Canon 100-400 ii Image Quality Review Posted at TDP

[darth mollusk]

I was skeptical that this lens could live up to the hype. It appears the hype was justified:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972

 

[Plainsman]

I was skeptical that this lens could live up to the hype. It appears the hype was justified:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972

...digital picture quick off the mark.

Looking critically at the crops it seems to me that the Tamron 150-600@600/8 is a tad sharper than the new Canon @560/8. Given the advantage of not having to mess about outside adding/removing TC with ingress of dust etc the Tamron is worth considering - if you want to go beyond 400. Nevertheless this is a fine optic from Canon and for those wishing for a new 400/5.6 forget it - it has arrived in another form.

 

[candc]

Looking at the crops compared to the tamron. They both look about the same at 400 f/5.6 the canon looks better in the corners at 560 than the tamron does at 600. If I didn't already have the tamron then I would get the canon.

 

[jmontagu13]

...digital picture quick off the mark.

Looking critically at the crops it seems to me that the Tamron 150-600@600/8 is a tad sharper than the new Canon @560/8. Given the advantage of not having to mess about outside adding/removing TC with ingress of dust etc the Tamron is worth considering - if you want to go beyond 400. Nevertheless this is a fine optic from Canon and for those wishing for a new 400/5.6 forget it - it has arrived in another form.

The center looks pretty close between them, but the midrange is better on the Canon and the corners aren't even close.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

 

[Plainsman]

Looking at the crops compared to the tamron. They both look about the same at 400 f/5.6 the canon looks better in the corners at 560 than the tamron does at 600. If I didn't already have the tamron then I would get the canon.

Comparing both old and new 100-400@400/5.6 the new version as you would expect is very slightly ahead of the old one in the central region - but really nothing much between them.

Optics is one thing but you also have to consider built in robustness as well and this is where the old one wins with the front lens assembly sliding outwards over a single rigid tube - far better than the telescopic design now back in favour.

 

[Plainsman]

Looking at the crops compared to the tamron. They both look about the same at 400 f/5.6 the canon looks better in the corners at 560 than the tamron does at 600. If I didn't already have the tamron then I would get the canon.

Maybe you should wait for the Sigma 150-600 C version. With more LD lens elements it should outperform the Tamron but would be roughly the same weight and price.

It should be very good in the 400-600 range. We shall see - this time next year!!

 

[AlanF]

I have been doing my own iso1223 chart tests. First, my conditions aren't as well controlled as The-Digital-Photograph and I don't have Bryan's very high quality chart but just a laser print. However, he positions the camera so that the chart fills the sensor so that he has his measurements at different distances and he does not show fine details. What I do is to stand further away so that the tests are more stringent as the centre is much smaller and the lines are effectively closer together, and I can shoot comparisons at the same difference. Here is an updated collage from what I have posted in another thread.

The protocol is to use DxO plus prime and no sharpening, then export into PS where I crop and keep the original but also do a copy with sharpening at 0.9 px and 100% USM. Comparisons are with the 300.2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTCIII and the 100-400 II and the Tamron 150-600mm.

1. The 100-400 has much more focus breathing than the Tamron, and has and effective focal length of only 370mm at a distance of 8-10m (but it is 400mm at far distances). The extra focal length of the Tamron gives it an edge as the line separation is on the limits of being resolvable at 10m. Moving in to 8m with the 100-400mm gives a comparable image. I think the Tamron thus has a slight edge in the centre at shorter distances but that should even out further away.

2. The 100-400 with the 1.4xTC is a revelation. Even with the focus breathing and an effective focal length of only 520 mm, it is sharper than the Tamron.

I am a great fan of the Tamron and think it's a great lens. But, I sold mine for the 100-400mm II. The clincher for me is its phenomenal IS - I got hand held shots at much lower speeds that I couldn't get with the Tamron - it feels 2 stops faster. The Tamron, according to Lenstips data, is nearly a stop better than the Sigma. The weight and poorer IS of the Sigma makes it more of a tripod lens.

 

[Viggo]

Two letters will describe where the 100-400 II leave the competition behind, I guarantee it; A F. And for a tele zoom like this I would say that is what matters most. Well, for me anyway.

 

[raptor3x]

Slightly off topic but is the new Nikkor 80-400G really as bad at 400mm as TDP is showing? Those results seems completely unacceptable for a nearly $3K lens.

