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

[AlanF]

You should stick with your 70-200 + 2xTC if that's your preferred option. There's not much I can take with my 100-400 at the moment over here, but this is my local Robin waiting for his birdseed. It's pretty dark, iso1600 at 1/125s f/5.6 100-400mm II on 5DIII. There is no direct light on him to give contrast. It's a real 3D bird close up, about 3m away, so not all of him is in focus (I focussed on his eye).

 

[hoodlum]

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.

The crop images would be taken at a further distance. So distance comes into play here as well.

 

[anolis23]

When comparing the 400 prime with the new zoom. I think they look pretty much equal at full frame and better on crop. Which is quite amazing that a zoom lens and equal a prime lens like the 400mm 5.6, which is known to be one of the best options at this range and price point.

This is what I was hoping to hear actually, don't feel disappointed that it isn't much sharper, I just wanted it to be as good as the prime since the previous version wasn't and thats why I went with the prime.

But now, I am selling my 400 5.6 and getting this one since sharpness isn't a factor, price definitely is ... But I think that the weather sealing, IS, focal range and close focus abilities make this lens a great choice for birders that do lots of work handheld in the field. It is shorter to, so its easier to pack, even though its a bit heavier.

 

[Flyingskiguy]

Hello all, long time reader of canonrumors here. Decided to make an account today.

I recently purchased the 100-400 ii, and during my pre-purchase research, I came across Photozone's Imatest results for both lenses.

100-400 ii:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1

400 5.6L:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1

It appears, according to their data, that the new 100-400 is sharper than the 400 prime in the center of the frame at f/5.6 (3450 vs. 3084). However, the prime makes up for this with greater mid-frame and corner sharpness.

It is also interesting to note, for the sake of comparison, that the 100-400ii @200mm has greater center and mid-frame sharpness than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS ii @200mm.

70-200 f/2.8 IS ii data:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/510-canon_70200_2is28?start=1


As always, this is data from but one source, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[PhotosbyChuck]

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?

As I am used to shooting the 70-200 II, I find that hand holding the 100-400 II is actually slightly easier. It's a hair lighter (not much) but more importantly, the zoom ring is close to the lens hood. This distributes the weight better and makes the camera/lens combo feel more balanced. The 70-200 II has the zoom ring close to the camera, which puts a lot of weight past your hands.

Of course, if you're shooting the 80-200mm f4.5-5.6, you'll find either lens heavy.

As for AF, the lenses perform pretty much identically as far as I can tell. They're near instant.

On the IS, both are rated at 4 stops. I'm not sure I really ever need 4 stops on the 70-200, but on the 100-400 it's much more likely since movement is more noticeable. The 100-400 II does have a 3rd mode for IS (exposure only). It should save battery life and eliminate the sluggish behavior that can occur if you are panning while holding the shutter button halfway.

 

[NancyP]

It looks great, but what I really want is more reach, which means a Big White, not a Little White. So, my beloved 400 mm f/5.6L still has an honored place, and I am still saving for the Big White.

 

[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.

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.

If you can afford it, get both. I cart around as well the 300/2.8 II, which is of similar weight and volume to the Sigma (but with better balance), for when I want the best resolution on kit that can be hand held by me. But, the 100-400 II is just so much easier for travel, much lighter for hand holding and so good that it is more of a pleasure to use. And it takes the 1.4xTC so well that it is competitive at longer f.

The 100-400 II has 4 1/3 stops stabilization (according to TDP, and in my experience too) whereas the Sigma has only ~2.5 according to lenstip (Sigma doesn't state a figure). I bet your image jumps around a bit when you are holding the Sigma at 600mm with IS on - I found it did with the Tamron which has about 3 stops IS. The image is rock solid with the 100-400 + 1.4xTC or the 300/2.8 + 2xTC on my 5DIII.

 

[docsmith]

If you can afford it, get both.

The thought has crossed my mind more than once.

I am also waiting on more reviews of the 400 DO II. So far all we have is Roger's quick test, but, at least the resolution, looks exceptional.

But, for now, the 150-600S will suffice. I can fit it in my backpack, but am using a Pelican Storm iM2500 with it when traveling. But it is great that the 100-400II seems to be such an exceptional lens.

 

[sulla]

Hm, just what I expected from the 100-400 L II.
Too bad I have the 70-200 2.8L II already and the EF 2x converter. While not as crisp an image, it suffices for my needs.
To get more reach, I'll wait for Bryan's EF 400 f/4 DO II review... I'm sure this lens will give my bank clerk a hard time... 800 f/8 with AF just sounds very sweet...
And his review of the Sigma 150-600 S. Would be a good choice IF (capital!) its AF performance is ok...

