EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS Replacement Coming in November [CR2]

[tron]

Apparently the new 100-400 looks likely to be a scaled up version of the Canon 70-300. What a shame - a scaled up IF version of the 70-200 would have been better.

That would imply that it would be constantly at its max size. For a 100-400mm lens that would be ... big. Bigger that 400mm 5.6L (compare 200 2.8 with 70-200 2.8L IS II to see what I mean)

 

[Don Haines]

There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.

I regularly use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.

That fits in with my tests.

I found that the maximum sharpness on a 60D was at F9... and F8 was very close to that. Above and below, it fell of. I still say it is a bit soft if you don't step it down.... but honestly, don't we all try to use whatever lenses we have in their sweet spot?

It is definitely a great lens, and superior to the existing 100-400 in the overlapping range..... but I do expect a new version of the 100-400 would reverse that, although at several times the price....

 

[Loswr]

I found that the maximum sharpness on a 60D was at F9... and F8 was very close to that. Above and below, it fell of. I still say it is a bit soft if you don't step it down.... but honestly, don't we all try to use whatever lenses we have in their sweet spot?

Generally, yes. But f/9 is getting pretty narrow when you also need a fast shutter speed.

It is definitely a great lens, and superior to the existing 100-400 in the overlapping range..... but I do expect a new version of the 100-400 would reverse that, although at several times the price....

The 70-300L is also better than the current 100-400 in the overlapping range; between that and the 600 II, I had pretty much stopped using my 100-400, so I sold it. I'm not even certain I'd want the new 100-400, I might just get the 300/2.8 II as a 'portable' option.

 

[tron]

I found that the maximum sharpness on a 60D was at F9... and F8 was very close to that. Above and below, it fell of. I still say it is a bit soft if you don't step it down.... but honestly, don't we all try to use whatever lenses we have in their sweet spot?

Generally, yes. But f/9 is getting pretty narrow when you also need a fast shutter speed.

It is definitely a great lens, and superior to the existing 100-400 in the overlapping range..... but I do expect a new version of the 100-400 would reverse that, although at several times the price....

The 70-300L is also better than the current 100-400 in the overlapping range; between that and the 600 II, I had pretty much stopped using my 100-400, so I sold it. I'm not even certain I'd want the new 100-400, I might just get the 300/2.8 II as a 'portable' option.

I do not want to tempt you but now how about the new 400mm DO II ? OK maybe I do want to tempt you... ;D ;D ;D

 

[Lee Jay]

There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.

I regularly use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.

No one is saying it's soft at 600mm and f/8, just at 600mm and f/6.3.

 

[Loswr]

I do not want to tempt you but now how about the new 400mm DO II ? OK maybe I do want to tempt you... ;D ;D ;D

Not particularly tempted. Yes, the 400/4 DO II is slightly shorter and a bit lighter than the 300/2.8 II, but the differences are pretty small. The 300/2.8 gives an excellent 420/4 and a very good 600/5.6, and importantly f/2.8 for indoor gymnasium shooting (currently with my 70-200 @ 2.8, I'm often at ISO 12800 already).

 

[Nethawk]

There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.

I regularly use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.

No one is saying it's soft at 600mm and f/8, just at 600mm and f/6.3.

The sample images in the links above from fredmiranda.com might indicate otherwise. Isn't it true with most telephoto lenses that wide open and max focal link sacrifices some sharpness?

It really depends on price of the upcoming 100-400mm, and one's willingness to forego Canon L for similar performance across the same focal length. Tamron looks to be a strong contender.

 

[Lee Jay]

There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.

I regularly use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.

No one is saying it's soft at 600mm and f/8, just at 600mm and f/6.3.

The sample images in the links above from fredmiranda.com might indicate otherwise. Isn't it true with most telephoto lenses that wide open and max focal link sacrifices some sharpness?

It really depends on price of the upcoming 100-400mm, and one's willingness to forego Canon L for similar performance across the same focal length. Tamron looks to be a strong contender.

