Act444 said:
Good to know, i was considering grabbing one for my wife, and the weight was a concern...
Upvote
0
How satisfied are you with the 100-400 II?
- Thread starter J.R.
- Start date
Good to know, i was considering grabbing one for my wife, and the weight was a concern...
Houndog said:
One can only hope.. though this does sound like a perfect excuse to go full-frame... you know, to get the most out of your expensive glass?
Upvote
0
balvert said:
This is exactly what I wanted to hear. Looking at TDP comps, it fares well against the tamron with 1.4x, but I am curious how it stacks up against the 2 Sigmas.
Upvote
0
JonAustin
Telecom / IT consultant and semi-pro photographer
I don't have the lens yet; I plan to pick one up at the first "great deal" opportunity, or before a planned photo shoot in May, whichever comes first.
I voted for option 1 in the poll, even though I wouldn't have objected to a higher launch price (say, up to $2,500) for even better optical performance than what has been reported by early reviews / user experiences.
Still a worthy successor to the original 100-400 (which I refrained from purchasing) and an excellent product overall IMHO, for those infrequent occasions when I want longer reach (which I have reluctantly satisfied up until now by using a 1.4x TC with my 70-200).
I voted for option 1 in the poll, even though I wouldn't have objected to a higher launch price (say, up to $2,500) for even better optical performance than what has been reported by early reviews / user experiences.
Still a worthy successor to the original 100-400 (which I refrained from purchasing) and an excellent product overall IMHO, for those infrequent occasions when I want longer reach (which I have reluctantly satisfied up until now by using a 1.4x TC with my 70-200).
Upvote
0
Being that I just registered, I can't set my signature, so I'll say I shoot a lot with a 5DM3 and 70-200 f2.8L II. I sometimes use a 1.4x III or even a 2x with it. (The latter is rare, of course ... but I've done it!) Having had the 100-400 II for just a little over a week...which isn't much, I know...I'd say:
1) I may never shoot with an extender on the 70-200 again. In my opinion (I shoot a lot of action shots with a lens like this) the slower aperture is traded for the better IS. I can get sharp photos. That's what's important to me.
2) Focus is fast. Given I'm used to the 70-200 ... I was expecting the 100-400 to feel slower focusing. It doesn't.
As for things I don't like, there aren't any. But, there are 2 minor nits to offer:
1) I don't always remove it, so I wish the tripod foot was a little wider and longer. Or maybe, just have a "squared" off back to the foot rather than the curve it has. As-is, it shifts the "tip point" more forward. The 5DM3 barely balances. It will not balance with a flash. In most shooting situations, it's fine. I'll get into the habit of removing the ring!
2) I do not understand the point of the zoom tightness ring. I do not see any drift in focal length with the lens pointed at the ground or straight up in the softest setting. In the tightest setting, the zoom is pretty much locked. The softest setting feels right to me. For now, it's a bit of extra cost for nothing. Maybe wear will make the zoom looser and I'll be glad it's there.
I will shoot a few comparisons as requested, but I don't expect anyone to change their minds based on them. Both lenses are amazing. The 100-400 is a better lens than a 70-200 with 2x converter. Not to mention, it also works well with the 1.4x, pushing the focal length to 560 -- which isn't attainable with the 70-200.
1) I may never shoot with an extender on the 70-200 again. In my opinion (I shoot a lot of action shots with a lens like this) the slower aperture is traded for the better IS. I can get sharp photos. That's what's important to me.
2) Focus is fast. Given I'm used to the 70-200 ... I was expecting the 100-400 to feel slower focusing. It doesn't.
As for things I don't like, there aren't any. But, there are 2 minor nits to offer:
1) I don't always remove it, so I wish the tripod foot was a little wider and longer. Or maybe, just have a "squared" off back to the foot rather than the curve it has. As-is, it shifts the "tip point" more forward. The 5DM3 barely balances. It will not balance with a flash. In most shooting situations, it's fine. I'll get into the habit of removing the ring!
