EF 100-400mm ii vs. EF 200-400 with 1.4 TC

[sulla]

To me it is very clear: 100-400, as I simply cannot afford the 200-400.

You did not ask for it, but I would prefer the new 400 DO over the 200-400, for it is lighter, smaller and cheaper.

 

[Eldar]

I´ve had the 200-400 for some time and it is a fantastic lens. As some of you may have seen from a couple of old posts, I´m using a monopod in a flag bandoleer to support the lens. I also use this with the 600mm with both the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders. All weight issues goes away and it is surprisingly stable. For any shooting where you cannot zoom with your feet, having the 200-560mm zoom range available, with That IQ, is simply fantastic.

But I have ordered the new 100-400, as a compact and light weight option for hiking and travel. But it will be an addition to what I have, not a replacement. I previously had the 70-300L, but sold it because I found the long end a bit too short and it was not used much.

 

[LovePhotography]

Current results- 2:1 in favor of the 100-400. That's actually better for the 200-400 than I thought it would be. I thought because of the price, weight, and size, the 100-400 would wipe it out.

 

[Andrewccm]

I've used the 200-400 several times and most recently to cover the college football championship. Is it me or does that lens vignette like crazy? I was using a 1DX body that did not have the lens correction profiles loaded. The JPGs had very much a spotlight look to them with vignetting across a majority of the frame. The raw files looked fine once lens correction was applied in LR, but for this assignment I was given both the body and the lens and had to shoot JPG for the client. I was pretty disappointed. Having shot the Cotton Bowl with the same combo and in raw, it was much better. I'm just not a fan of a $11k lens requiring so much digital manipulation to be consistent across the frame.

 

[DominoDude]

I've used the 200-400 several times and most recently to cover the college football championship. Is it me or does that lens vignette like crazy? I was using a 1DX body that did not have the lens correction profiles loaded. The JPGs had very much a spotlight look to them with vignetting across a majority of the frame. The raw files looked fine once lens correction was applied in LR, but for this assignment I was given both the body and the lens and had to shoot JPG for the client. I was pretty disappointed. Having shot the Cotton Bowl with the same combo and in raw, it was much better. I'm just not a fan of a $11k lens requiring so much digital manipulation to be consistent across the frame.

Can you give an example or quantify your findings? It could be interesting to see.
As far as I know the vignetting is slightly over 1 full stop in the extreme corners @400mm f/4, and @560mm f/5.6.

 

[G650ER]

To my surprise, the 100-400 II was sharper than the 200-400L, especially when the 1.4x was enabled on the latter lens. This could have also been that the 200-400 was not adjusted to my 6D.
Vignetting is very visible on the 100-400 though.

 

[Andrewccm]

I've used the 200-400 several times and most recently to cover the college football championship. Is it me or does that lens vignette like crazy? I was using a 1DX body that did not have the lens correction profiles loaded. The JPGs had very much a spotlight look to them with vignetting across a majority of the frame. The raw files looked fine once lens correction was applied in LR, but for this assignment I was given both the body and the lens and had to shoot JPG for the client. I was pretty disappointed. Having shot the Cotton Bowl with the same combo and in raw, it was much better. I'm just not a fan of a $11k lens requiring so much digital manipulation to be consistent across the frame.

Can you give an example or quantify your findings? It could be interesting to see.
As far as I know the vignetting is slightly over 1 full stop in the extreme corners @400mm f/4, and @560mm f/5.6.

I'll see if I can find an example when I get back to my laptop and upload a before and after.

 

[Andrewccm]

Here is a before and after. One with correction via raw file in LR 5.7 and one without.

1DX, 200-400L at F4

 

[DominoDude]

Thanks, AndrewCCM, for posting the examples.
OK it is clearly visible. I'm also inclined to feel that the cluster of silvery helmets at the center makes it appear as though the corners were even darker.
I'm no big fan of added vignette (in post) to most photos, but at the same time I find that the natural vignetting and distortions from a lens is part of its charm and characteristics. Here, for your purpose, I understand the removed vignette, and I would most likely do the same. (or have the body set up to apply those corrections in camera)

 

[Andrewccm]

Thanks, AndrewCCM, for posting the examples.
OK it is clearly visible. I'm also inclined to feel that the cluster of silvery helmets at the center makes it appear as though the corners were even darker.
I'm no big fan of added vignette (in post) to most photos, but at the same time I find that the natural vignetting and distortions from a lens is part of its charm and characteristics. Here, for your purpose, I understand the removed vignette, and I would most likely do the same. (or have the body set up to apply those corrections in camera)

Yeah.. Normally, I would have shot raw or most definitely had the profiles loaded into camera. It's like that on every photo with some more noticeable depending on framing/background than others.

I shouldn't have just expected that Canon CPS would have had that loaded on the camera before I headed up to my shooting position. They were onsite, but I was stuck in that camera well the entire game/including halftime. Oh well, it just seems excessive for such an expensive lens. My Canon 300L F2.8 IS does much MUCH better in this regard. Heck, even my Tamron 150-600 does better. Granted, I am using them on a crop body 7D2 more often than not. On my 5D3, its a bit more noticeable, less so on my 1D3.

Thanks for the comment. Have a good upcoming weekend.

Andrew

 

[Eldar]

I've used the 200-400 several times and most recently to cover the college football championship. Is it me or does that lens vignette like crazy? I was using a 1DX body that did not have the lens correction profiles loaded. The JPGs had very much a spotlight look to them with vignetting across a majority of the frame. The raw files looked fine once lens correction was applied in LR, but for this assignment I was given both the body and the lens and had to shoot JPG for the client. I was pretty disappointed. Having shot the Cotton Bowl with the same combo and in raw, it was much better. I'm just not a fan of a $11k lens requiring so much digital manipulation to be consistent across the frame.

I have gone through a number of my images with the 200-400 to critically asses vignetting. I have not measured it accurately, but if I had to give a number I would say that, wide open, it´s about 1 stop.