Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
JonAustin
Telecom / IT consultant and semi-pro photographer
slclick said:
I agree that the Canon refurb store is the best way to go, but I've not had any luck catching the gear I want there. The really good stuff always sells out too quickly. (Then, again, I'm not in front of my PC all day, either.)
Upvote
0
What profile are you shooting in? Standard or Neutral? I ask because 90 sharpening is pretty dang high. Pictures are very nice but look to me over sharpened and may be adding noise especially at 3200 ISO.
I tend to either shoot in Neutral (zero in camera sharpening) and add some in post, usually no more than 50. or the default Standard which has sharpening in it already. You just have to tell Lightroom what profile you're using. Canon Standard or Canon Neutral
I tend to either shoot in Neutral (zero in camera sharpening) and add some in post, usually no more than 50. or the default Standard which has sharpening in it already. You just have to tell Lightroom what profile you're using. Canon Standard or Canon Neutral
Upvote
0
Profile doesn't matter as I'm shooting raw and importing into Lightroom so none of the profile stuff is added to the file. Even with the profile selected in LR there's no added sharpening. It's just a colour profile.
I usually sharpen to 80-90. There's no halos forming from too much sharpening, so I don't consider them over sharpened, but sharpening varies according to personal taste.
I'd also usually add a hint of noise reduction to high ISO files, but I didn't see the sense in that for this test.
I usually sharpen to 80-90. There's no halos forming from too much sharpening, so I don't consider them over sharpened, but sharpening varies according to personal taste.
I'd also usually add a hint of noise reduction to high ISO files, but I didn't see the sense in that for this test.
Upvote
0
Crapking
"Whatever you are....be a good one." AL
GBBX2011.jpg by NAVBPhotos, on FlickrThis is an example of the version I lens - does anyone else always get this much CA ? Notice the outline around the osprey as it contrasts with sky. I purposely did not eliminate it to illustrate my only complaint with this lens. Does the ver II do a better job ?
I have no problem with the push - pull, AF ability and overall image quality with this lens, but I would consider upgrading to ver II if the CA is less noticeable.
Upvote
0
JonAustin said:
Set up an alert at CPW, then whenever something pops up, you will get an email.
Just be ready to buy right then and there.
The alert can include official sources like Canon refurbs or grey market.
It does work.
My phone gets emails, and I can buy stuff via phone. No need to sit in front of the PC all day.
Upvote
0
JonAustin said:
I have picked up a couple of things only because I did the purchase on my phone. For the low inventory deals, it is the only way to go.
Upvote
0
Crapking said:
This is an example of the version I lens - does anyone else always get this much CA ? Notice the outline around the osprey as it contrasts with sky. I purposely did not eliminate it to illustrate my only complaint with this lens. Does the ver II do a better job ?
I have no problem with the push - pull, AF ability and overall image quality with this lens, but I would consider upgrading to ver II if the CA is less noticeable.
The version II is pretty good !
Here are some shots I posted up in another 100-400II thread.
The three shots are taken using the 2XIII TC manual focus.
I pushed the shadows a little as it was such a strong back lit shot.
The first shot was full frame shot.
Second shot 100%crop
Third shot 300% crop
You can see a tiny bit of CA on the 300% ... but pretty good considering using a 2x converter.
This lens works great with the 1.4III
Attachments
Upvote
0
Crapking said:
This is an example of the version I lens - does anyone else always get this much CA ? Notice the outline around the osprey as it contrasts with sky. I purposely did not eliminate it to illustrate my only complaint with this lens. Does the ver II do a better job ?
I have no problem with the push - pull, AF ability and overall image quality with this lens, but I would consider upgrading to ver II if the CA is less noticeable.
Any ideas on why the CA seems to show up more on the ends of the wings than the leaves or branches? Makes me wonder if it's more motion artifact or something...
Upvote
0
Regards the osprey photo (CA?) - enlarging that view seems to illustrate wing tip movement in my eyes anyway.
But, I have experienced the "ghosting" you're talking about on occasion with the 30D and 100-400 v.1 lens -- but only in distant live targets (enlarged) if I'm remembering properly. I have not experienced it at all (yet) with the V.2, but have only had it a couple weeks, and only been out with it a few times briefly.
Also tho', shooting the V.2 with a 7D2 as well, so have no idea if that ghosting comes from the 30D or the V.1 lens, tho', almost assuredly, it would be the V.1 lens effect. As I recall it without looking back at old images -- that ghosting (CA?) only occurred on very heavy crops and blown up.
I just looked back at the recent images from the V.2 and can find NO evidence of that ghosting. But, I don't have much very distant moving targets to judge from either. My gut reaction, based on the quality of the V.2 shots so far tho', I'd not expect to see that ghosting with V.2 -- no proof one way or the other at this point.
But, I have experienced the "ghosting" you're talking about on occasion with the 30D and 100-400 v.1 lens -- but only in distant live targets (enlarged) if I'm remembering properly. I have not experienced it at all (yet) with the V.2, but have only had it a couple weeks, and only been out with it a few times briefly.
Also tho', shooting the V.2 with a 7D2 as well, so have no idea if that ghosting comes from the 30D or the V.1 lens, tho', almost assuredly, it would be the V.1 lens effect. As I recall it without looking back at old images -- that ghosting (CA?) only occurred on very heavy crops and blown up.
