EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
- Thread starter AlanF
- Start date
UPS finally showed up. I spent the better part of the afternoon shooting with the new lens, mostly at 400. Shots at both minimum focus distance and far were very sharp. Nice contrast and color. Did a comparison to my 400 f/5.6 and I could not tell the difference. I am a happy camper with this new lens. I do need to build up some strength in the left arm. This is a heavy sucker compared to the 400 f/5.6 my wife stole from me. Casey
Upvote
0
Hi,
Any 7D2 user with the EF 100-400mm II and 1.4x TC??
According to TDP, the aperture at 300mm for this lens is F5.0, so with 1.4x TC, it'll be 420mm F7.1. 7D2 can only use the center AF point at F8, so just wonder will 7D2 able to use other AF points at 420mm F7.1??
Have a nice day.
Any 7D2 user with the EF 100-400mm II and 1.4x TC??
According to TDP, the aperture at 300mm for this lens is F5.0, so with 1.4x TC, it'll be 420mm F7.1. 7D2 can only use the center AF point at F8, so just wonder will 7D2 able to use other AF points at 420mm F7.1??
Have a nice day.
Upvote
0
I have spent the past few days shooting with new lens. Nature stuff; primarily birds. I am thoroughly pleased with image quality and the fast autofocus. The lens also works well with my TC M3, maintaining acceptable sharpness although the AF is considerably slower. It also does a nice job of closeup subjects such as flowers. While not in the same league as my 100mm f/2.8L, it still makes closeup I mages that are sharp with pleasing color and contrast. I think Canon hit a home run with this lens.
Upvote
0
weixing said:
um why not take the TC off and use it at 400 and f5.6 and have access to all the points and faster AF... ?
Upvote
0
My 7D II arrived yesterday, and I did a series of experiments to decide when to use it rather than the 5D III and with what lenses and with or without TCs.
First I did a series of shots with the iso12233 chart at distance where 100-400 II on the 5DIII was on the verge of being resolved (not close up like with TDP, and all the shots were from the same distance, and not at different distances as done by TDP for the chart to fill the frame). I compared the 300mm f/2.8 with the 100-400.
a) The bare 300mm on the 7DII outresolved the 100-400 on the 5DIII, as expected, as did the 100-400 on the 7D II.
b) The 100-400 is not as good as the 300/2.8 + 1.4xTC, but is still a very good performer.
c) The 100-400 + 1.4xTC outresolved the bare 100-400.
The next question is as the 100-400 + 1.4xTC outresolved the bare 100-400 on the 7D II, should I always use the TC for bird photography? For the 300mm on the 5DIII, I always use the 2xTC at 600mm and f/5.6. But, there are real differences for the 100-400 on the 7DII - addition of the TC increases the f number to 8, affecting the AF and gives a very narrow field of view from the equivalent of a 900mm on FF. In the next collage, I compared the effect of the TC closer to the iso12233 chart where resolution was not as critical. There isn't much difference between the 100-400 + 1.4xTC (at f/8) and the bare 100-400 (f/5.6) upresolved 1.4x using PS. So, I argue that using the bare 100-400 I would be losing a small amount of resolution but would be gaining 1 stop in iso, better AF, less effects from camera shake and, also very important, a wider field of view. My conclusion is that I will use the 100-400mm bare on the 7D II, with a fov of a 640mm on a FF.
Edit - I posted this reply to weixing within seconds of wickidwombat's - and clearly agree with him. My combos are going to be the 5DIII + 300mm+2xTC for optimal (for me) or the 7D II +100-400 II for longer hikes or travel, what luxury!
First I did a series of shots with the iso12233 chart at distance where 100-400 II on the 5DIII was on the verge of being resolved (not close up like with TDP, and all the shots were from the same distance, and not at different distances as done by TDP for the chart to fill the frame). I compared the 300mm f/2.8 with the 100-400.
a) The bare 300mm on the 7DII outresolved the 100-400 on the 5DIII, as expected, as did the 100-400 on the 7D II.
b) The 100-400 is not as good as the 300/2.8 + 1.4xTC, but is still a very good performer.
c) The 100-400 + 1.4xTC outresolved the bare 100-400.
The next question is as the 100-400 + 1.4xTC outresolved the bare 100-400 on the 7D II, should I always use the TC for bird photography? For the 300mm on the 5DIII, I always use the 2xTC at 600mm and f/5.6. But, there are real differences for the 100-400 on the 7DII - addition of the TC increases the f number to 8, affecting the AF and gives a very narrow field of view from the equivalent of a 900mm on FF. In the next collage, I compared the effect of the TC closer to the iso12233 chart where resolution was not as critical. There isn't much difference between the 100-400 + 1.4xTC (at f/8) and the bare 100-400 (f/5.6) upresolved 1.4x using PS. So, I argue that using the bare 100-400 I would be losing a small amount of resolution but would be gaining 1 stop in iso, better AF, less effects from camera shake and, also very important, a wider field of view. My conclusion is that I will use the 100-400mm bare on the 7D II, with a fov of a 640mm on a FF.
Edit - I posted this reply to weixing within seconds of wickidwombat's - and clearly agree with him. My combos are going to be the 5DIII + 300mm+2xTC for optimal (for me) or the 7D II +100-400 II for longer hikes or travel, what luxury!
Attachments
Upvote
0
TDP has just published image quality of the 100-400 II on the 7DII. The quality is remarkable for a crop, and the 100-400 II on the 7DII at 400mm (fov = 640mm) and f/5.6 is actually better than the Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm f/8 on FF.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2
At 300mm (fov = 480mm) f/5 it beats the Tamron at 500mm f/6.3 on FF.
This squares with my own measurements of the 100-400 II on the 7d II vs the 100-400 I on the 7D, where the new combo wins hands down (my 100-400 I was admittedly soft).
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2
At 300mm (fov = 480mm) f/5 it beats the Tamron at 500mm f/6.3 on FF.
This squares with my own measurements of the 100-400 II on the 7d II vs the 100-400 I on the 7D, where the new combo wins hands down (my 100-400 I was admittedly soft).
Attachments
Upvote
0
Similar threads
