Preorder: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II

[gotit]

Difficult choice for me:
7DII + the new 100-400mm or 5DII + 1.4TC + the new 100-400mm.
Camera for "general" use (landscape, wildlife, close ups, BIF, ...).
What's your preference/suggestion? TIA.

No that is a pretty clear cut choice, the 7D MkII is the most appropriate camera of the two, try birding with a 5D MkII and TC! But it would be my choice for wildlife and close ups too, better AF and longer working distances, so you are then looking at landscapes. Well the 7D MkII is easily going to print 20" x 30", truthfully how often are you going to need more?


In my experience, the 70D + 300mm f/2.8 II is on a par with the 5D III + 300mm f/2.8 II + 1.4xTCIII optically. The 300/2.8 takes the 1.4xTCIII particularly well. So, my prediction is that the 7D II + 100-400mm II will be as least as optically good as the 5D 2 plus extender and blow it away as far as performance is concerned.

@AlanF, @privatebydesign: thank you for answering.
Besides the price difference, do you think a 7DII + (new)100-400 mm is also preferable above a 5DIII + 1.4 TC III + (new) 100-400 mm for general purpose use?

 

[Aichbus]

I am always deeply suspicious of people who claim to get multiple bad copies of anything, the truth is there are 'bad' examples out there, but the chances of getting more than one is very small, the chances of getting more than two is statistically inconsequential.

It is a good thing to be suspicious. I am too. So I guess you are among the minority here on earth who like me don't believe in stories about men going over the water or women giving birth to a child without having had sex before.

But back to my experience of sample variation (1 good out of 4) with the old 100-400. As I wrote that was in 2007 and I had 2 bodies of the 5D Mark I. This camera didn't have an AFMA option nor live view. Maybe with AFMA the soft copies would have been sharp. But that was not an option back then. However, the one I actually owned was equally sharp on both bodies.

It is maybe worth pointing out that I tested all of them at my local dealer. I first tested 2 copies. I did so, because already back then I had read reports of large sample variation with this lens in particular. Both copies were awful. I gave them back and told them I'd take the 400 5.6 L instead, because these 2 copies were unusable. They said: "Well, that surprises us, because we have plenty of very satisfied customers with this lens. We will get another 4 copies next Monday. You might want to try them out first." I agreed and I tried 2 of the 4 and one of them was near perfect and the other perfect. So I bought the perfect one. From this experience, I actually do think it is possible to get more than 1 bad copy, if they are taken from the same lot.

Actually, Roger Cicala, who is more renowned and trusted than I am, supports my point in this article:

http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

Read the entire article, because it is worth it, but especially the part after "Lens variation isn't always random"

 

[privatebydesign]

I am always deeply suspicious of people who claim to get multiple bad copies of anything, the truth is there are 'bad' examples out there, but the chances of getting more than one is very small, the chances of getting more than two is statistically inconsequential.

It is a good thing to be suspicious. I am too. So I guess you are among the minority here on earth who like me don't believe in stories about men going over the water or women giving birth to a child without having had sex before.

But back to my experience of sample variation (1 good out of 4) with the old 100-400. As I wrote that was in 2007 and I had 2 bodies of the 5D Mark I. This camera didn't have an AFMA option nor live view. Maybe with AFMA the soft copies would have been sharp. But that was not an option back then. However, the one I actually owned was equally sharp on both bodies.

It is maybe worth pointing out that I tested all of them at my local dealer. I first tested 2 copies. I did so, because already back then I had read reports of large sample variation with this lens in particular. Both copies were awful. I gave them back and told them I'd take the 400 5.6 L instead, because these 2 copies were unusable. They said: "Well, that surprises us, because we have plenty of very satisfied customers with this lens. We will get another 4 copies next Monday. You might want to try them out first." I agreed and I tried 2 of the 4 and one of them was near perfect and the other perfect. So I bought the perfect one. From this experience, I actually do think it is possible to get more than 1 bad copy, if they are taken from the same lot.

Actually, Roger Cicala, who is more renowned and trusted than I am, supports my point in this article:

http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

Read the entire article, because it is worth it, but especially the part after "Lens variation isn't always random"

I have read pretty much everything Roger writes and as always the devil is in the detail. In the second recounting of your tale the impression that 75% of a random selection of lenses is bad actually turns around to two from the same batch were not good as good as two from a different delivery were both good, one "near perfect and the other perfect". You actually tested two good out of four and the two 'bad' ones were from the same batch, that isn't what you originally said and I don't find your elaborated new version hard to believe.

The reason Roger is more trusted than you is because he wouldn't have said he got one good one out of four, he would have said he tested six (he would have tested the two you didn't) and he found two to be off, and those two were from the same batch.

 

[heptagon]

Well, it seems to be a really really nice lens. But I won't preorder. I will wait for the first batch to get out so that the quality control fixes the early bugs. Then I'll wait some more because the price might come down a little bit. Then I'll wait even longer because I don't _really_ need this lens. Then I'd consider which camera to use with this lens. It should presumably be a crop camera. That camera would be the 7DII. Buying one without the other is pretty pointless in my case. This bumps up the price considerably. So I'll wait even more until the "fun" account bursts with money unless it gets drained by some other toy. But then, finally, I'll buy it and it will be nice.