I just looked back at the recent images from the V.2 and can find NO evidence of that ghosting. But, I don't have much very distant moving targets to judge from either. My gut reaction, based on the quality of the V.2 shots so far tho', I'd not expect to see that ghosting with V.2 -- no proof one way or the other at this point.
Upvote
0
Any ideas on why the CA seems to show up more on the ends of the wings than the leaves or branches? Makes me wonder if it's more motion artifact or something...
Yes, I'd say so too, more to it for sure, motion blur with CA plus perhaps over sharpening all adding to it ?
You can see plenty of CA in the leaves and branches also ... looking down lower left corner. but CA is noticeable through to the middle also, it usually get worse the further to the edges you get.
Version II is so much better.... even with a tele converter it's better than that for sure .. so answer your question Crapking, YES version II is great, go buy it.. !
Yes, I'd say so too, more to it for sure, motion blur with CA plus perhaps over sharpening all adding to it ?
You can see plenty of CA in the leaves and branches also ... looking down lower left corner. but CA is noticeable through to the middle also, it usually get worse the further to the edges you get.
Version II is so much better.... even with a tele converter it's better than that for sure .. so answer your question Crapking, YES version II is great, go buy it.. !
Upvote
0
Has anybody seen some comparison pictures between this lens at 400mm vs. the Tamron 150-600 at 600mm?
What I search for is some cropped pictures from the 400mm compared to the 600mm ones, to see if the canon is better and by how much visible. Oh and if possible tested on full-frame.
I do know that the Canon has faster AF and some weather sealing, but in the end it comes mostly down to optical quality.
What I search for is some cropped pictures from the 400mm compared to the 600mm ones, to see if the canon is better and by how much visible. Oh and if possible tested on full-frame.
I do know that the Canon has faster AF and some weather sealing, but in the end it comes mostly down to optical quality.
Upvote
0
Tony Northrup in a sickly review on Youtube has a supposedly a double blind comparison of the Sigma 150-600 and the Tamron 150-600 both at f/6.3 and 600mm vs the 100-400 II and 400/5.6 at f/6.3, scaled up. According to I think an audience vote, the 100-400 II came first, the 400/5.6 second, the Sigma 3rd and the Tamron a poor 4th. However, this test was flawed in many different ways.
1. There wasn't sufficient fine detail in the chart used, which was against the true 600mm lenses.
2. It was very unfair on the Tamron because it improves greatly on stopping down to f/8.
3. It was unfair on the 100-400 II as it is sharpest at f/5.6.
My feeling from my own shots is that the 100-400 II at f/5.6 and 400 mm on the 7DII is better than the Tamron at f/8 and 600mm on the 5DIII. And I would not use the Tamron at 600mm on the 7DII as it is not as good on crop as FF, but others might disagree with that. The 100-400 II on the 5DIII is not only exceptionally sharp but very contrasty and brings out colours superbly. I do regret having sold my Tamron, which I could use on occasion, but I do prefer the 100-400 II.
1. There wasn't sufficient fine detail in the chart used, which was against the true 600mm lenses.
2. It was very unfair on the Tamron because it improves greatly on stopping down to f/8.
3. It was unfair on the 100-400 II as it is sharpest at f/5.6.
My feeling from my own shots is that the 100-400 II at f/5.6 and 400 mm on the 7DII is better than the Tamron at f/8 and 600mm on the 5DIII. And I would not use the Tamron at 600mm on the 7DII as it is not as good on crop as FF, but others might disagree with that. The 100-400 II on the 5DIII is not only exceptionally sharp but very contrasty and brings out colours superbly. I do regret having sold my Tamron, which I could use on occasion, but I do prefer the 100-400 II.
Upvote
0
Very good point about the 1.4xTC. I think that the I00-400 II + 1.4xTC at f/8 is about the same at the centre as Tamron at f/8 but sharper as you go out, and is highly recommended. My initial reservations about the 1.4xTC plus 100-400 on the 7DII were wrong and it does give slightly better resolution than the bare lens and is not difficult to handle.
Here are 3 shots. Top is a 100% crop of two grebes starting courtship, from the 100-400 on 5DIII. The birds occupy a tiny 600x280 pixels. Below is a shot at the same time with the 300/2.8 + 2xC on 7DII. Despite being a much larger 1400x670 pixels, it is far less contrasty (wh ch can be corrected) and not much more detailed. Bottom is a buzzard hovering taken with the 7DII + 1.4xTC + 100-400 II. Despite being f/8 and only the centre point AF, the focussing was very fast and accurate (I tend to use the centre point spot focus even when the others are available).
Here are 3 shots. Top is a 100% crop of two grebes starting courtship, from the 100-400 on 5DIII. The birds occupy a tiny 600x280 pixels. Below is a shot at the same time with the 300/2.8 + 2xC on 7DII. Despite being a much larger 1400x670 pixels, it is far less contrasty (wh ch can be corrected) and not much more detailed. Bottom is a buzzard hovering taken with the 7DII + 1.4xTC + 100-400 II. Despite being f/8 and only the centre point AF, the focussing was very fast and accurate (I tend to use the centre point spot focus even when the others are available).
Attachments
Upvote
0
Similar threads
