How satisfied are you with the 100-400 II?
- Thread starter J.R.
- Start date
Just received it a few days ago. Test shots with 5D3 have been super. It was back focusing a bit so I added -1 AFMA and it's right on at my common shooting distance. Still a tad of back focus at 3 feet...but it takes only a few seconds to change, just need to figure out the value. It will be awesome for butterfly/dragonfly photography.
Works fine with my 6D and even with that fancy lens cap...the "M" LOL
Will not replace my beloved 70-300L for 6-8 mile hikes but definitely is my shorter hike wildlife lens!
Works fine with my 6D and even with that fancy lens cap...the "M" LOL
Will not replace my beloved 70-300L for 6-8 mile hikes but definitely is my shorter hike wildlife lens!
Upvote
0
Al Chemist said:
This is exactly why I'm considering this lens as a replacement for my beloved 400 f/5.6 prime. The short MFD and IS seem to make it a terrific dragonfly (and birding) lens. I'd love to read a comparison between the 400 5.6 prime and the 100-400II, both in terms if IQ and focusing speed/accuracy. All of the comparative reviews have thus far (understandably) been between the two versions of the zoom.
Upvote
0
I will be buying the 100-400 ii and 7D2 in 2015. I currently use 7d with 100 IS macro for insects, and M43 (Panasonic with 100-300) as a crossover rig for birds and insects (leps and odes). Although I would describe my subjects as “wildlife,” I don’t shoot eagles and sandhill cranes, instead devoting time to songbirds. I don’t shoot landscapes with lumbering megafauna, and don’t photograph at zoos or butterfly pavilions. I don’t refrigerate or raise insects in order to photograph them while incapacitated. I frequently hike 10 or more miles in search of my subjects. This is not to belittle the work of people who define wildlife photography differently than I do, it’s just to explain what I have been looking for in a camera.
The outstanding performance of the new 100-400 across its range, coupled with improved IS and fantastic MFD will make it perfect with the 7D2 as an upgraded crossover outfit for me. No other manufacturer offers a body and lens that come close to this combination’s performance, reach (near and far), speed, function with flash, compactness, and portability—at least not for my purposes.
M43 sucks for BIF, and flash is unusable with the 100-300 if one wants to act quickly. The 100-300 is capable of nicely detailed images of insects, especially when used with extension tubes, but images of birds are disappointing when the subject is more than about 30 feet away. Mirrorless has a long way to go before it can compete with DSLR for my purposes.
I’m new to the forum though I’ve read it daily for more than a year. This site provides lots of helpful information and insights. There is also a lot of astounding nonsense (put politely), though I have succeeded in biting my tongue all this time.
My first “real” camera was a Canon FTb purchased in 1973, replaced by Leica M3 with 50mm f:2 DR Summicron in 1978 (what a magnificent machine). I’m returning to photography now after a hiatus of about 25 years. Thanks to all who have provided useful information, and to CR for providing constant links to newsworthy developments.
The outstanding performance of the new 100-400 across its range, coupled with improved IS and fantastic MFD will make it perfect with the 7D2 as an upgraded crossover outfit for me. No other manufacturer offers a body and lens that come close to this combination’s performance, reach (near and far), speed, function with flash, compactness, and portability—at least not for my purposes.
M43 sucks for BIF, and flash is unusable with the 100-300 if one wants to act quickly. The 100-300 is capable of nicely detailed images of insects, especially when used with extension tubes, but images of birds are disappointing when the subject is more than about 30 feet away. Mirrorless has a long way to go before it can compete with DSLR for my purposes.
I’m new to the forum though I’ve read it daily for more than a year. This site provides lots of helpful information and insights. There is also a lot of astounding nonsense (put politely), though I have succeeded in biting my tongue all this time.
My first “real” camera was a Canon FTb purchased in 1973, replaced by Leica M3 with 50mm f:2 DR Summicron in 1978 (what a magnificent machine). I’m returning to photography now after a hiatus of about 25 years. Thanks to all who have provided useful information, and to CR for providing constant links to newsworthy developments.
Upvote
0
It has met my expectations so far. Better IS, fast AF, and the images appear sharper, particularly away from the center.
I'd have a tough time saying there is a difference in the center from my MK I version, it was very good. Meanwhile, the various lens tester's results are positive, but differing from their point of view as to increased acutance in the center.
I'd have a tough time saying there is a difference in the center from my MK I version, it was very good. Meanwhile, the various lens tester's results are positive, but differing from their point of view as to increased acutance in the center.
Upvote
0
I am inclined to stick with my beloved 400 f/5.6L. The new zoom's IS and minimum focusing distance of 1 meter beats the 400 f/5.6 no-IS and minimum focusing distance of 3 meters, so it does sound tempting, but I rarely get that close to birds, and for slow moving tiny critters (snakes, insects, etc), I use the 180 f/3.5L macro with or without the 1.4x TCII. There's a combo that autofocuses s-l-o-w-l-y when compared to the 400 f/5.6L :
I would really like to try the 500 f/4 or even the 600 f/4 - rent it for a migration week of shooting.
