DxOMark Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II

[Canon Rumors]

Where do you get that from?

From the 5 copies I own. I'm going to do a small post this week about it. It's as bad as the Nikon 80-400 and is much harder to clean than the first 100-400 (which was annoying at the best of times to clean).

 

[PhotographyFirst]

DXO hitting the crack pipe in the lens testing room again?

Looks quite a bit better on crop wide open. Especially in the corners and midframe.

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

Read this lens review from DXO if you want a good laugh or cry depending on how you look at it.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-STM-lens-review-Updated-EF-S-telephoto-zoom-no-improvement-on-predecessor

 

[zim]

Where do you get that from?

From the 5 copies I own. I'm going to do a small post this week about it. It's as bad as the Nikon 80-400 and is much harder to clean than the first 100-400 (which was annoying at the best of times to clean).

Is the design that much different from the 70-300 L which I've had for over a year and is as clean as a whistle?
I'd love to know what the people that used your 5 lenses do with them, photography or mud wrestling ;D
Actually it would be useful to know the environments that they were all used in when your doing the review

Regards

 

[candc]

Have you done a comparison? How much dust is there in the ones you have seen?

I'm going to do a little article this week, all 5 that I have are full of dust.

Aren't these lenses weather sealed?

I don't see how any pumper zoom can really be considered weather sealed. They all draw a lot of air in when zooming. I suppose they can try to filter it somehow but if it was "sealed" it would be an airspring.

 

[[email protected]]

+1 on the dust inside the 100-400 II. I had the original version, which gained dust at a fair clip, but I've never had any lens attract internal dust like the 100-400 II. This is double the rate that I saw the Tamron 150-600 accrete gunk. I'll send it in to CPS for a cleaning before it's a year old. I bet by then my transmission value is down by a quarter stop.

All that said, it's my favorite lens. As sharp as my 70-200 2.8 IS II. My Mark I was definitely not - even in the center. I suspect my copy was worse than most others', given that the lens had such a following.

I use it mostly on a 7DII, and the improvement of sharpness is definitely not limited to full frame cameras.

The DXO review seems like someone was given some bench test results and told to write them up and to not under any circumstances actually mount the lens to a camera use it.

Last note: I MFA'd my 100-400II, and it didn't need a huge adjustment. It was something like 3 on one side and 5 on the other. But the difference that made was absolutely immense. The lens went from being slightly better than the Mark I to being in a completely different class after I had the micro focus nailed. I'd not had such a moderate change in micro focus quite change the feel and capabilities of a lens before.

 

[geonix]

Where do you get that from?

From the 5 copies I own. I'm going to do a small post this week about it. It's as bad as the Nikon 80-400 and is much harder to clean than the first 100-400 (which was annoying at the best of times to clean).

+1 on the dust inside the 100-400 II. I had the original version, which gained dust at a fair clip, but I've never had any lens attract internal dust like the 100-400 II. This is double the rate that I saw the Tamron 150-600 accrete gunk. I'll send it in to CPS for a cleaning before it's a year old. I bet by then my transmission value is down by a quarter stop.

Hearing that is really surprising.
These guys must have missed something.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/canon-100-400-is-l-mk-ii-teardown-best-built-lens-ever

I would like to hear more about this from the Canonrumors admin. How does dust acutally get into the lens? Mainly on the zoom tube? Why should this lens be more dust-sensitive than others?

 

[AlanF]

Where do you get that from?

From the 5 copies I own. I'm going to do a small post this week about it. It's as bad as the Nikon 80-400 and is much harder to clean than the first 100-400 (which was annoying at the best of times to clean).

I own two - which I thought was excessive, and both of my are not dusty internally. Are you in the rental business?

 

[Canon Rumors]

Where do you get that from?

From the 5 copies I own. I'm going to do a small post this week about it. It's as bad as the Nikon 80-400 and is much harder to clean than the first 100-400 (which was annoying at the best of times to clean).

I own two - which I thought was excessive, and both of my are not dusty internally. Are you in the rental business?

I am, so they get used.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Where do you get that from?

From the 5 copies I own. I'm going to do a small post this week about it. It's as bad as the Nikon 80-400 and is much harder to clean than the first 100-400 (which was annoying at the best of times to clean).

+1 on the dust inside the 100-400 II. I had the original version, which gained dust at a fair clip, but I've never had any lens attract internal dust like the 100-400 II. This is double the rate that I saw the Tamron 150-600 accrete gunk. I'll send it in to CPS for a cleaning before it's a year old. I bet by then my transmission value is down by a quarter stop.

Hearing that is really surprising.
These guys must have missed something.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/canon-100-400-is-l-mk-ii-teardown-best-built-lens-ever

I would like to hear more about this from the Canonrumors admin. How does dust acutally get into the lens? Mainly on the zoom tube? Why should this lens be more dust-sensitive than others?

Their teardown was more about the quality of the parts inside the lens and how it will hold up over time. It's nearly impossible to figure out if dust is going to penetrate.

I have spoken to Roger at LR.com and he has experienced the same thing I have.

