Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

[Canon1]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

This kind of lens really isn't made to play well with TC's. Even on bodies that AF at f8 it will be slow, hunt and no doubt need to be stopped down even more to produce barely acceptable image quality (for anyone who is very critical). Shooting bare at 400mm will produce far more " in focus" images, with better iq after cropped in post, and won't require full sun to shoot in.

Shouldn't be a deal breaker if it can't accept tc's....

 

[lintoni]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

What are current satisfied 100-400 owners thinking?
I don't really see any faults with mine (not to be confused with knowing there's room to improve) so I'm in two minds lol. I was actually more tempted to get the Siggy 150-600, because my main big gun Sigma 120-300 is a little average on the 2x TC side, but the 100-400 is my trusty workhorse.

Ofcourse the gearhead in me wants it cos I love super sharp lenses (yet to be proven but I have no doubts given recent releases) but I concede I don't think it would really change my gear capability at all, compared to getting say a native 600mm in the Sigma. Again I don't mean to imply the two are really comparable at all, except on price.

I pretty much concur with you - I'm interested in the mark II, but not that interested. I'm happy with my 100-400 and am in no big rush to replace it. For me, replacing the 17-40 with the 16-35 f4 would be a higher priority and I'm also thinking about a couple of primes. If I suddenly had a large surplus of £££s, then yeah, it'd be on my shopping list...

 

[Lee Jay]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

This kind of lens really isn't made to play well with TC's. Even on bodies that AF at f8 it will be slow, hunt and no doubt need to be stopped down even more to produce barely acceptable image quality (for anyone who is very critical). Shooting bare at 400mm will produce far more " in focus" images, with better iq after cropped in post, and won't require full sun to shoot in.

Shouldn't be a deal breaker if it can't accept tc's....

If it can't take TCs, I won't ever consider it again, same as the 70-300L.

 

[wsheldon]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

What are current satisfied 100-400 owners thinking?
I don't really see any faults with mine (not to be confused with knowing there's room to improve) so I'm in two minds lol. I was actually more tempted to get the Siggy 150-600, because my main big gun Sigma 120-300 is a little average on the 2x TC side, but the 100-400 is my trusty workhorse.

Ofcourse the gearhead in me wants it cos I love super sharp lenses (yet to be proven but I have no doubts given recent releases) but I concede I don't think it would really change my gear capability at all, compared to getting say a native 600mm in the Sigma. Again I don't mean to imply the two are really comparable at all, except on price.

I pretty much concur with you - I'm interested in the mark II, but not that interested. I'm happy with my 100-400 and am in no big rush to replace it. For me, replacing the 17-40 with the 16-35 f4 would be a higher priority and I'm also thinking about a couple of primes. If I suddenly had a large surplus of £££s, then yeah, it'd be on my shopping list...

My thoughts exactly. Short term I have other lenses I'm more anxious to upgrade (like the 17-40), and I'd like to see how the Sigma tests out compares to a 100-400 mark II with 1.4 (or without). I'd certainly like more effective IS so I can shoot slower than 1/160 hand-held, but I'd like another 200mm even more for the money.

 

[Canon1]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

This kind of lens really isn't made to play well with TC's. Even on bodies that AF at f8 it will be slow, hunt and no doubt need to be stopped down even more to produce barely acceptable image quality (for anyone who is very critical). Shooting bare at 400mm will produce far more " in focus" images, with better iq after cropped in post, and won't require full sun to shoot in.

Shouldn't be a deal breaker if it can't accept tc's....

If it can't take TCs, I won't ever consider it again, same as the 70-300L.

As I said... It just depends on how critical you are with respect to image quality (and camera/lens performance for that matter). For many people, a tc on a f5.6 lens is good enough. For me, and others with lower tolerance thresholds for soft images, these combinations are just not acceptable.

 

[tayassu]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

A very nice lens!
If my €€€ wouldn't be needed for a new phone, a compact camera and a trip to Scotland, it would be second priority on the list (after the 7DII ).

 

[LovePhotography]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Please, CameraGods, may it have incredible specs, like the 70-200 2.8 II (or even better). Incense going up....

 

[Lee Jay]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

This kind of lens really isn't made to play well with TC's. Even on bodies that AF at f8 it will be slow, hunt and no doubt need to be stopped down even more to produce barely acceptable image quality (for anyone who is very critical). Shooting bare at 400mm will produce far more " in focus" images, with better iq after cropped in post, and won't require full sun to shoot in.

Shouldn't be a deal breaker if it can't accept tc's....

If it can't take TCs, I won't ever consider it again, same as the 70-300L.

As I said... It just depends on how critical you are with respect to image quality (and camera/lens performance for that matter). For many people, a tc on a f5.6 lens is good enough. For me, and others with lower tolerance thresholds for soft images, these combinations are just not acceptable.

