Review: Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM by DxO Mark

[JVLphoto]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15685"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15685">Tweet</a></div>
<p>DxO labs has tested and reviewed the Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS.</p>
<p>From their review:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Without doubt this lens is a popular model and it’s not difficult to see why. It has pretty good image quality throughout the range.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Their own title to the review really sums it up “Still a good all-round choice.” It’s not a glowing review, but this has been a strong staple lens for pro photographers for many years. While an updated lens is certainly on the horizon, there is a lot of value left in this quality lens considering the pricier first-party alternatives. Of course, there are some choice third party lenses on the market too.</p>
<p>Source [<a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6L-IS-USM-lens-review-Still-a-good-all-round-choice">DxO</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162616-USA/Canon_2577A002AA_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296/kwid/justin">Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS at B&H</a>  | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA100400ISU.html?kbid=64393">Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS at Adorama</a></p>

 

[Steve Todd]

I purchased mine in 1999 after using one of the CPS loaner lenses at the Daytona 500. It served me well with my EOS-1v film bodies. However, I have had mixed results with Digital bodies. It required -15 MA on my 1D4 bodies to be reasonably sharp and when the 1.4x III is add, the results are very disappointing. On my 1DX body, it required only -2 MA, but still isn't terrific. However, on my 5DII body (no MA capability) it is pretty sharp? I like the coverage, but I hope a version "II" is in the works!

 

[2n10]

I just recently bought a new one and it has been fantastic. It is sharp wide open and works great with my 7D. I have a MFA of +5.

Remember Steve that MFA needs are a combination of both the camera and lens difference from the ideal but each may still be within the manufacturers specifications of acceptability. This can lead to the large MFA you saw with your 1D4.

It would be nice to see how the new version fares with all of the technology advancements that have occurred since the lens was designed.

 

[memoriaphoto]

This is the same site that confidently claimed that the older 70-200/2.8 IS was sharper than the latest 70-200 Mark 2. I would treat their opinions and testresults with extreme caution...

 

[J.R.]

This is the same site that confidently claimed that the older 70-200/2.8 IS was sharper than the latest 70-200 Mark 2. I would treat their opinions and testresults with extreme caution...

Yep, DXO comes up with considerable amount of wtf in its scores. But anyhow, reviewing this lens now is pretty strange as the pros / cons of this lens are pretty well known.

 

[slclick]

Reviewing older glass isn't just restricted to DxO, it's a pretty common thing lately even here on CR. Guess it's a way to pass the time as we wait for all of our dream lenses to come to fruition.

 

[pierlux]

...on my 5DII body (no MA capability) it is pretty sharp? I like the coverage, but I hope a version "II" is in the works!

Steve, the 5DII does have AFMA.

I'm truly hoping a version II is in the works, too, better still soon to be announced. This will bring about a dilemma for me, what to do with my 70-300 L: sell it and go for the new 100-400, or keep it (love it, btw) and wait for the also rumored 400 f/5.6 IS? If a non-DO 400 f/4 had existed it would have been my choice since the f/2.8 is well out of my reach. I guess I'll decide based on which of the two is available first (damn L-disease!), unless they're both announced simultaneously...

Guess it's a way to pass the time as we wait for all of our dream lenses to come to fruition.

Or having data handy when it's time to compare the new version to the old one. Yes, I'm basically optimistic and can't wait to read the comparison... on TDP, DPR, CR, etc. etc. DxO? who cares...

 

[Rienzphotoz]

<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15685\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15685\">Tweet</a></div>
<p>DxO labs has tested and reviewed the Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS.</p>
<p>From their review:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Without doubt this lens is a popular model and it’s not difficult to see why. It has pretty good image quality throughout the range.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Their own title to the review really sums it up “Still a good all-round choice.” It’s not a glowing review, but this has been a strong staple lens for pro photographers for many years. While an updated lens is certainly on the horizon, there is a lot of value left in this quality lens considering the pricier first-party alternatives. Of course, there are some choice third party lenses on the market too.</p>
<p>Source [<a href=\"http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6L-IS-USM-lens-review-Still-a-good-all-round-choice\">DxO</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p><a href=\"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162616-USA/Canon_2577A002AA_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296/kwid/justin\">Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS at B&H</a> | <a href=\"http://www.adorama.com/CA100400ISU.html?kbid=64393\">Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS at Adorama</a></p>

Interesting ... thanks for sharing. Generally I find DxO results less of a review and more of test chart comparisons ... I'm not implying that it is bad, just an observation ... maybe because I expect real world images from reviewers. Another small observation, the title reads: "EOS 100-400", shouldn't it be EF 100-400?

 

[iowapipe]

This is the same site that confidently claimed that the older 70-200/2.8 IS was sharper than the latest 70-200 Mark 2. I would treat their opinions and testresults with extreme caution...

Yep, DXO comes up with considerable amount of wtf in its scores. But anyhow, reviewing this lens now is pretty strange as the pros / cons of this lens are pretty well known.

True, it is a very well known and compared lens. It will be nice to have it in the database once they test the new Tamron 150-600mm. I think I saw in their comment section that they expect that test to be done on the next couple weeks.

As a person ready to pull the trigger on my first long lens, I'll be sure to check out the information. I
've yet to see a rigorous comparison of the Canon 400mm f/5.6 and the new Tamron. That will help me decide which to buy. (AF speed and sharpness of the Tamron @400mm compared to the Canon 400mm, and whether cropping the 400 will give similar results to the Tamron in the 500-600mm range)

 

[hoodlum]

Yes the Tamron 150-600mm test results are expected in a few days. It would be nice to compare this with the 100-400 and the 50-500.

 

[hoodlum]

This is the same site that confidently claimed that the older 70-200/2.8 IS was sharper than the latest 70-200 Mark 2. I would treat their opinions and testresults with extreme caution...