 

[glness]

I think the rating is accurate. I have the Canon 200-400 f/4L with built in 1.4x extender and that is a remarkable lens (with a DxO rating of 24), but it costs $9000 more and is a lot heavier and bigger! The new 100-400 II, in my view, is an amazing lens and the IQ of the new Canon 100-400, from the images i have seen, is wonderful. Even with the Canon 1.4x extender III (560mm) on the new 100-400, it considerably exceeds the quality of the Tamron 150-600 at the 600 end: 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=0

I think anyone who purchases the new Canon 100-400 is getting an exceptional product and value!

 

[ahsanford]

Just curious with all these comments of dust -- I presume this is the byproduct of being an externally zooming lens (i.e. there is a sliding external barrel, like with all 24-something standard zooms).

I know the 100-400 lenses were born out of being compact for travel, but has anyone ever made a long telephoto zoom that internally zooms? (It would be physically long like a 400 prime, so it ruins the whole 'compact' design direction.) The only one I know of is... the 200-400, correct? Any dust problems there?

- A

 

[NNature]

Just curious with all these comments of dust -- I presume this is the byproduct of being an externally zooming lens (i.e. there is a sliding external barrel, like with all 24-something standard zooms).

I know the 100-400 lenses were born out of being compact for travel, but has anyone ever made a long telephoto zoom that internally zooms? (It would be physically long like a 400 prime, so it ruins the whole 'compact' design direction.) The only one I know of is... the 200-400, correct? Any dust problems there?

- A

Sigma 120-300/2,8

 

[erjlphoto]

Just say NO to DXO!

 

[FTb-n]

Where do you get that from?

From the 5 copies I own. I'm going to do a small post this week about it. It's as bad as the Nikon 80-400 and is much harder to clean than the first 100-400 (which was annoying at the best of times to clean).

I own two - which I thought was excessive, and both of my are not dusty internally. Are you in the rental business?

I am, so they get used.

With or without a filter? Will a good clear filter keep the dust out?

 

[AlanF]

On close inspection of my lenses with a very powerful cycle headlight and a magnifying lens I do detect a tiny amount of dust. One of the lenses has a filter and the other doesn't. So, I don't think that the filter is important. The fault may lie in the dimpled paint on the extending lens barrel: the hollows in the surface can harbour dust and the sealing ring that sweeps over the barrel will glide over the dirt particles at the bottoms. A smooth paint finish would give a better seal.

 

[AlanF]

There is so much variation in the reports of the sharpness of the lens at 400mm at different apertures. The Canon MTFs have f/8 slightly sharper than f/5.6, but they are simulated and do not allow for diffraction, which would negate the difference. Lenstip has f/8 some 2-3% sharper than f/5.6, but that is within the margin of error of their measurements (~±2%). Photozone has f/5.6 much sharper than f/8. ePhotozine on the other hand has f/8 much sharper than f/5.6 or f/11. TDP has f/8 sharper than f/5.6. I have done several repeat runs of sharpness vs aperture using Focal, which I think measures acutance as its quality. Both my copies are sharpest at f/5.6, definitely above f/8 and maybe not distinguishable from f/6.3.

The differences may result from copy variation or technique of measurement. The one person I trust is Roger from Lensrentals and his crew as they have a deep understanding of the statistics and measure multiple copies. They have the centre of the 100-400 II slightly sharper than that of the old 100-400, in contrast with the DxO measurements which have the old one marginally sharper. Just take an average of all the sites, heavily weighted to Lensrentals! And keep up with their measurements of the variance of lenses.

 

[MDR]

I have (had got rid of mk1) both lenses without a doubt the mkII is better one thing I felt was autofocus was faster and more accurate with the new one ( on 1mk4D) very happy with the changr

 

[MJ]

I'm going to do a little article this week, all 5 that I have are full of dust.

Hey there, I was just wondering about your findings on internal dust accumulating inside the 100-400 II.

cheers

 

[Mikehit]

I'm going to do a little article this week, all 5 that I have are full of dust.

Hey there, I was just wondering about your findings on internal dust accumulating inside the 100-400 II.

cheers

Dust, huh?

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/i-dont-know-why-it-swallowed-a-fly-weather-sealed-lens-with-a-fly-inside

We took dozens of images with the lens before taking the fly out. We shot stopped down, we shot at all parts of the zoom range. We focused close, we focused far. And in no image could we find the slightest hint that there was a fly in the lens.

;D

 

[Sporgon]

I'm going to do a little article this week, all 5 that I have are full of dust.

Hey there, I was just wondering about your findings on internal dust accumulating inside the 100-400 II.

cheers

Dust, huh?

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/i-dont-know-why-it-swallowed-a-fly-weather-sealed-lens-with-a-fly-inside

We took dozens of images with the lens before taking the fly out. We shot stopped down, we shot at all parts of the zoom range. We focused close, we focused far. And in no image could we find the slightest hint that there was a fly in the lens.

;D

Yep, my 24-105L is full of dust, to the point that is is causing flare when shooting into the sun. I'm going to have to get it cleaned.