No, it doesn't have to be true that it softens up at the long end. Many do, but the better ones don't. For a telephoto where resolving power is its while reason to exist, this is a major problem for people that lime to get the most from their equipment.

 

[AlanF]

There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.

I regularly use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.

No one is saying it's soft at 600mm and f/8, just at 600mm and f/6.3.

The sample images in the links above from fredmiranda.com might indicate otherwise. Isn't it true with most telephoto lenses that wide open and max focal link sacrifices some sharpness?

It really depends on price of the upcoming 100-400mm, and one's willingness to forego Canon L for similar performance across the same focal length. Tamron looks to be a strong contender.

No, it doesn't have to be true that it softens up at the long end. Many do, but the better ones don't. For a telephoto where resolving power is its while reason to exist, this is a major problem for people that lime to get the most from their equipment.

You made a blanket statement it was soft at 600mm, and you didn't qualify it with an f number. The current 100-400 is at its weakest at 400mm. Here is a selection of bird photos that some of us have taken with the lens at 600mm. Soft are they?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22284.msg426389#msg426389

 

[Lee Jay]

There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.

I regularly use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.

No one is saying it's soft at 600mm and f/8, just at 600mm and f/6.3.

The sample images in the links above from fredmiranda.com might indicate otherwise. Isn't it true with most telephoto lenses that wide open and max focal link sacrifices some sharpness?

It really depends on price of the upcoming 100-400mm, and one's willingness to forego Canon L for similar performance across the same focal length. Tamron looks to be a strong contender.

No, it doesn't have to be true that it softens up at the long end. Many do, but the better ones don't. For a telephoto where resolving power is its while reason to exist, this is a major problem for people that lime to get the most from their equipment.

You made a blanket statement it was soft at 600mm, and you didn't qualify it with an f number. The current 100-400 is at its weakest at 400mm. Here is a selection of bird photos that some of us have taken with the lens at 600mm. Soft are they?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22284.msg426389#msg426389

This I what I said:

I've seen plenty of full-sized shots at 600mm to know that it is soft at 600mm wide-open, even on full-frame.

I'm not a sharpness nut, except on telephoto lenses, where it's common to crop like crazy. When I can properly frame, I find my 17-40L and 24-105L to be quite excellent. But on telephoto, it's not uncommon for me to crop 2x into a shot that was shot with a 2xTC on a 1.6-crop camera. That's only 15% of the size of the image circle, enlarged to a full-frame. That requires critical resolving power.Have a look. This is the Tamron against itself (400mm versus 600mm). There's a substantial difference.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

 

[AlanF]

There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.

I regularly use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.

No one is saying it's soft at 600mm and f/8, just at 600mm and f/6.3.

The sample images in the links above from fredmiranda.com might indicate otherwise. Isn't it true with most telephoto lenses that wide open and max focal link sacrifices some sharpness?

It really depends on price of the upcoming 100-400mm, and one's willingness to forego Canon L for similar performance across the same focal length. Tamron looks to be a strong contender.

No, it doesn't have to be true that it softens up at the long end. Many do, but the better ones don't. For a telephoto where resolving power is its while reason to exist, this is a major problem for people that lime to get the most from their equipment.

You made a blanket statement it was soft at 600mm, and you didn't qualify it with an f number. The current 100-400 is at its weakest at 400mm. Here is a selection of bird photos that some of us have taken with the lens at 600mm. Soft are they?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22284.msg426389#msg426389

This I what I said:

I've seen plenty of full-sized shots at 600mm to know that it is soft at 600mm wide-open, even on full-frame.