You're assuming it will be lousy optically. You know what they say about assuming.

 

[Canon1]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

This kind of lens really isn't made to play well with TC's. Even on bodies that AF at f8 it will be slow, hunt and no doubt need to be stopped down even more to produce barely acceptable image quality (for anyone who is very critical). Shooting bare at 400mm will produce far more " in focus" images, with better iq after cropped in post, and won't require full sun to shoot in.

Shouldn't be a deal breaker if it can't accept tc's....

If it can't take TCs, I won't ever consider it again, same as the 70-300L.

As I said... It just depends on how critical you are with respect to image quality (and camera/lens performance for that matter). For many people, a tc on a f5.6 lens is good enough. For me, and others with lower tolerance thresholds for soft images, these combinations are just not acceptable.

You're assuming it will be lousy optically. You know what they say about assuming.

No, I'm being realistic. It won't perform as well as you assume it will with respect to AF and optical quality. It just won't. If you want an optically excellent 560mm zoom lens that performs well you will need to purchase a 200-400 w/1.4x... You just won't find it in a $2200 lens by adding a $500 tc.... It just won't happen. But, as I stated, your expectations and mine are unlikely the same and yours may be met much more easily.

 

[PureClassA]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

The wide swing in expectations on this lens are entertaining to read to say the least. Here's my second prediction on this lens, so let's see if I can go 2 for 2:

The lens will clearly be a better optical performer than the Mk I particularly with lower CR and better sharpness to the corners. It will essentially be on PAR with the 16-35 f4. It will NOT however equal or beat the venerable 70-200 IS MK II. It's just physics. 100-400 is a variable aperture lens covering twice the range of the fixed, larger ap 70-200 .... all for the same price. It will be a fantastic lens and clear step up from the original... but let's not setting the bar unreasonably high and then all get disappointed when it's not quite there.

 

[lintoni]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

You know what they say about assuming.

It makes an ass out of U and Ming? Who is Ming?

Surely you've heard of Ming The Merciless? Works for DXO, testing Canon sensors...

 

[aldvan]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

What are current satisfied 100-400 owners thinking?
I don't really see any faults with mine (not to be confused with knowing there's room to improve) so I'm in two minds lol. I was actually more tempted to get the Siggy 150-600, because my main big gun Sigma 120-300 is a little average on the 2x TC side, but the 100-400 is my trusty workhorse.

Me too have the present 100-400 as a trusty workhorse. I've always considered it my standard lens, and I use it on the whole focal range. All the features of the new lens satisfy my idea of an old one's substitute, may be I hoped that in the third milennium something could be done about weight, in particular since I use it as a standard lens always hanging from my neck paired with a 1Ds MkIII. The example of the 100 L macro II made me think that a good amount of top class resin could reduce its weight but, actually, 21 glasses can leave the mechanical part as a marginal contribution.
I don't know if waiting for a rebate could be a good choice for us old version's owners, since the new one's rebate will imply an old one's depreciation too, may be not of the same measure, but enough for not waiting to enjoy the upgrade...

 

[Lee Jay]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

No, I'm being realistic. It won't perform as well as you assume it will with respect to AF and optical quality. It just won't.

You have no idea what I'm assuming.

So I'll tell you.

I'm assuming it will perform better optically than the old one did with two 1.4x TCs attached. And this is the old one with two 1.4s.

I'm also assuming that it will AF at least as well at 560mm and f/8 on a 7D2 as my 70-200/2.8L IS II does with a 2x TC III on my 20D (for which I use only the center AF point as well).

 

[Lee Jay]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

What are current satisfied 100-400 owners thinking?
I don't really see any faults with mine (not to be confused with knowing there's room to improve) so I'm in two minds lol.

My 100-400L has the same faults as the other four copies I tests.

First, it's got lousy handling. The lock ring is the reasonable place to put my hand, and that means zooming causes AF changes if you aren't really careful because turning the lock ring turns the AF ring with it.

Second, the IS is so bad, it's nearly useless. It can even be worse than useless (see below).

Third, from 300-400mm wide-open with the IS on, the position of the IS elements greatly affects the results. The results can be great if the elements happen to be in the middle, or horrid if they aren't. In practice, this means 300-400mm with IS means f/8, and since the IS is good for *maybe* 1 stop, it's no better than f/5.6 with the IS off (for which the optics are quite good).

I suspect they fixed all this nonsense in the new version.

 

[Canon1]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

No, I'm being realistic. It won't perform as well as you assume it will with respect to AF and optical quality. It just won't.

You have no idea what I'm assuming.

So I'll tell you.

I'm assuming it will perform better optically than the old one did with two 1.4x TCs attached. And this is the old one with two 1.4s.