 

[jrista]

The midframe and corner performance of the 100-400 II with a TC is amazing:


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2


Compared to the Tamron 150-600 at 600 f/8, the 100-400 at 560 f/8 has WAY better midframe and corner performance. I think the Tamron might be a smidge sharper in the center, but it's not enough to give up the whole-frame performance of the 100-400, IMO.

 

[CsabaGrosz]

It will be lovely to see this lens on duty

http://cgphotography.co.uk/

 

[msm]

I am impressed, looks really awesome for a zoom with such a wide range. Got rid of my old 100-400 when I got the 300 IS II, but this one looks so good I might get tempted to get one as a lightweight tele lens when hiking up in the mountains.

 

[takesome1]

Slightly off topic but is the new Nikkor 80-400G really as bad at 400mm as TDP is showing? Those results seems completely unacceptable for a nearly $3K lens.

Yes, but since you will be using a Nikon body the improved Dynamic Range will be such a benefit that you will never notice. At least I have read threads on this forum that would lead me to believe DR is the only thing that really does matter.

 

[jthomson]

I was skeptical that this lens could live up to the hype. It appears the hype was justified:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972

Roger at Lens rentals disagrees. He just posted a comparison of the old and new 100-400mm and there isn't that much difference between them.
He also posted on the 400 DO. Which appears to be significantly better than the mark 1.
Hopefully Roger will get some Sigma 150-600mm's soon and run a comparison between them,the Tamron and the Canon 100-400mm II

 

[gotit]

I was comparing this new 100-400 with my 70-300 at TDP and found this curious thing:

http://oi62.tinypic.com/11j17ro.jpg

Following Canon manuals, it's impossible to use a TC 1.4 on the 70-300. What am I missing here?

 

[J.R.]

I saw the test images shot by Bryan at TDP and put the lens on order immediately. Fortunately was able to sell my 3 yo 100-400 (mark I) for around $ 875 the same day I decided to place the order.

Hope my copy is as good as Bryan's

 

[jasny]

I was comparing this new 100-400 with my 70-300 at TDP and found this curious thing:

http://oi62.tinypic.com/11j17ro.jpg

Following Canon manuals, it's impossible to use a TC 1.4 on the 70-300. What am I missing here?

As far as I remember you can use Canon extender with 70-300 L at the tele end. Especially for testing , because zooming to the wide end you can cause last element crashing against extender.
You can still safely use Kenko instead of Canon extender throughout whole range of this zoom lens.

 

[Marsu42]

I was comparing this new 100-400 with my 70-300 at TDP and found this curious thing:
Following Canon manuals, it's impossible to use a TC 1.4 on the 70-300. What am I missing here?

As far as I remember you can use Canon extender with 70-300 L at the tele end. Especially for testing , because zooming to the wide end you can cause last element crashing against extender.

Correct.

You can still safely use Kenko instead of Canon extender throughout whole range of this zoom lens.

Correct, too - but there's a reason why Canon didn't bother with tc+70-300L: The bare image iq is fine, at least with current sensor resolutions on ff. However, cropping away the center esp. wide open shows - and you're at f8 when af'ing.

I only use my Kenko tc for the 100L which is really useful, but for the 70-300L it only makes sense if image sharpness if of no concern like zooming in on the setting sun. The difference to the new 100-400L2 might not be huge, but this is what counts when multiplying with a tc.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

 

[raptor3x]

I was skeptical that this lens could live up to the hype. It appears the hype was justified:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972

Roger at Lens rentals disagrees. He just posted a comparison of the old and new 100-400mm and there isn't that much difference between them.
He also posted on the 400 DO. Which appears to be significantly better than the mark 1.
Hopefully Roger will get some Sigma 150-600mm's soon and run a comparison between them,the Tamron and the Canon 100-400mm II

Over on FM, Roger mentions that he was very suprised by the results as the lmatest numbers didn't quite match what he saw in his own test shots.

[quote author=RCicala]
I was a bit surprised at the 100-400 results myself, I expected more difference. Shooting test charts (same ones as TDP uses) I could see a difference that the Imatest results didn't measure. Perhaps it's a decrease in some aberrations? I'm not sure.[/quote]

 

[tayassu]

Looks great, I'd love to have one! :