to buy it, but that had been just as soft. It was an important lesson, and the initial reason I got paranoid about having back up lenses and bodies. The Mk II was a breakthrough - super sharp and beautifully made.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I must have gotten lucky, my copy of the original 100-400L was quite good. I sold it after getting the 600/4 II, and never owned the 100-400L II.

“Mockingbird’s Glare”

EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 200

 

[AlanF]

I must have gotten lucky, my copy of the original 100-400L was quite good. I sold it after getting the 600/4 II, and never owned the 100-400L II.

“Mockingbird’s Glare”
View attachment 228874
EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 200

Is that a crop or the full image?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Is that a crop or the full image?

Cropped to about 2000x3000 (before downsampling to post).

 

[AlanF]

I must have gotten lucky, my copy of the original 100-400L was quite good. I sold it after getting the 600/4 II, and never owned the 100-400L II.

“Mockingbird’s Glare”
View attachment 228874
EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 200

Here is a 3000x2000 crop downsized the same as yours to 1600x1060 (a Snail Kite, taken in the Pantanal in 2013). They seem similarly sharp, and my images occupying a large fraction of the frame are fine. The problem is that I usually have to crop far more than that. My images often used to be rejected by the mods on a Dutch bird site because they considered them too soft. Everything changed when I got a 300mm f/2.8 II and put a 1.4xTC on it. The increase in resolution made all the difference for heavy cropping, and my images sneaked through. Nowadays, if I have an image of a bird that is about 1000 px long, it looks very sharp and I see lots of detail. I couldn't do that at 1000px on the 100-400mm original, though modern software would help greatly. They are still sharper than many images posted here but they wouldn't get past those tough Dutch mods.



EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/500 s, f/5.6, ISO 400

 

[AlanF]

This is some of the extreme cropping I sometimes have to do, with examples from yesterday. A Little Ringed Plover had been reported, and a rare visitor of a Northern Wheatear, both far behind a fence. Using the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii, I got a decent enough shot of the Plover, where the bird occupies only 250x330 px and the the Wheatear in 500x500 px. Much closer was a Linnet, which occupied a massive 850x650 px. Were I in the Pantanal, using my 7D and 100-400mm (original) at half the distance, the first would be rather a blob, the second blurred, and the third lacking the detail. The line of the eye ring on the Plover is only 2-3mm wide, and the 200-800 is not considered very sharp at 800mm!