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

[Canon Rumors]

<p>Bryan at the-digital-picture.com has completed his review of the brand new Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens.</p>
<p><strong>From TDP

</strong><em>“The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II is in an elite class of lenses, capable of producing prime-grade image quality at all available aperture and focal length settings. Put a very useful focal length range into a ruggedly-built, pro-grade lens with fast and accurate AF, very effective image stabilization and very impressive image quality and it is destined to be a very popular model. I highly recommend this lens….” </em><strong> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><strong><strong>Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II $2199: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1092632-REG/canon_9524b002_ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA1004002U.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PF39PEY/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00PF39PEY&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=DR7JYMNZQZ4LVBHE" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[chrysoberyl]

Mr. Carnathan certainly loves Canon!

Too bad this lens is sharpest at the wide end. I have a 70-200/2.8 II that fills that need. I was hoping for very sharp at 400mm. The new Sigma is looking better and better.

John

 

[Sabaki]

I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar. Not much of a saving space wise in one's camera bag either.

Yet one cannot ignore the seemingly superb AF system or the zoom capability.

I need to think long and hard now.

 

[chrysoberyl]

The zoom is not so important to me, but the AF, combined with the 7D II abilities - exciting for BIF in good light! I am eager to see Lenstip's review.

John

 

[jmontagu13]

I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar. Not much of a saving space wise in one's camera bag either.

Yet one cannot ignore the seemingly superb AF system or the zoom capability.

I need to think long and hard now.

Coming from the 400 5.6L to this lens, I can say the 2.5 inches makes it feel quit a bit shorter in the bag. I can pop my 50mm lens in the extra space now. I love the versatility of this lens compared to the 400 prime. Haven't shot enough birds yet to see if the AF is that much faster or same. The biggest difference between them is the IS. I shot last weekend in heavy cloud cover and was shooting in 1/160 to 1/320 shutter speeds, which would have been messy with the 400 prime, unless on a tripod. The pictures blew me away as I am so used to high ISO or blurred images in the past in those situations.

 

[AlanF]

Mr. Carnathan certainly loves Canon!

Too bad this lens is sharpest at the wide end. I have a 70-200/2.8 II that fills that need. I was hoping for very sharp at 400mm. The new Sigma is looking better and better.

John

Just about everyone who has reviewed the Sigma has complained that it is too heavy for hand-held use - not only is it heavy but the heaviest part, the front lens elements, protrude out very far unbalancing an already heavy lens. The beauty of the Tamron 150-600mm and now even more so the 100-400 II is their portability combined with pretty good IQ.

 

[AlanF]

I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar. Not much of a saving space wise in one's camera bag either.

Yet one cannot ignore the seemingly superb AF system or the zoom capability.

I need to think long and hard now.

Coming from the 400 5.6L to this lens, I can say the 2.5 inches makes it feel quit a bit shorter in the bag. I can pop my 50mm lens in the extra space now. I love the versatility of this lens compared to the 400 prime. Haven't shot enough birds yet to see if the AF is that much faster or same. The biggest difference between them is the IS. I shot last weekend in heavy cloud cover and was shooting in 1/160 to 1/320 shutter speeds, which would have been messy with the 400 prime, unless on a tripod. The pictures blew me away as I am so used to high ISO or blurred images in the past in those situations.

+1
I have been taking photos of small birds a meter away in bushes at 1/20 s hand held. Try that on the old f/5.6. First, you couldn't get nearly that close and for further away targets you would have to go 4 stops higher in iso to get to a fast enough shutter speed.

 

[Omni Images]

I personally am VERY VERY happy with my new 100-400 II
I think it blows away many other lenses just for the fact that it can focus down to .98m ... amazing !
It makes being able to capture full frame tiny birds easy.
You can get within 1m to 1.5m with some of small birds and other more tame ones ... the other lenses you'd have to be 3.5m away, making small birds/animals etc way too small to get a decent image.
So that above all else is this lens's strong point.
I am using it a lot with a 1.4III converter and not finding any/much difference in AF speed or image quality.
I do prefer primes to zooms, so if a new 400 prime came out I would consider it, but now ONLY if it could focus down to 1m like this one can ... I have always drooled over the 400F2.8 ... but with all the "big whites" long min focus distance, I'm not impressed with any of them now after this one ... I'd miss upwards of 25-50% of shots I am now taking or capable of taking of wildlife with this lens.
I wouldn't touch a tamron or sigma.
Images below are cropped slightly and I used a 1.4III converter on a 1D4 ... none of these shots would have been able using any other big white ... I would have had to have backed off another 2 meters or so.