2) I do not understand the point of the zoom tightness ring. I do not see any drift in focal length with the lens pointed at the ground or straight up in the softest setting. In the tightest setting, the zoom is pretty much locked. The softest setting feels right to me. For now, it's a bit of extra cost for nothing. Maybe wear will make the zoom looser and I'll be glad it's there.
I will shoot a few comparisons as requested, but I don't expect anyone to change their minds based on them. Both lenses are amazing. The 100-400 is a better lens than a 70-200 with 2x converter. Not to mention, it also works well with the 1.4x, pushing the focal length to 560 -- which isn't attainable with the 70-200.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
adhocphotographer said:Act444 said:
Good to know, i was considering grabbing one for my wife, and the weight was a concern...
NB: it is still not a "light" lens by any means...if you're used to a 70-200 you'll be fine, but if she's using, say, a 55-250 it'll feel like a ton of bricks...it's all relative
Upvote
0
My 100-400 mkII is the final stage of my equipment overhaul which started with my 7DmkII. I had the 70-300L which I donated to my grandson in preparation for the purchase of the new lens. Loved the 70-300, hated the fact it wasn't compatible with Canon extenders, and didn't come with a tripod foot. So my new lens ticks all the boxes - image quality as good or possibly slightly better than the 70-300, neat tripod foot, plays nice with the 1.4x extender - even the lens hood is cool. Picked up the lens this afternoon, initial test photos handheld with and without extender at around 1/100th sec(!) indicate the AF and IS are better than anything I've used before.
Upvote
0
I took delivery of my new 100-400 last week and have been out a number of times shooting with it..... both with and without the 1.4xTC III on my 5D III.
I'm delighted with the performance of this new lens. I have owned a number of the v.1 offerings, and never had one that would deliver sharp images wide open. f/8 was my go-to aperture for keeper images, not to mention it was a very slow AF lens. I have also owned a number of 400 f/5.6L lenses. I still have one but it will likely go up for sale soon.
The new 100-400 is well balanced on a gripped 5D III and handles beautifully. I like the new forward location of the zoom ring and find it is really easy to use when resting the tripod foot on the heal of my left hand and extend my fingers forward to turn it.
The AF is both fast and accurate. Much faster than the previous version and in my opinion, at least as fast as the 400 f/5.6L. The lens is also much sharper than the previous versions I owned, and in my opinion may actually be a bit sharper than the 400 f/5.6L. I shoot this new lens wide open all the time. Perfect.
I have also used it with the 1.4xTC III on birds in flight and if I do my job of getting the focus point on the target, the lens focuses without hesitation and very accurately.
It now has a permanent home in my bag.
I'm delighted with the performance of this new lens. I have owned a number of the v.1 offerings, and never had one that would deliver sharp images wide open. f/8 was my go-to aperture for keeper images, not to mention it was a very slow AF lens. I have also owned a number of 400 f/5.6L lenses. I still have one but it will likely go up for sale soon.
The new 100-400 is well balanced on a gripped 5D III and handles beautifully. I like the new forward location of the zoom ring and find it is really easy to use when resting the tripod foot on the heal of my left hand and extend my fingers forward to turn it.
The AF is both fast and accurate. Much faster than the previous version and in my opinion, at least as fast as the 400 f/5.6L. The lens is also much sharper than the previous versions I owned, and in my opinion may actually be a bit sharper than the 400 f/5.6L. I shoot this new lens wide open all the time. Perfect.
I have also used it with the 1.4xTC III on birds in flight and if I do my job of getting the focus point on the target, the lens focuses without hesitation and very accurately.
It now has a permanent home in my bag.
Upvote
0
DanoPhoto said:
Thanks, DanoPhoto. I probably should have mentioned that the extra stability peg hole in the tripod foot is nice. It's something I have often wished was on the 70-200 foot as well.
Upvote
0
LovePhotography 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!)
Neither lens is going to blow the other away. It's all in what focal length you need, IMHO. I can't see much else at all that makes or breaks either lens in a comparison. The 100-400 II is every bit as good as you'd hope.
