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

[Canon Rumors]

LensTip has completed their review of the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens. As if we needed more reasons to buy this lens!</p>
<p>From LensTip:</p>
<blockquote><p>I think those who were waiting patiently for the Canon EF 100–400 mm f/4.5–5.6L IS II USM won’t be disappointed. Its predecessor was optically very good but the new lens is better in every single category. The evenness of performance, no matter what focal length you use and what place of frame you take into account, is truly impressive. The lens remains sharp even on the edge of full frame and doesn’t have any resolution slip-ups. If you add to that the much-improved stabilization, a huge step forward when compared to the older model, you get practically a lens as close to perfection as it is only possible; its flaws, connected to vignetting and flares, aren’t anything serious.</p></blockquote>
<p>Amazon currently has stock of the <a href="http://amzn.to/1fFufZe" target="_blank">EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens</a>.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/439.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_100-400_mm_f_4.5-5.6L_IS_II_USM.html" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></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/DFF/d10-v21-t1-x574561" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA1004002U.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <strong><a href="http://amzn.to/1fFufZe" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>

 

[Adelino]

Canon are hitting some home runs with lenses and barely getting base hits (if that) on cameras. Maybe a boost in R&D yen to the camera department is needed? Or getting more aggressive.

 

[PhotographyFirst]

Canon are hitting some home runs with lenses and barely getting base hits (if that) on cameras. Maybe a boost in R&D yen to the camera department is needed? Or getting more aggressive.

Every time I ever make a serious consideration for changing systems, it's always the lenses that keep me with Canon. There isn't a body that is bad enough these days to change my mind of using the best lenses for my use. Camera body performance is getting to the point of diminishing returns on the improvements, but there are many lenses that are still far behind or non existent in the other lineups that need some serious effort.

I think Canon is smart over the long run to invest so much of their industry leading skill into a dominating lens lineup.

 

[AlanF]

It's a pity they didn't test it with the 1.4xTC so we could compare it with the Sigmas. I like the 100-400 II much we have a his and hers pair. Just wish Canon would put out an APS-C without a low-pass sensor so we could get the most reach from the lens. Maybe the 5DR would be worth a try.

 

[docsmith]

It's a pity they didn't test it with the 1.4xTC so we could compare it with the Sigmas.

Agreed...but I think there is no doubt, the 100-400 II is a great lens. It is just that the supertelephoto zoom lens market is now pretty crowded with the two Sigmas and Tamron 150-600s, which are the primary alternatives to the 100-400 II if you want the longer end. So, it is too bad lenstip doesn't give us direct comparisons from 400-600 mm. Fortunately, TDP does.

 

[fragilesi]

Sigh, this is another lens I obviously can't live without . . . when will it ever end? ;D

 

[paolo80]

would the performance be comparable with the 70-200 II + extender?

 

[docsmith]

would the performance be comparable with the 70-200 II + extender?

The 100-400 II should be better than the 70-200 II + extender (which I use)

2x extender at 400 mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

1.4x extender (280 mm vs 300 mm)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=3

IMO, the 70-200 II plus extenders does remarkably well. But the 100-400 II is better.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I enjoy fast lenses way too much. I'll stick with my 300 f2.8ii for now....at least until I can afford the 200-400 zoom.

 

[Grummbeerbauer]

I am still pondering if I should get the 100-400 II or any of the 150-600. On APS-C and in the overlapping parts of their focal range, the difference do not seem that huge to me:

Compare the Sigma C and the Canon

at 200mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=1&LensComp=990&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

at 400mm:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=990&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Interestingly, the Sports looks horrible in that comparison, maybe there was a mistake done during the test shot?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=978&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Even compared to the Sigma C, the sports looks bad at 600m

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=978&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Unfortunately, there are no APS-C comparison shots for the Tamron.

Then again, even if it there wasn't that great a difference in IQ, the Canon still has AF speed & precision, shorter MFD, lighter weight and other soft factors in its favor.
But still, getting 600mm for roughly the same (Sigma S) or roughly half the price (Tamron, Sigma C) is tempting.

 

[Maximilian]

*sigh*

... is better in every single category. The evenness of performance, no matter what focal length you use and what place of frame you take into account, is truly impressive. The lens remains sharp even on the edge of full frame and doesn’t have any resolution slip-ups. If you add to that the much-improved stabilization...

Although lenstip is not my prefered reviewer, I must admit that my mouth is watering and I need to get my anti GAS pills. Because I cannot afford it yet. But one day...

 

[Maximilian]

I am still pondering if I should get the 100-400 II or any of the 150-600. On APS-C and in the overlapping parts of their focal range, the difference do not seem that huge to me ...

Hi Grummbeerbauer!

From your name I conclude that you are coming from Germany.
The German "fotomagazin" tested in their latest issue all three 150 to 600 Tamron and Sigma lenses.
The Tamron was the the IQ winner, esp. on APS-C, while the Sigma S was slightly behind but much better built.
The Sigma C fell behind both of them, but only slightly. But it was really nitpicking, not that much difference.
In a back issue they tested the Canon against Tamron and Sigma S. Canon was the overall winner in each category in the overlaping focal range with most advantage for FF. APS-C was much closer and I am not sure if I get it right out of my mind that the Tamron was slightly better at APS-C.

