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

[Steve Balcombe]

Great review - the only problem was it was so enthusiastic I started to wonder whether a lens really could be that good!

I gave up reading for the annoying facebook, twitter, google+ and linkedin redirects down the left side of the page where the text is, insecure much?

I thought they were in a pretty annoying place too, reading on a tablet, until I realised that in portrait orientation they move to the bottom right - or disappear altogether depending which browser I'm using. Out of curiosity I just looked at the page on my desktop PC, and they are there on the left but the left margin is much bigger (despite the resolution being identical to my tablet at 1920x1200) and this makes it ok. Responsive web design is great, but they don't always get it right!

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on this issue. I've passed it on to my web developer. I don't have an issue on my devices, so it's good to know there is one from others. We'll have to work on the positioning of that widget.

I get a lot of feedback about the importance of social media sharing from my partners, but it is all a work in progress for me. I'm a writer and a photographer, but web developer, not so much.

Interesting that you're not seeing a problem. I've now also viewed it on my phone - Galaxy S3 - and it's even worse on the smaller screen.

Great review though - thank you!

 

[LukasS]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on this issue. I've passed it on to my web developer. I don't have an issue on my devices, so it's good to know there is one from others. We'll have to work on the positioning of that widget.

I had the same problem while reading on on of my screens that is set up in portrait orientation (Full HD resolution). I've attached screen.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The problem should be solved now. The "Share" buttons have been moved to the right side where there should be the buffer of the side links to prevent a similar problem. If any of you that have had a problem would be kind enough to let me know if this solves the problem for you, I would be obliged!

 

[JonAustin]

I have never used an extender and wonder if using one would make the Canon + extender a real pain in the butt. Since money is not my problem what do some of the forum members think on this subject?

Background: I sold my 1.x4 vII extender in June with my 70-200/2.8L IS vI. I sold the zoom because I was purchasing the vII model under a rebate offer, and the buyer wanted the extender, too, which I didn't use much.

I didn't have any issues with the extender's performance, I just didn't like the hassle of removing it and remounting it as the need arose. I usually only use focal lengths greater than 100mm when I'm hiking; therefore, out "in the wild," where any lens changes are opportunities to drop, damage or at least sully equipment.

I bought the 100-400 II in December, so I now have more reach with it than I did with the 70-200 + 1.4x. I'm not ruling out the possibility of someday picking up a 1.4x III, but won't do so unless I absolutely need it.

IMHO, your degree of satisfaction with using extenders (with the exception of the built-in one in the 200-400) depends largely upon how frequently you need / want to mount and unmount them.

 

[Plainsman]

Hellishly expensive lens if you want it to reach 560mm.

This lens plus TC plus 7D II will set you back close to £4000.

Now a Tamron 150-600 (or the equivalent new Sigma C - due March) plus the new hi-res 760D (coming soon) will give you much much bigger images to work with......for only about £1700!

 

[fragilesi]

Can someone ban Dustin from this site please?

I was doing so well telling myself I didn't absolutely need this lens until that excellent review

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Can someone ban Dustin from this site please?

I was doing so well telling myself I didn't absolutely need this lens until that excellent review

LOL. Just call me a troll and ignore me

 

[The Flasher]

Thanks for taking the time to write this review, Dustin. I'm from Canada as well, but lucky enough to be traveling in Hawai'i as I write this. In my attempt to travel as light as possible, (traveling with 10 m.o.) I brought my 6D, an old school 28-80 (incredibly light, pretty sharp - 1st gen) and 70-200 2.8 L. If the weight of this 100-400 is comparable to the 70-200 2.8 II as you say, it would have been a much better choice.

My alternative was the 300 f4 prime for incredible image quality, but decided to flexibility of the zoom.

cheers.

 

[AlanF]

Hellishly expensive lens if you want it to reach 560mm.

This lens plus TC plus 7D II will set you back close to £4000.

Now a Tamron 150-600 (or the equivalent new Sigma C - due March) plus the new hi-res 760D (coming soon) will give you much much bigger images to work with......for only about £1700!

Before you buy either 150-600 make test that it works well on your crop. The Tamron is great on FF but it is not as good on crop. The 100-400mm II does give good images on the 7DII.

