Informal comparison of old and new 100-400 + 500 V.1

[Freddie]

Tripod mounted, ISO 160, f/5.6 @ 1/500. Live View focus with MLU on 7D MK II.
No guarantees but they are sort of interesting. There will be some denial involved.
Cropped and sharpened using USM 500/.9/1
I'll be trying some other tests later.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I intended to compare mine with my old 100-400, which was very good, but it sold yesterday, and is in the mail this morning.

The new one is very sharp, and like my old one, requires no AFMA. I'm happy with it, but mostly for the better IS and the faster AF. I'm sure its sharper, but not much. The person who bought my old one should be very happy with it. Not all of the version one lenses were sharp, some were off enough to be readily apparent. I happened to get a good one. I've also heard of 500's that were not perfect. My 600mm f/4 non is was very good, but the newer lenses are definitely better.

 

[Eldar]

It seems to me that your samples indicate that the new 100-400 even outperforms the 500. If I see more examples like that, the temptation will be just too much to handle

 

[Freddie]

Further testing to come.

Yes, it does show up better than the 500 here. Whether that is a fact remains to be seen. I will be field testing over the next few weeks and the results will be more clear cut after that.

 

[Freddie]

New image

Pygmy Nuthatch at ISO 3200. 1/1000 @ f/8 +1.33 EC
I'm not having any trouble with noise as long as I expose properly.
Canon 7D MK II with 100-400 MK II

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Re: Further testing to come.

Yes, it does show up better than the 500 here. Whether that is a fact remains to be seen. I will be field testing over the next few weeks and the results will be more clear cut after that.

I'd expect the 500mm to beat it when there is enough lighting for 1/1000 or 1/2000 sec at f/5.6 at ISO 160.

 

[Freddie]

More careful testing results.

This afternoon, since there were no birds, I tested the old and new 100-400 lenses at 400mm against the 500 V.1 again. I used the chart from Bob Atkins printed on a 13x19 sheet. There is no doubt in my mind now that the zoom is not quite as sharp or contrasty as the 500. It is close however.
I set up the tripod on a concrete floor, MLU, focused live view with a loupe, remote with 2-second delay with a monopod supporting the camera body itself IS was off, etc. I took several shots with each lens while watching live view for vibrations. It was quite solid and there were none. The various test shots were quite consistent in appearance so I think this is a correct test. The tests showed what would be expected. The 500 is at the top of the heap with best sharpness and contrast, the new zoom is a VERY close second and the old zoom (which is a pretty good copy) is falling behind the new zoom by more of a gap than the new zoom falls behind the 500. CA is also much better with the new zoom. Mystery solved.