 

[AlanF]

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.

They certainly do. The sharper the lens, the less the loss of IQ on going from FF to crop. DxO does a good job in comparing the same lens on different bodies if you can navigate their site, and TDP gives quite a bit of information. A lens like the 300/2.8 does really well on crop but a softer one like the old 100-400 takes quite a hit on going from FF to crop.

 

[JonAustin]

I just took advantage of the great deal currently available on the 16-35 f/4L IS over at CPW. You'd think that would be sufficient to satisfy my G.A.S. today, but my fingers are still itching to pull the trigger on the 100-40 II on this, the last day of my fiscal year!

 

[monkey44]

I just took advantage of the great deal currently available on the 16-35 f/4L IS over at CPW. You'd think that would be sufficient to satisfy my G.A.S. today, but my fingers are still itching to pull the trigger on the 100-40 II on this, the last day of my fiscal year!

IF you can find one -- have heard all vendors are sold out of V.2 -- and no more until end of Jan. That might be a rumor tho'

 

[JonAustin]

I just took advantage of the great deal currently available on the 16-35 f/4L IS over at CPW. You'd think that would be sufficient to satisfy my G.A.S. today, but my fingers are still itching to pull the trigger on the 100-40 II on this, the last day of my fiscal year!

IF you can find one -- have heard all vendors are sold out of V.2 -- and no more until end of Jan. That might be a rumor tho'

And it's done! B&H took my phone order and gave me an invoice dated today. (Don't you just love accommodating vendors?) Now I just have to wait for the sucker to be stocked and shipped ...

 

[AdamL]

Hi everyone!

This site has been a daily read for me, and the forum has been very useful in researching gear, so I thought I'd give back and share a gallery I put together of shots from the 100-400mm Mk II.

http://www.photosbyadamlee.com/Other/100-400-II/

I had the Mk I for 4-5 years and I loved that lens. I got a lot of really nice photos with it. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it was soft at anything wider than f/8. I tried 3 copies and they were all the same.

I sold the Mk I a few months ago in anticipation of the Mk II being announced. I was hanging out for the TDP review before pulling the trigger on this lens, but a 10% off Boxing Day sale sealed the deal for me.

I'm really happy with this lens. The AF is fast, even with the 1.4x extender on, and the sharpness wide open is impressive. Certainly night and day when compared to the Mk I IMO.

 

[slclick]

Profeel will have the 100-400Mk2 in a couple days. I just received an update from them today. Just email David or Esther. Myself I am tempted but will wait for CPW street prices.

 

[AlanF]

Hi everyone!

This site has been a daily read for me, and the forum has been very useful in researching gear, so I thought I'd give back and share a gallery I put together of shots from the 100-400mm Mk II.

http://www.photosbyadamlee.com/Other/100-400-II/

I had the Mk I for 4-5 years and I loved that lens. I got a lot of really nice photos with it. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it was soft at anything wider than f/8. I tried 3 copies and they were all the same.

I sold the Mk I a few months ago in anticipation of the Mk II being announced. I was hanging out for the TDP review before pulling the trigger on this lens, but a 10% off Boxing Day sale sealed the deal for me.

I'm really happy with this lens. The AF is fast, even with the 1.4x extender on, and the sharpness wide open is impressive. Certainly night and day when compared to the Mk I IMO.

Welcome to CR! Thanks for posting so many shots and leaving the EXIF on them. They are all very sharp. How did you process them? Were they jpegs or RAW? What sharpening did you do?

 

[AdamL]

Hi Alan. Thanks for the welcome.

They're all shot as raw then exported from Lightroom as 100% quality JPEG's. None have been resized. Some are just heavily cropped.

My stand sharpening in Lightroom is:
Amount: 90
Radius: 1.0 (unchanged)
Detail: 25 (unchanged)
Masking: 60

I thought about posting them unedited, and then I thought that it's not a fair comparison as every other photo I'd ever post would be edited.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks. I usually suppress noise with DxO prime then do mild sharpening with 0.9 px/100% USM in PS. I tried your settings in PS, and they certainly sharpen more.

 

[AdamL]

I'm not sure how those settings translate in PS. ACR would be the same though.

Adobe says Smart Sharpen is now the best sharpening option. I rarely use PS though, so for me it's easier to just batch process everything in LR.

 

[JonAustin]

... Myself I am tempted but will wait for CPW street prices.

I can relate. I waited until yesterday for a sale price (through CPW) on the 16-35/4 that -- combined with the mail-in rebate -- dropped the net price to $996.

I doubt the 100-400 II will drop in price for a while, probably not for six months or so. I know I'm going to want to use one before then, so I went ahead and pulled the trigger.