Conclusion:
If you need the reach, choose whatever you prefer from the 600.
If you want the best system package (AF+IS+dust sealing) get the Canon.
I am into FF so you can guess what I would choose

 

[Omni Images]

I can't believe people are still wondering about this lens.
I have had it since Christmas along with the 1.4III converter and am constantly in ore of some shots I getting with this combo. I was using the 70-200 with a 2xIII but never was happy with the iq, and went back to just 70-200 and cropping ...
Sure it would be nice to have one of those FAST big whites .... BUT ... they don't focus down to .98m like this lens does .. and for me that is the clincher .... and the advantage of it over the big whites.
If I did have the money for a big white, I really don't think I'd get one just for the min focus. The 600F4 would be my choice ... though I must confess the 400F2.8 has had me salivating for many years.
But after using the new 100-400II and in fact needing and using a lot.. the min focus it offers, the big whites to me have lost their luster.
The combo with the 1.4III is producing a great image for me ... a little slow at F8 .. I never use higher than iso400, usually iso200 and a flash is the go.

Here is a few shots from last week.
Male and female spotted Pardalote tiny tiny birds at maybe 1.2M away .. never would have got these with a big white.
and a surfing shot which was severely cropped from a long long away reef from a headland and I'm happy with the image quality.

Go get this lens NOW !

 

[geonix]

I am still pondering if I should get the 100-400 II or any of the 150-600. On APS-C and in the overlapping parts of their focal range, the difference do not seem that huge to me ...

Hi Grummbeerbauer!

From your name I conclude that you are coming from Germany.
The German "fotomagazin" tested in their latest issue all three 150 to 600 Tamron and Sigma lenses.
The Tamron was the the IQ winner, esp. on APS-C, while the Sigma S was slightly behind but much better built.
The Sigma C fell behind both of them, but only slightly. But it was really nitpicking, not that much difference.
In a back issue they tested the Canon against Tamron and Sigma S. Canon was the overall winner in each category in the overlaping focal range with most advantage for FF. APS-C was much closer and I am not sure if I get it right out of my mind that the Tamron was slightly better at APS-C.

Conclusion:
If you need the reach, choose whatever you prefer from the 600.
If you want the best system package (AF+IS+dust sealing) get the Canon.
I am into FF so you can guess what I would choose

That would be the first lens test I have heard of in which the Tamron scored better in IQ tests than the two sigmas. All other tests/comparisons on the web and youtube suggest exactly the opposite.

Anyway. I have the 100-400 Version II and had the Tamron. IQ and AF speed and accuracy on the Canon are noticeably better. If you really need 600mm than I would now prefer the Sigma. I guess with its USB dock you can at least install all firmware updates yourself and don't have to send it in.

 

[Maximilian]

That would be the first lens test I have heard of in which the Tamron scored better in IQ tests than the two sigmas. All other tests/comparisons on the web and youtube suggest exactly the opposite.

They all were really close to each other and when I get the time I can post the scores.
The differences could also come from copy variations.

 

[HarryWintergreen]

The 100-400 II is a dream of a lens. With a Kenko extender you still have af at f/8,0. To me iq with tc is perfectly okay. You can’t expect a zoom lens tc combo in the 400ish range to match a big white (EF 200-400 excluded). It’s simply a joy to use this lens.

 

[fragilesi]

Juts for the record, the only thing I am "wondering" about this lens is how long it will take before I can afford it

 

[tron]

It's a pity they didn't test it with the 1.4xTC so we could compare it with the Sigmas. I like the 100-400 II much we have a his and hers pair. Just wish Canon would put out an APS-C without a low-pass sensor so we could get the most reach from the lens. Maybe the 5DR would be worth a try.

Allow me to contribute to this. I have used it with 1.4XIII for a few distant shots. Instead of keep it fully open I closed 2/3s of a stop. At f/10 I was happy with the results (100% magnification).

EDIT: The test have been with 5D3 not 7DII.

 

[meywd]

Juts for the record, the only thing I am "wondering" about this lens is how long it will take before I can afford it

+1

 

[AlanF]

It's a pity they didn't test it with the 1.4xTC so we could compare it with the Sigmas. I like the 100-400 II much we have a his and hers pair. Just wish Canon would put out an APS-C without a low-pass sensor so we could get the most reach from the lens. Maybe the 5DR would be worth a try.

Allow me to contribute to this. I have used it with 1.4XIII for a few distant shots. Instead of keep it fully open I closed 2/3s of a stop. At f/10 I was happy with the results (100% magnification).

EDIT: The test have been with 5D3 not 7DII.

I'd like to see the numbers for the MTFs with the 1.4xTC out of curiosity. My favourite combo is, in fact, the 7DII + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC III. It is as good as my 300 f/2.8 II + 2x TC III on the 7DII and a fraction of the weight and volume. But, the big lens on the 5DIII is till the best, but heavier.