 

[monkey44]

Finally got a little time out with 100-400 v2 -- and after more than ten years with V.1, it simply floors me -- at first, I thought -- hmmm, pretty close, now, not so easy a choice, no choice actually. Altho my V.1 copy has shot some fine images over the years.

I know a lot of guys want to hear 'tech stuff', but I can't offer that, my experience in the field tells me all I need to know just looking at the subject. I understand the basics of camera and lens technology, and know as much as I need to function well in the field -- but to define the tech aspect of any given image, and try to state "why it looks this way, or that way" just is not my place. but, I can say, this lens will give you some very nice images and prints, and a pleasant experience when you use it no matter how we define the physics, and some one more knowledgeable about that will probably pop in soon enough (and some have elsewhere).

I've been playing with the 7D2, figuring out the AF and other options and settings for a month or so ... got the lens less than two weeks, and have only had it out in the field twice. This second time convinces me completely it serves its purpose very, very well. Sharp, very fast focus, clean images -- nice bokeh as well. I'd not thought any lens would beat out my 70-200 f.4 IS ... but this one makes it tough to chose between them under at least some conditions.

It's got me locked in -- and it seems very sharp even at full out 400m -- have not tried it with 1.4x yet, but will soon. Field time has been cut short with a knee injury, and keeps me down and less active for a bit ... Total Bummer !! No question about the IQ or the ability of this lens tho -- none. Will probably at least "tie" for my favorite lens now, with the 70-200 on a 5DM3 and 100-400 on the 7D2, gives a right nice coverage of a lot of distance -- makes me a happy camper.

For those that care: It seems easy to use this lens as a push-pull or the rotate ... just loosen the collar, and it slides easily. Personally, I like the rotation best -- but caught myself reverting to pushing and pulling out of habit. Seems not to matter ... and 7D2 and 100-400 are a perfect match -- no doubt.

 

[Lee Jay]

I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar.

That's because they're both very close to "perfect" (diffraction-limited).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Although, it sure looks like the zoom is quite a but better on crop (I know - 7DII versus 60D):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[Lee Jay]

Here are my thoughts.

My current long-reach system is a 20D + 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC III (well, ignoring the REALLY big stuff).

I'm thinking a 7DII + 100-400L II + 1.4x TC III will just about double my reach. And what I have is already pretty impressive to me.

So, I'll be buying both at some point.

 

[Omni Images]

Lee Jay
I'm thinking a 7DII + 100-400L II + 1.4x TC III will just about double my reach.

That new set-up will smash it ... !
I was using a 2xIII on a series one 70-200F2.8 and the 2x just trashed it .. in image quality and slow AF wise.
It got to the point where I was doing better with just the 70-200 and cropping.
Now using the 100-400II with and without the 1.4III images are so much better and reach is so much more. I have even used the 2xIII in manual focus, they are ok too.
I was hesitant to use a 1.4tc as the 2x tc hit me so hard with IQ and AF ... but I am really surprised how little a hit in IQ and AF the 1.4tc is.
I'm sure all three in combination would be fantastic

 

[Sabaki]

I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar.

That's because they're both very close to "perfect" (diffraction-limited).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Although, it sure looks like the zoom is quite a but better on crop (I know - 7DII versus 60D):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Hmmmmmm...seems the 400mm f/5.6 is sharper...

 

[Eldar]

Not once have Bryan´s reviews at TDP, of any of the lenses I have bought and used, told my anything else than what i have experienced. His thorough review with the addition of the experiences of some of you who have had it for a while and also posted images, makes this a very tempting lens, especially matched with the 7DII for travelling. My 200-400 f4L 1.4x is a considerable chunk of glass to carry in many cases.