 

[Aichbus]

The reason Roger is more trusted than you is because he wouldn't have said he got one good one out of four, he would have said he tested six (he would have tested the two you didn't) and he found two to be off, and those two were from the same batch.

I wrote the following in my first post about this: "2 copies were very soft at 400mm, 1 was decent and 1 was super sharp." Which is a fact and the only point that I wanted to make was that there were QC issues with the old 100-400. I didn't elaborate on when and where those copies were tested until you insinuated that the pick was completely random and therefore labelled my post as untrustworthy. I then gave more details, but how does that change my original statement? You buy a new lens and chances are that you get a bad copy. With the old 100-400, chances were quite high. After all, at one point in time, 4 buyers bought a 100-400 from my camera store. One got a perfect lens (that was me), another got a decent lens and 2 got lenses that were really bad. You may find this ok, but I don't.

 

[JonAustin]

Well, it seems to be a really really nice lens. But I won't preorder. I will wait for the first batch to get out so that the quality control fixes the early bugs. Then I'll wait some more because the price might come down a little bit. Then I'll wait even longer because I don't _really_ need this lens. Then I'd consider which camera to use with this lens. It should presumably be a crop camera. That camera would be the 7DII. Buying one without the other is pretty pointless in my case. This bumps up the price considerably. So I'll wait even more until the "fun" account bursts with money unless it gets drained by some other toy. But then, finally, I'll buy it and it will be nice.

Now that is what I call a cool customer!

 

[AlanF]

Difficult choice for me:
7DII + the new 100-400mm or 5DII + 1.4TC + the new 100-400mm.
Camera for "general" use (landscape, wildlife, close ups, BIF, ...).
What's your preference/suggestion? TIA.

No that is a pretty clear cut choice, the 7D MkII is the most appropriate camera of the two, try birding with a 5D MkII and TC! But it would be my choice for wildlife and close ups too, better AF and longer working distances, so you are then looking at landscapes. Well the 7D MkII is easily going to print 20" x 30", truthfully how often are you going to need more?


In my experience, the 70D + 300mm f/2.8 II is on a par with the 5D III + 300mm f/2.8 II + 1.4xTCIII optically. The 300/2.8 takes the 1.4xTCIII particularly well. So, my prediction is that the 7D II + 100-400mm II will be as least as optically good as the 5D 2 plus extender and blow it away as far as performance is concerned.

@AlanF, @privatebydesign: thank you for answering.
Besides the price difference, do you think a 7DII + (new)100-400 mm is also preferable above a 5DIII + 1.4 TC III + (new) 100-400 mm for general purpose use?

The 5D III focuses fast and well, much better than the 5d II. I will end up with both combinations! Honestly, it's horses for courses, and I think you would be happy with either. If you don't need the TC, then the 5D III will have the edge. The 7D II will have some extra reach over the 5D III, but not nearly 1.6x even under the best conditions of light. We need to see some real life comparisons. For me, the real test will be the 300/2.8 + 2XTC on the 5D III at f/5.6 vs the 100-400 II on the 7D II. I would love the convenience of the lighter system.

 

[AlanF]

The reason Roger is more trusted than you is because he wouldn't have said he got one good one out of four, he would have said he tested six (he would have tested the two you didn't) and he found two to be off, and those two were from the same batch.

I wrote the following in my first post about this: "2 copies were very soft at 400mm, 1 was decent and 1 was super sharp." Which is a fact and the only point that I wanted to make was that there were QC issues with the old 100-400. I didn't elaborate on when and where those copies were tested until you insinuated that the pick was completely random and therefore labelled my post as untrustworthy. I then gave more details, but how does that change my original statement? You buy a new lens and chances are that you get a bad copy. With the old 100-400, chances were quite high. After all, at one point in time, 4 buyers bought a 100-400 from my camera store. One got a perfect lens (that was me), another got a decent lens and 2 got lenses that were really bad. You may find this ok, but I don't.

See slrgear's commentss:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/77/cat/11
"Build Quality and Handling
The story of our testing the 100-400mm is a story of sample variation. We went through four copies for evaluation, the first three showing problems which made our test results either impossible or questionable (for example, our first sample had extreme softness in the central region of the image, leading us to believe it had been damaged in shipping). The moral of the story is don't commit to a sale unless you have a chance to test the lens to establish its performance, as in addition to our experience, there are widespread reports of both excellent and poor samples of this lens on the market."

 

[Plainsman]

Throwing this out there for the sake of discussion, but is anybody worried about the performance of this lens?

My thought process is this.
- 4x on a lens does lead to some inherent difficulty in getting an ultra sharp shot throughout focal range
- extended time in between lens generations, including a delay in what was supposed to be the debut date earlier this year, suggests that there might be manufacturing QC issues, or at least difficulty in improving IQ

Canon publishes the MTF curves of this lens as well as the old one, and you can clearly see the curves are better on the new one.