Where do they claim that? The test charts clearly show the new 70-200 is sharper.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-EF70-200mm-f-2.8L-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___408_795_254_795

 

[Loswr]

This is the same site that confidently claimed that the older 70-200/2.8 IS was sharper than the latest 70-200 Mark 2. I would treat their opinions and testresults with extreme caution...

Where do they claim that? The test charts clearly show the new 70-200 is sharper.

Yeah…they show that now.

Read this: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8L-IS-II-USM-measurements-and-review

[quote author=DxOMark]
If we compare these 2 generations of L series telephoto lenses on a Canon 5D Mark II, we can see the following:

• These 2 lenses are very similar in term of transmission, distortion and vignetting
• The version II gives slightly less chromatic aberration
• The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM offers slightly less resolution with 51 lp/mm compared to the excellent 61 lp/mm of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
• The slightly less good resolution result of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM comes from less homogenous behavior across the field.

To conclude, these 2 lenses are both excellent telephoto lenses, but the overall scores come out slightly in favor of the previous version of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, especially for Travel and Sport photography, which are the main use cases of these telephoto zoom lenses.
[/quote]

This smelled like BS to anyone who had used or tested both lenses, and several people posted comments to that effect on the review page. DxO stood by their measurements:

[quote author=DxOMark]
Thanks for bringing this potential mistake to our attention. But, after checking with all our experts in the lab, there isn’t really a mistake.

Indeed, the review was a bit harsh with the new version of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and we modified it...
But, overall the Mark 1 has a slightly higher and more homogeneous resolution. So, it scores better on a full frame camera, like the Canon 5D Mark II used in the review.
[/quote]

But, over a year later, they quietly revised their measurements, and if you compare the measurements of the MkII today with the original version of the lens, you find that the MkII is better…DxO fixed the mistake they supposedly didn't make.

 

[Rick]

Sorry. I'm going to pass on "pretty good image quality".

 

[RGomezPhotos]

The focal length is so awesome. At big events, the 70-200mm on a crop gets very close to this focal length. Great for sporting events on a large field. I would like to see a maximum aperture of f4 or better, but f4.5 isn't too as long as you have plenty of light.

This lens was introduced in 1998. And that's quite ancient. My first lens, the 28-135mm, was introduced in the same year. When I compare the 1998 EF 28-135mm with the 2008 EF-S 18-200mm, the latter lens is far superior. Even though it's probably originally, a cheaper produced lens.

 

[sjprg]

I've had mine for several years and have never been disappointed with it. I shot the America Cup races with it on a monopod using the 1.4 and 2.0 TC together for 1120 mm total. Shooting the Cats at 50 MPH it did great. You can see the images at FM Forums under sports.
Paul

 

[dufflover]

100-400 is one of my staples; good 'ol 70-200 sized (in terms of transport) 400mm telephoto and pretty good performance. Almost in the same bucket as the 7D thoughts; the current is good, passable, aging by today's standards, but rumour of a replacement coming which should be kickass.

For the lens specifically just looking at the refreshes like the 70-200 II, a new 100-400 would be bloody sharp and kickass ... but sadly also pretty expensive

 

[AlanF]

I sold my excellent mint copy last week while I can still get a good price. Whereas it is OK on FF, DxO gives it a rating of 13 Mpix sharpness on the 6D or 5DIII, it drops to only 6 Mpix on the 7D or 7Mpix on the 70D, echoing what most of us know already that crop requires sharp lenses. And, I found the 100-400 on the 5DIII pretty good and not so good on the 7D,

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-7D__619

A supersharp lens like the 330/2.8 II drops from 21 Mpix on the 5DIII to a still excellent 14 on the 7D and 17 on the 70D. Ok, DxO tests aren't perfect and they can make mistakes, but testing the same lens on different bodies is a pretty fair comparison.

If I want zoom in the 100-400mm region, I am going to use as a stop gap until a new 100-400 or what else the 70-200mm f/4 IS with or without extenders. I found it better or at least as good as the 100-400 on the 5DIII, and you can see this is general on the TDP site or lenstip, and not just me.

 

[DocSanjeev]

I sold my 100-400 yesterday (sob boo hoo) since I am getting a 70-200 f/2.8 II and I have the 500 II. I will wait for it's replacement and till that time use the 2.8 with extenders as stop gap. I liked the 100-400 very much though.

 

[DJD]

I've had mine for several years and have never been disappointed with it. I shot the America Cup races with it on a monopod using the 1.4 and 2.0 TC together for 1120 mm total. Shooting the Cats at 50 MPH it did great. You can see the images at FM Forums under sports.
Paul

SJPRG,
Could you include a link to your pics on FM Forum. I'd love to see them but there are so many in the sport corner I gave up searching
Thanks,
DJD

 

[Orangutan]

I sold my excellent mint copy last week while I can still get a good price. Whereas it is OK on FF, DxO gives it a rating of 13 Mpix sharpness on the 6D or 5DIII, it drops to only 6 Mpix on the 7D or 7Mpix on the 70D, echoing what most of us know already that crop requires sharp lenses. And, I found the 100-400 on the 5DIII pretty good and not so good on the 7D,

I just did a quick & dirty test of my 100-400 vs 70-200 f/4. From about 30ft away I photographed a Canadian $20 bill using my 60D, then cropped each to the size of the bill. The 100-400 showed much more detail.

I just wanted to get a "ballpark" idea of the relative detail each would give me for birds. I don't purport this to be anything like a definitive test since I don't have AFMA, and I used PD focus because the movement (without IS) made manual focusing a major challenge. I think I'll keep the 100-400 for now, but may try some bird photos with the 70-200 and see how they compare.