I'm not a sharpness nut, except on telephoto lenses, where it's common to crop like crazy. When I can properly frame, I find my 17-40L and 24-105L to be quite excellent. But on telephoto, it's not uncommon for me to crop 2x into a shot that was shot with a 2xTC on a 1.6-crop camera. That's only 15% of the size of the image circle, enlarged to a full-frame. That requires critical resolving power.Have a look. This is the Tamron against itself (400mm versus 600mm). There's a substantial difference.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

The TDP test has the lens at different distances so that the chart completely fills the frame. That is a useless comparison for comparing the resolution of a lens for a subject at a fixed distance away - the target is 50% further away at 600 vs 400mm in the TDP tests. I have posted images of the iso chart taken at the same distance away using 400, 500 and 600 mm. The Tamron at 600mm clearly outresolves itself at 400mm.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19503.msg366741#msg366741

 

[Lee Jay]

The TDP test has the lens at different distances so that the chart completely fills the frame.

Yes...correctly.

That is a useless comparison for comparing the resolution of a lens for a subject at a fixed distance away - the target is 50% further away at 600 vs 400mm in the TDP tests. I have posted images of the iso chart taken at the same distance away using 400, 500 and 600 mm. The Tamron at 600mm clearly outresolves itself at 400mm.

Well, duh. It would be quite useless if it didn't.

It's still soft wide open at 600mm.

 

[meywd]

The TDP test has the lens at different distances so that the chart completely fills the frame. That is a useless comparison for comparing the resolution of a lens for a subject at a fixed distance away - the target is 50% further away at 600 vs 400mm in the TDP tests. I have posted images of the iso chart taken at the same distance away using 400, 500 and 600 mm. The Tamron at 600mm clearly outresolves itself at 400mm.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19503.msg366741#msg366741

I took those with 100-400 @ f8 and f6.3 respectively, i guess it is very sharp, maybe not like the big whites but that a different thing.

these are almost 100% crops

 

[Nethawk]

Soft at 600mm? I don't think so

I've seen plenty of full-sized shots at 600mm to know that it is soft at 600mm wide-open, even on full-frame.

I'm not a sharpness nut, except on telephoto lenses, where it's common to crop like crazy. When I can properly frame, I find my 17-40L and 24-105L to be quite excellent. But on telephoto, it's not uncommon for me to crop 2x into a shot that was shot with a 2xTC on a 1.6-crop camera. That's only 15% of the size of the image circle, enlarged to a full-frame. That requires critical resolving power.

Have a look. This is the Tamron against itself (400mm versus 600mm). There's a substantial difference.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

You continue to repeat this mantra "soft wide open at 600mm" as a deterrent against the Tamron, yet your own 70-200/2.8L IS II and 2x TC III is no different. Citing the same source

"Images are sharp wide open at 280mm (f/4).

The 1.4x reverses the 200mm pincushion distortion (resulting in very low distortion) and adds some CA and slight full frame corner softness. The 2x causes a noticeably softer image at 400mm."

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

No mention of aperture, although I suspect that "noticeably softer" applies only to wider apertures.

The fact is that this characteristic is shared by most long telephoto zooms. Let's move on, please.

 

[Loswr]

I do not want to tempt you but now how about the new 400mm DO II ? OK maybe I do want to tempt you... ;D ;D ;D

Not particularly tempted. Yes, the 400/4 DO II is slightly shorter and a bit lighter than the 300/2.8 II, but the differences are pretty small. The 300/2.8 gives an excellent 420/4 and a very good 600/5.6, and importantly f/2.8 for indoor gymnasium shooting (currently with my 70-200 @ 2.8, I'm often at ISO 12800 already).

If the DO II is as sharp as the 300/2.8 then by the same argument it should give a excellent 560/5.6 and a very good 800/8 i.e. in a small package replacing two or even three expensive heavyweights further up the lens chain.

But it's still f/4 at best....

 

[Canon1]

I do not want to tempt you but now how about the new 400mm DO II ? OK maybe I do want to tempt you... ;D ;D ;D

Not particularly tempted. Yes, the 400/4 DO II is slightly shorter and a bit lighter than the 300/2.8 II, but the differences are pretty small. The 300/2.8 gives an excellent 420/4 and a very good 600/5.6, and importantly f/2.8 for indoor gymnasium shooting (currently with my 70-200 @ 2.8, I'm often at ISO 12800 already).