The IS has been modernized, lens coatings are now updated to eliminate reflections off digital sensors, even if IQ wasn't a whole lot better, it has a lot more going for it.

That close MFD means I can put on a 1.4X TC and get some close ups of small creatures, flowers and birds like Hummingbirds that are not so shy.

The major US camera stores have a 30 day return policy, and often longer for Christmas items, so there is no risk except for return shipping cost.

Unlike a body that is obsolete in 2-4 years, this lens will be the current model for 10 years, probably 15.

...have you looked a the MTFs for the 400/5.6?

Not very good are they - yet this is a highly rated little lens even today.

My point is you should not judge a new lens which is not even in the shops yet by its MTF

 

[Canon1]

The reason Roger is more trusted than you is because he wouldn't have said he got one good one out of four, he would have said he tested six (he would have tested the two you didn't) and he found two to be off, and those two were from the same batch.

I wrote the following in my first post about this: "2 copies were very soft at 400mm, 1 was decent and 1 was super sharp." Which is a fact and the only point that I wanted to make was that there were QC issues with the old 100-400. I didn't elaborate on when and where those copies were tested until you insinuated that the pick was completely random and therefore labelled my post as untrustworthy. I then gave more details, but how does that change my original statement? You buy a new lens and chances are that you get a bad copy. With the old 100-400, chances were quite high. After all, at one point in time, 4 buyers bought a 100-400 from my camera store. One got a perfect lens (that was me), another got a decent lens and 2 got lenses that were really bad. You may find this ok, but I don't.

Don't get sucked in Aichbus. Sometimes people here have nothing better to do than argue for the sake of arguing. I reviewed three copies of this lens when i bought one and all three (after calibration to the body) varied significantly. For me, the three copies were "poor", "ok" and "very sharp". This particular lens model has had a long known history of significant sample variation. It's the only lens that I have seen where every reviewer mentions sample variation as being a significant problem....

 

[AlanF]

Throwing this out there for the sake of discussion, but is anybody worried about the performance of this lens?

My thought process is this.
- 4x on a lens does lead to some inherent difficulty in getting an ultra sharp shot throughout focal range
- extended time in between lens generations, including a delay in what was supposed to be the debut date earlier this year, suggests that there might be manufacturing QC issues, or at least difficulty in improving IQ

Canon publishes the MTF curves of this lens as well as the old one, and you can clearly see the curves are better on the new one.

The IS has been modernized, lens coatings are now updated to eliminate reflections off digital sensors, even if IQ wasn't a whole lot better, it has a lot more going for it.

That close MFD means I can put on a 1.4X TC and get some close ups of small creatures, flowers and birds like Hummingbirds that are not so shy.

The major US camera stores have a 30 day return policy, and often longer for Christmas items, so there is no risk except for return shipping cost.

Unlike a body that is obsolete in 2-4 years, this lens will be the current model for 10 years, probably 15.

...have you looked a the MTFs for the 400/5.6?

Not very good are they - yet this is a highly rated little lens even today.

My point is you should not judge a new lens which is not even in the shops yet by its MTF

It's a very popular lens, especially on CR. I used one for a while and had a great fun with it and got some great shots. But as slrgear says about it:

Sharpness
The 400mm ƒ/5.6L USM produces sharp results - not tack-sharp, but certainly very good.

which you can see from their "blur tests" http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/167/cat/10

The more modern white lenses are much more expensive but the best are "tack-sharp", and you can see that from their MTFs. If the 100-400mm II had poor MTFs, I personally wouldn't go near it. But, it does look very good on paper and as TDP says "When all of the lines get crushed into the top of the chart, the lens promises to be amazing."
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

 

[dgatwood]

This particular lens model has had a long known history of significant sample variation. It's the only lens that I have seen where every reviewer mentions sample variation as being a significant problem....

Let's hope they made design changes in version II that significantly reduce that sample variation problem—making it more precisely adjustable in more places or using parts that break less easily or whatever.

 

[PhotographerJim]

I should have enough saved about the time the price drops... (or it's eligible for a rebate)
I'm really excited about this lens.

 

[Omni Images]

I was speaking to a local "birder" here perhaps two weeks ago about the old 100-400, as he uses one.
He mentioned he dropped into a friends place the week before who has in his words "three of them in his cupboard" .. I said tell him I'll give him 50 bucks for one.....made me wonder why someone would have 3 copies of the same lens.
But reading all the posts on here how much variation of IQ this lens had, .... maybe it also took him 3 before he found a good one ...

 

[fragilesi]

I was speaking to a local "birder" here perhaps two weeks ago about the old 100-400, as he uses one.
He mentioned he dropped into a friends place the week before who has in his words "three of them in his cupboard" .. I said tell him I'll give him 50 bucks for one.....made me wonder why someone would have 3 copies of the same lens.
But reading all the posts on here how much variation of IQ this lens had, .... maybe it also took him 3 before he found a good one ...

Begs the question about why he kept the other two though . . .