I would really like to try the 500 f/4 or even the 600 f/4 - rent it for a migration week of shooting.
Upvote
0
NancyP said:I am inclined to stick with my beloved 400 f/5.6L. The new zoom's IS and minimum focusing distance of 1 meter beats the 400 f/5.6 no-IS and minimum focusing distance of 3 meters, so it does sound tempting, but I rarely get that close to birds, and for slow moving tiny critters (snakes, insects, etc), I use the 180 f/3.5L macro with or without the 1.4x TCII. There's a combo that autofocuses s-l-o-w-l-y when compared to the 400 f/5.6L :
I would really like to try the 500 f/4 or even the 600 f/4 - rent it for a migration week of shooting.
The 400mm f/5.6 is a bargain lens, it would be a shame to see it replaced with a $2,000 lens. It allows photographers to get into a front line hand held 400mm lens for a reasonable price.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Indeed... but even if they stop making it, i think there are enough floating around the 2nd hand market to keep it a realistic option for a few years to come... it is a gateway lens, Canon would be foolish to completely abandon their excellent OEM (non-is etc) telephotos...
the 100-400 appears to be a worthy up-graded model... In a way i'm glad i picked up my 500L before it was out, because otherwise i might have struggled more with the choice... no regrets!
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:NancyP said:I am inclined to stick with my beloved 400 f/5.6L. The new zoom's IS and minimum focusing distance of 1 meter beats the 400 f/5.6 no-IS and minimum focusing distance of 3 meters, so it does sound tempting, but I rarely get that close to birds, and for slow moving tiny critters (snakes, insects, etc), I use the 180 f/3.5L macro with or without the 1.4x TCII. There's a combo that autofocuses s-l-o-w-l-y when compared to the 400 f/5.6L :
I would really like to try the 500 f/4 or even the 600 f/4 - rent it for a migration week of shooting.
The 400mm f/5.6 is a bargain lens, it would be a shame to see it replaced with a $2,000 lens. It allows photographers to get into a front line hand held 400mm lens for a reasonable price.
+1. It a great lens.
Upvote
0
DanoPhoto said:
I wish someone would take some identical comparison shots with the new 100-400 and the great 70-200 2.8 ii at the same focal length. Such as 100mm and 200mm. I'm thinking a lot of peeps with the 70-200 would enjoy seeing that. (Or not, if the 100-400 blows it away!)
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
LovePhotography said:DanoPhoto said:
I wish someone would take some identical comparison shots with the new 100-400 and the great 70-200 2.8 ii at the same focal length. Such as 100mm and 200mm. I'm thinking a lot of peeps with the 70-200 would enjoy seeing that. (Or not, if the 100-400 blows it away!)
Have both, but haven't compared them head-to-head. However - keep in mind, between 135-200mm you're at f/5, a full 1 2/3 stops SLOWER than the 70-200 2.8...the difference between ISO 1600 and ISO 5000...
Having used the 70-200 2.8 a lot, though, I know it has excellent performance at 200 - and after test-shooting with the 100-400, it didn't seem to be noticeably better (or worse) to me at 200...
Perhaps this will help, though - a direct comparison at TDP at 200mm, wide open (f/5 vs. f/2.8!!)...seems close to me
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
200mm, Both at f5.6...can't tell a sharpness difference but the 70-200, being a 2.8 lens, has less corner darkening
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3
I'd say in less than good light, the ISO difference will have a much larger impact on IQ than any perceived optical difference between the two lenses...
Upvote
0
LovePhotography said:DanoPhoto said:
I wish someone would take some identical comparison shots with the new 100-400 and the great 70-200 2.8 ii at the same focal length. Such as 100mm and 200mm. I'm thinking a lot of peeps with the 70-200 would enjoy seeing that. (Or not, if the 100-400 blows it away!)
Go to TDP (The digital Picture) they are there for various focal lengths, with / without TC's, etc.
However, they are very carefully setup still photos with manual focus, so AF speeds are not a factor. If you are taking photos a still objects, a 70-200mm MK II + 1.4X TC will be excellent, but with a 2X TC, its not good.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
I'd also like to add, re. handling:
The 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 are almost the same size...according to the stats the 100-400 is 80g heavier than the 70-200 2.8, yet it actually FEELS lighter when I'm using it. I'd say it's probably due to the orientation of the zoom ring in front on the 100-400, it's easier to balance the weight when handholding. I like that better as well....
The 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 are almost the same size...according to the stats the 100-400 is 80g heavier than the 70-200 2.8, yet it actually FEELS lighter when I'm using it. I'd say it's probably due to the orientation of the zoom ring in front on the 100-400, it's easier to balance the weight when handholding. I like that better as well....
Upvote
0