If the DO II is as sharp as the 300/2.8 then by the same argument it should give a excellent 560/5.6 and a very good 800/8 i.e. in a small package replacing two or even three expensive heavyweights further up the lens chain.

But it's still f/4 at best....

Unless canon has learned something about DO, this lens will not be a replacement for the other big whites. I suspect it will just be an ok lens with tc's. there is no way it will be as sharp as the 300ii and the 500ii and 600ii are also remarkably sharp wide open. The 400DO won't hold a candle to these.

I will give you some credit for money savings. It's over $25k for the 300,500,600... But they have their purpose.

 

[tron]

I do not want to tempt you but now how about the new 400mm DO II ? OK maybe I do want to tempt you... ;D ;D ;D

Not particularly tempted. Yes, the 400/4 DO II is slightly shorter and a bit lighter than the 300/2.8 II, but the differences are pretty small. The 300/2.8 gives an excellent 420/4 and a very good 600/5.6, and importantly f/2.8 for indoor gymnasium shooting (currently with my 70-200 @ 2.8, I'm often at ISO 12800 already).

If the DO II is as sharp as the 300/2.8 then by the same argument it should give a excellent 560/5.6 and a very good 800/8 i.e. in a small package replacing two or even three expensive heavyweights further up the lens chain.

But it's still f/4 at best....

If you are at 12800 already then indeed the 300 2.8 is the best choice. Unfortunately as you increase focal length (from 200 to 300) you will possibly need to increase speed too. As a result ISO will have to go up even by a little. In that case granted, a 400 4 would be much much worse. I guess it all comes down to the shooting circumstances.

 

[dufflover]

A native 400mm DO II would very likely outperform a TC combo. There's definitely shooters who will rarely use the f/2.8 capability (and be happy with "just" 300mm).

 

[AlanF]

The TDP test has the lens at different distances so that the chart completely fills the frame. That is a useless comparison for comparing the resolution of a lens for a subject at a fixed distance away - the target is 50% further away at 600 vs 400mm in the TDP tests. I have posted images of the iso chart taken at the same distance away using 400, 500 and 600 mm. The Tamron at 600mm clearly outresolves itself at 400mm.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19503.msg366741#msg366741

I took those with 100-400 @ f8 and f6.3 respectively, i guess it is very sharp, maybe not like the big whites but that a different thing.

these are almost 100% crops

For the fun of it, I did a collage of crops of your shots with the 100-400 and some of mine taken at random using the Tamron at 400 and 600mm and the 300/2.8 II + 2XTC. They are all 100% The comparison isn't really fair because yours are on a 600D and mine on a 5DIII. The big white wins hands down, of course. But all the photos are acceptable and enjoyable.

 

[jasny]

I do not want to tempt you but now how about the new 400mm DO II ? OK maybe I do want to tempt you... ;D ;D ;D

Not particularly tempted. Yes, the 400/4 DO II is slightly shorter and a bit lighter than the 300/2.8 II, but the differences are pretty small. The 300/2.8 gives an excellent 420/4 and a very good 600/5.6, and importantly f/2.8 for indoor gymnasium shooting (currently with my 70-200 @ 2.8, I'm often at ISO 12800 already).

If the DO II is as sharp as the 300/2.8 then by the same argument it should give a excellent 560/5.6 and a very good 800/8 i.e. in a small package replacing two or even three expensive heavyweights further up the lens chain.

But it's still f/4 at best....

Unless canon has learned something about DO, this lens will not be a replacement for the other big whites. I suspect it will just be an ok lens with tc's. there is no way it will be as sharp as the 300ii and the 500ii and 600ii are also remarkably sharp wide open. The 400DO won't hold a candle to these.

I will give you some credit for money savings. It's over $25k for the 300,500,600... But they have their purpose.

Well, first take a look at MTF charts for 400 DO II. They are much better than version I, comparable to 300 II etc. So probably Canon has learned a lot about DO.