 

[dcm]

Hellishly expensive lens if you want it to reach 560mm.

This lens plus TC plus 7D II will set you back close to £4000.

Now a Tamron 150-600 (or the equivalent new Sigma C - due March) plus the new hi-res 760D (coming soon) will give you much much bigger images to work with......for only about £1700!

Before you buy either 150-600 make test that it works well on your crop. The Tamron is great on FF but it is not as good on crop. The 100-400mm II does give good images on the 7DII.

I've seen this mentioned several times but can't find a good reference that quantifies this. TDP only has the Tamron on FF. It would be interesting to see it on a 7DII. Did I miss a post somewhere?

I seem to get pretty good results with the Tamron on both my M and T2i, ranging from nearby targets to moon shots. On the 6D it required AFMA +8, but the 550D AF (no AFMA) seems to handle it fine. The differences I've noticed so far are the same as any other FF/crop comparison I've done. Since the Tamron doesn't take my Canon extenders the extra reach on my crops is sometimes beneficial, such as shooting the moon.

I am considering the 100-400mm II for a smaller/lighter solution since I already have both extenders. Even with AFMA my copy of the Tamron is really only sharp up to 400mm (consistent with TDP). In many situations I'll take a shot at both 600mm and 400mm so I have a choice in post.

 

[AlanF]

I tried it myself on a 70D in an earlier post before I got the 7DII, and the Tamron was not as good. Unfortunately, all of the reviews apart from TDP use just FF, which is sad because many people seem to be using it on the 7DII. It's an interesting exercise to compare the old and new 100-400mm on the 60D on the TDP site. The centres of both lenses on the 1DsIII look very similar but the II draws significantly ahead on the 60D.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

DxO shows that the Tamron better at the edges than the old 100-400 on the 5DIII and only slightly worse in the centre, but on the 7D the Canon is significantly better in the centre at 400mm.

All these lens seem good in isolation - it is only when you compare them that you can see that some are better!

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-vs.-Sigma-150-500mm-f5-6.3-APO-DG-OS-HSM-vs.-Canon-EF100-400mm-f4.5-5.6L-IS-mounted-Canon-EOS-5D-Mk-III-Good-overall-IQ

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-vs.-Sigma-150-500mm-f5-6.3-APO-DG-OS-HSM-vs.-Canon-EF100-400mm-f4.5-5.6L-IS-mounted-Canon-EOS-7D

 

[Maximilian]

I tried it myself on a 70D in an earlier post before I got the 7DII, and the Tamron was not as good. Unfortunately, all of the reviews apart from TDP use just FF, which is sad because many people seem to be using it on the 7DII. It's an interesting exercise to compare the old and new 100-400mm on the 60D on the TDP site. The centres of both lenses on the 1DsIII look very similar but the II draws significantly ahead on the 60D.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

DxO shows that the Tamron better at the edges than the old 100-400 on the 5DIII and only slightly worse in the centre, but on the 7D the Canon is significantly better in the centre at 400mm.

All these lens seem good in isolation - it is only when you compare them that you can see that some are better!

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-vs.-Sigma-150-500mm-f5-6.3-APO-DG-OS-HSM-vs.-Canon-EF100-400mm-f4.5-5.6L-IS-mounted-Canon-EOS-5D-Mk-III-Good-overall-IQ

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-vs.-Sigma-150-500mm-f5-6.3-APO-DG-OS-HSM-vs.-Canon-EF100-400mm-f4.5-5.6L-IS-mounted-Canon-EOS-7D

Hi Alan!