I'm also assuming that it will AF at least as well at 560mm and f/8 on a 7D2 as my 70-200/2.8L IS II does with a 2x TC III on my 20D (for which I use only the center AF point as well).

Lee Jay,

Thank you for clarifying, I took your digression as an assertion of assumption, I apologize for this.

Virtually ANY lens on ANY camera body will produce an image that looks great for web-sharing. I hope that your expectations are met, I really do...

Do you believe that the 70-200/2.8 IS II + 20D performs well with respect to AF? If so, I believe that you will be happy with the 100-400II+1.4XIII.

Personally, I believe that the 70-200f2.8II+2.0xIII mounted on my 5DIII or 7DII has marginal AF. Acceptable for stationary subjects as well as general walk around, but not great for BIF or fast moving targets. The IQ however is not that great. It is soft (relatively) at all apertures.

Again, this is an expectation thing (and all of us have different expectations of gear or tolerances). I print big and what I would consider excellent is: 70-200 f2.8II (bare or with 1.4x), 300 f2.8II (bare or with 1.4x... 2.0x is also decent), 24-70 f2.8II, 400 f5.6... this is not the complete list... just the "sharp" lenses in my kit.

I hope I'm wrong... obviously, no one really knows how well the the 100-400II will perform, with a TC, but I doubt it will be exceptionally great, in any department.

 

[Lee Jay]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Virtually ANY lens on ANY camera body will produce an image that looks great for web-sharing. I hope that your expectations are met, I really do...

That moon shot is a 100% pixel-for-pixel crop from an 18MP 1.6-crop Canon sensor.

Do you believe that the 70-200/2.8 IS II + 20D performs well with respect to AF? If so, I believe that you will be happy with the 100-400II+1.4XIII.

Pretty well. I have relatively good success capturing 200mph+ R/C aircraft with shallow DOF at 400mm and f/6.3, even with very busy backgrounds.

Personally, I believe that the 70-200f2.8II+2.0xIII mounted on my 5DIII or 7DII has marginal AF. Acceptable for stationary subjects as well as general walk around, but not great for BIF or fast moving targets. The IQ however is not that great. It is soft (relatively) at all apertures.

I've printed 20x30s from that combo, and they are quite nice.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Virtually ANY lens on ANY camera body will produce an image that looks great for web-sharing. I hope that your expectations are met, I really do...

That moon shot is a 100% pixel-for-pixel crop from an 18MP 1.6-crop Canon sensor.

Do you believe that the 70-200/2.8 IS II + 20D performs well with respect to AF? If so, I believe that you will be happy with the 100-400II+1.4XIII.

Pretty well. I have relatively good success capturing 200mph+ R/C aircraft with shallow DOF at 400mm and f/6.3, even with very busy backgrounds.

Personally, I believe that the 70-200f2.8II+2.0xIII mounted on my 5DIII or 7DII has marginal AF. Acceptable for stationary subjects as well as general walk around, but not great for BIF or fast moving targets. The IQ however is not that great. It is soft (relatively) at all apertures.

I've printed 20x30s from that combo, and they are quite nice.

Great R/C captures! I've shot them and it's crazy to keep them in frame, let alone in focus. The only thing more challenging is Dragonflys.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

The only thing Canon could have done that would make this focal range a killer is a continuous f4 across the range, but that would have jacked up the price beyond many user's price point.
For sure we will get better optics and a better IS- that's because the lens technology has come so far since it was first released.
Back in the day when the lens hit the market, sensor megapixels were less than what we have now. If Canon develops something in the 30-40 megapixel range, lens quality has to be there or it's a fruitless gain.
Also, the new bodies capable of more rapid focusing need lenses that can match that performance.
When the 5D Mark IV arrives with a dual-pixel sensor and mirrorless, we will again melt down our remaining credit cards.
PS: I will miss the "push/pull" for high speed sports.

 

[PureClassA]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

aaaaand it would be as big as a Smart Car by comparison ;D

 

[lintoni]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

The only thing Canon could have done that would make this focal range a killer is a continuous f4 across the range, but that would have jacked up the price beyond many user's price point.
For sure we will get better optics and a better IS- that's because the lens technology has come so far since it was first released.
Back in the day when the lens hit the market, sensor megapixels were less than what we have now. If Canon develops something in the 30-40 megapixel range, lens quality has to be there or it's a fruitless gain.
Also, the new bodies capable of more rapid focusing need lenses that can match that performance.
When the 5D Mark IV arrives with a dual-pixel sensor and mirrorless, we will again melt down our remaining credit cards.
PS: I will miss the "push/pull" for high speed sports.

Back in the day when the lens hit the market (1998), almost everybody shot film!