Here are a few samples. Sorry, I didn't have more time. I just grabbed a few of my kid's Legos and shot a few comparisons for you. The shot was set up for 200mm and all were shot at 1/200 f/5.6 ISO 200. The tripod stayed in the same spot for focal length and lens changes.
Bokeh at 100mm is shown enlarged close to 100%. Note that since the 70-200 f2.8 is stopped down to match the 100-400 at f/5.6, the blades have a greater effect with the faster lens. Also, the bokeh in the 400mm for the 70-200 is definitely dimmer as a result of the 2x converter. That too, is to be expected. But I show the shot to complete a comparison of just how close the lenses compare.
If you want RAW files, please let me know...but keep in mind, we're dealing with a 1mm DOF on a shot like this at 400mm. Pixel peeping will not really get you much on these.
And -- I'm new to the forum (as a poster...I have read the rumors practically daily since the site launched) so if these are considered spam in this forum and should be placed elsewhere, please forgive me and let me know. I am posting here as the question was asked here.
Upvote
0
Wow .... just been out for a quick test.
This shot was on my 1Dmk4 .. using the 2xIII converter and of course the new 100-400 at F11 800iso, as it's a very dull rainy day here ... the bird landed about 8 to 10m away from me on a roof of a shed out back ..
manual focus.
One shot as is full frame.
another one at 100% .. and the last one at 300% ...
What I am amazed at is the very good control of CA ... at 300% you can see it creep in at the birds lower beak ... but wow you can still plenty of detail in the bugs in it's beak ... using the 2x hand hold 1/1000 F11 at 800iso
I did lighten up the beak area a bit as it was well back lit .. so maybe a bit of noise crept in .. only sharpened very slightly, no noise reduction ... RAW saved as for web at 80% quality jpgs
This shot was on my 1Dmk4 .. using the 2xIII converter and of course the new 100-400 at F11 800iso, as it's a very dull rainy day here ... the bird landed about 8 to 10m away from me on a roof of a shed out back ..
manual focus.
One shot as is full frame.
another one at 100% .. and the last one at 300% ...
What I am amazed at is the very good control of CA ... at 300% you can see it creep in at the birds lower beak ... but wow you can still plenty of detail in the bugs in it's beak ... using the 2x hand hold 1/1000 F11 at 800iso
I did lighten up the beak area a bit as it was well back lit .. so maybe a bit of noise crept in .. only sharpened very slightly, no noise reduction ... RAW saved as for web at 80% quality jpgs
Attachments
Upvote
0
Thanks for sharing and for the effort. At first, I thought it wouldn't fair to compare it this way, as one is wide open while the other one is 2 stops stepped down. However the results give me a clear idea of what the new lens can do. It doesn't matter to me which one is better, as long as it is close to the 70-200 ii, it is a very good lens.PhotosbyChuck said:
Again, thanks for the test.
Upvote
0
I finally got around to taking a few test shots with my new 100-400L II mounted on my 1DX, and I'm very happy with this lens!!!
I used to own the Nikon 80-400mm AF-S, and used it with the Nikon D4. From what I've seen so far, the 1DX and 100-400L II combo is going to produce better results compared to the Nikon D4 with the 80-400mm AF-S...the icing on the cake is the 100-400L II is $500 less expensive as the Nikon 80-400mm!
I used to own the Nikon 80-400mm AF-S, and used it with the Nikon D4. From what I've seen so far, the 1DX and 100-400L II combo is going to produce better results compared to the Nikon D4 with the 80-400mm AF-S...the icing on the cake is the 100-400L II is $500 less expensive as the Nikon 80-400mm!
Upvote
0
Besisika said:
Yeah, that's exactly why I tested it this way. The question I saw was for a comparison to the 70-200. I saw it less as a question of "better" and more a question of whether the 100-400 II is "as good" a lens as the 70-200 II. For me, the answer is, "Absolutely!"
That said, I do realize that it's not something a few test shots can portray. Test shots just don't give the feel for how fast the AF is...or how the IS works for your shooting style...or the 100 other little things we all consider part of our experience.
Upvote
0
