Discuss our review of the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II here.
glness said:I thought this was an accurate, in-depth look at this lens. I might add one thing. Your review says, "Over its native focal length I would give the advantage to the Canon over the Tamron and Sigma variants in overall sharpness, particularly towards the periphery of the image." However, I think the advantage continues even with a 1.4 Extender III attached on the Canon. Yes, the 100-400 II with 1.4x III at 560mm has a ⅔ stop disadvantage (f/8.0 vs. f/6.3) compared to the 600mm nominal focal length of the Tamron 150-600 and both Sigma 150-600 lenses, but the 100-400 II's image quality at 560mm with 1.4x III attached exceeds that of the Tamron and Sigma lenses at 600mm especially at the periphery. Take a look at the comparisons here to see the actual difference:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
AlanF in this forum has also posted some other useful comparison tools. Thanks again for your thorough review. All the lenses above represent good options for photographers, but your review helps provide another wonderful decision-making resource for people trying to find the best lens for their shooting situations!
Pieter said:Yes - just to add another enthusiastic confirmation of the power of the 7D II and this lens. For me this combination effectively replaced the cumbersome set of 5D III, 300mm f/4, a 1.4x TC, and the 100 mm f/2.8 macro lens for handheld nature photography, due to the combination of long reach, short focusing distance, and the high pixel count of the amazing 7D II. I'd say the lens is worth the money - and the 7D II is actually somewhat of a bargain. Here's a recent picture-