The German "fotomagazin" journal just tested the new telezooms. Canon, Tamron, Sigma S on both FF and APS-C.
Result:
All three got a 5 star "super" (best quality seal), all were really good from open aperture on, with max IQ stoped down one step, but getting worse with higher f numbers.
The Canon got the best numbers in the overlapping focal ranges, but also the note, that 100 to 400 mm were easier to design than the others.
No comparisons with TC.
So seeing this result, in real world usage to me it's about price, brand, convenience (weight, size, reach), AF/IS performance but not that much in IQ.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

This has been one of the best reviews of the Tamron that I have seen done on a crop sensor (70D). It looked pretty great in his hands.

http://www.sumeetmoghe.com/2014/02/field-testing-bigron-aka-tamron-150.html

 

[dcm]

This has been one of the best reviews of the Tamron that I have seen done on a crop sensor (70D). It looked pretty great in his hands.

http://www.sumeetmoghe.com/2014/02/field-testing-bigron-aka-tamron-150.html

Thanks. And sorry, I did not mean to hijack the thread. We can now return to the regularly scheduled discussion about the 100-400mm II.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

This has been one of the best reviews of the Tamron that I have seen done on a crop sensor (70D). It looked pretty great in his hands.

http://www.sumeetmoghe.com/2014/02/field-testing-bigron-aka-tamron-150.html

Thanks. And sorry, I did not mean to hijack the thread. We can now return to the regularly scheduled discussion about the 100-400mm II.

I think a discussion of the 150-600 VC remains very germane to this topic. A decision between these two lenses is still the biggest one for most Canon tele shooters on a budget. The Sigma (which should be on its way to me shortly), is reportedly quite excellent optically, but is a true beast in terms of size and weight. Not many people are reporting much interest in shooting it handheld.

 

[AlanF]

This has been one of the best reviews of the Tamron that I have seen done on a crop sensor (70D). It looked pretty great in his hands.

http://www.sumeetmoghe.com/2014/02/field-testing-bigron-aka-tamron-150.html

All of these lenses are capable of excellent results when the images are large. What I want to see are side-by-side shots from different lenses on the same cameras or quantitative measurements or both. I want to know how they cope when you have to crop out most of the frame.

 

[AlanF]

Hi Alan!

The German "fotomagazin" journal just tested the new telezooms. Canon, Tamron, Sigma S on both FF and APS-C.
Result:
All three got a 5 star "super" (best quality seal), all were really good from open aperture on, with max IQ stoped down one step, but getting worse with higher f numbers.
The Canon got the best numbers in the overlapping focal ranges, but also the note, that 100 to 400 mm were easier to design than the others.
No comparisons with TC.
So seeing this result, in real world usage to me it's about price, brand, convenience (weight, size, reach), AF/IS performance but not that much in IQ.

Most interesting, thanks. Can you send a link or a table of the results.

 

[Maximilian]

Most interesting, thanks. Can you send a link or a table of the results.

Sorry, but it is a paper journal. And giving more information than this summary would surely be against their copyright.

Here is their homepage (all German):
http://www.fotomagazin.de/

And here they offer reviews for a fee some time after the paper journal is available (all German):
http://www.fotomagazin.de/technik/tests

The test I am refering to is not available there yet.

 

[dcm]

This has been one of the best reviews of the Tamron that I have seen done on a crop sensor (70D). It looked pretty great in his hands.

http://www.sumeetmoghe.com/2014/02/field-testing-bigron-aka-tamron-150.html

Thanks. And sorry, I did not mean to hijack the thread. We can now return to the regularly scheduled discussion about the 100-400mm II.

I think a discussion of the 150-600 VC remains very germane to this topic. A decision between these two lenses is still the biggest one for most Canon tele shooters on a budget. The Sigma (which should be on its way to me shortly), is reportedly quite excellent optically, but is a true beast in terms of size and weight. Not many people are reporting much interest in shooting it handheld.

Agreed, but maybe we should start a separate thread for a discussion of the Canon / Sigma / Tamron super tele zooms, especially with upcoming zooms, rather than repeat it in multiple threads for the individual zooms. I wouldn't have picked this title to find the comparison.

 

[AlanF]

Most interesting, thanks. Can you send a link or a table of the results.

Sorry, but it is a paper journal. And giving more information than this summary would surely be against their copyright.

Here is their homepage (all German):
http://www.fotomagazin.de/

And here they offer reviews for a fee some time after the paper journal is available (all German):
http://www.fotomagazin.de/technik/tests

The test I am refering to is not available there yet.

It would be a breach of copyright to reproduce a page from their journal, however it is perfectly legal to report their results in a table prepared by you.