 

[weixing]

I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar.

That's because they're both very close to "perfect" (diffraction-limited).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Although, it sure looks like the zoom is quite a but better on crop (I know - 7DII versus 60D):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Hmmmmmm...seems the 400mm f/5.6 is sharper...

Hi,
On full frame, the 400mm f5.6L seem a bit sharper, but on crop, the 100-400 II look sharper. Too bad TDP don't have the test shot of the Tamron 150-600mm for crop camera...

Have a nice day.

 

[vscd]

For me the new 100-400 is a quite interesting lense to replace the 70-200 f2.8 range from the Holy Trinity. Using the 70-200 (or in my case the 80-200L) I recognized that I far more used the longer end instead of the wide one.

The difference between 80mm and 100mm is not that big, but the 400mm are quite a number on airshows or other larger places. Now this lense even comes near to a useable Makro and has an improved IS+AF.

Has anyone experiences with this lens, handhold on a location? It seems to be quite heavy as the only drawback. And is the AF+IS better than the last 70-200 L IS II?

 

[docsmith]

Mr. Carnathan certainly loves Canon!

Too bad this lens is sharpest at the wide end. I have a 70-200/2.8 II that fills that need. I was hoping for very sharp at 400mm. The new Sigma is looking better and better.

John

Just about everyone who has reviewed the Sigma has complained that it is too heavy for hand-held use - not only is it heavy but the heaviest part, the front lens elements, protrude out very far unbalancing an already heavy lens. The beauty of the Tamron 150-600mm and now even more so the 100-400 II is their portability combined with pretty good IQ.

I wouldn't say they complained that it is too heavy for hand-held use. Actually, they used it hand held and certainly noted its weight. I am one of the few with the 150-600S and have only used it hand held. Sure it is heavy, but I've gotten used to it. It is a heckuva lens. Believe me, I am tempted by the 100-400II because of its size and MFD, but so far I am sticking with the 150-600S.

Bryan's reviews are almost always reflective of my own experiences. If he loves the lens, I have little doubt I would too. My only issue is that I really wanted more reach than 400 mm. So, I am watching the IQ and the AF performance of the 100-400II +1.4TC. But all that time, I am shooting and liking the 150-600S more and more.

 

[sanj]

I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar.

That's because they're both very close to "perfect" (diffraction-limited).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Although, it sure looks like the zoom is quite a but better on crop (I know - 7DII versus 60D):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Hmmmmmm...seems the 400mm f/5.6 is sharper...

Hi,
On full frame, the 400mm f5.6L seem a bit sharper, but on crop, the 100-400 II look sharper. Too bad TDP don't have the test shot of the Tamron 150-600mm for crop camera...

Have a nice day.

I did not know that lenses change sharpness qualities FF vs crop. Hmmmm.

 

[vscd]

I did not know that lenses change sharpness qualities FF vs crop. Hmmmm.

They recognize the body and adjust the optical formula inside the tube ;D

Ok, fun aside. I think this statement goes toward the direction that no fullframe from Canon has enough MPixel that cropping from fullframe would be as good as taking a real APS-C.

LP/imagehight is, as the name suggests, dependent from the sensorsize.

 

[Lee Jay]

Lee Jay
I'm thinking a 7DII + 100-400L II + 1.4x TC III will just about double my reach.

That new set-up will smash it ... !
I was using a 2xIII on a series one 70-200F2.8 and the 2x just trashed it .. in image quality and slow AF wise.
It got to the point where I was doing better with just the 70-200 and cropping.
Now using the 100-400II with and without the 1.4III images are so much better and reach is so much more. I have even used the 2xIII in manual focus, they are ok too.
I was hesitant to use a 1.4tc as the 2x tc hit me so hard with IQ and AF ... but I am really surprised how little a hit in IQ and AF the 1.4tc is.
I'm sure all three in combination would be fantastic

I seem to have better luck with TCs than most. I've used both versions of the 70-200/2.8IS with 2x TCs with excellent results. I use them at optimum apertures which was f/9 on the old one. The new one is as sharp with a 2x as the old 100-400L was bare.