TDP Results for 7D MK II and 100-400mmL MK II

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its interesting to compare the lens at 400mm on the 7D MK II wide open at f/5.6 versus wide open on a 1Ds MK III with 1.4X TC. Note, the lens is better wide open than stopped down, and matches the FF in the corner, but not quite in the center when wide open.


The images are very carefully set up and manually focused to be the best the camera can do. The 7D MK II is a hair better than the 60D, since it has a few more MP, the improvement is proportional.


I wish he had included the 1D MK IV in those tests.



7D MK II at 400mm f/5.6 (center)

7D MK II at 400mm f/5.6 (corner)

1DS MK III with 1.4X TC wide open - f/8 (center)

1DS MK III with 1.4X TC wide open - f/8 (corner)

 

[Eldar]

I did not plan to buy this lens, but as a travel companion for the 7DII, it is a mighty tempting alternative ...

 

[takesome1]

The 7D II looks a bit better in this comparison, but keep in mind you are only gaining a bit over 14% in reach advantage. 560mm vs the "crop factor" reach of 640mm. We hear often the (1.2x) 20% to (.3x) 30% thrown out as what is really realized as a crop factor benefit.

If you look at the 7D II at the "actual" length of 400mm vs the FF, the FF looks much better.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

Compare this to the same lens with the 7D II at 300mm and the FF at 400mm.
The two are getting very close however in my view the FF may have a very slight edge, this would be about a 33% (1.3x) advantage.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

So if we look at these charts it would lead us to believe we would get a bit more reach with the 7D II. This sound very good. But this is a zoom lens, and that cripples the benefit, why buy a zoom lens to only shoot at the longest length like a prime? Any shot you can make under 400mm that can be properly framed will have a greater benefit in IQ with the FF than the gain you make in reach using the crop. This is just something to weigh out if a person is choosing a body to go with the lens.

 

[dgatwood]

So if we look at these charts it would lead us to believe we would get a bit more reach with the 7D II. This sound very good. But this is a zoom lens, and that cripples the benefit, why buy a zoom lens to only shoot at the longest length like a prime? Any shot you can make under 400mm that can be properly framed will have a greater benefit in IQ with the FF than the gain you make in reach using the crop. This is just something to weigh out if a person is choosing a body to go with the lens.

That's why we need high-pixel-density (high-MP) full-frame cameras.

 

[takesome1]

So if we look at these charts it would lead us to believe we would get a bit more reach with the 7D II. This sound very good. But this is a zoom lens, and that cripples the benefit, why buy a zoom lens to only shoot at the longest length like a prime? Any shot you can make under 400mm that can be properly framed will have a greater benefit in IQ with the FF than the gain you make in reach using the crop. This is just something to weigh out if a person is choosing a body to go with the lens.

I'd choose any modern FF camera, no matter how gimped, over a 7D or 7DII for wildlife.

I might have said the same a few years ago, now I take the one that will do the job at hand the best.
IQ and the sensor are not the only thing that figures in to that decision.

 

[weixing]

So if we look at these charts it would lead us to believe we would get a bit more reach with the 7D II. This sound very good. But this is a zoom lens, and that cripples the benefit, why buy a zoom lens to only shoot at the longest length like a prime? Any shot you can make under 400mm that can be properly framed will have a greater benefit in IQ with the FF than the gain you make in reach using the crop. This is just something to weigh out if a person is choosing a body to go with the lens.

I'd choose any modern FF camera, no matter how gimped, over a 7D or 7DII for wildlife.

Hi,
I had the 6D and the IQ is great, but the AF is not that fast, not that accurate when shooting small object (around same size as the AF point), so I had to go closer which some time is difficult for wildlife especially birds. Also, composition is a bit more troublesome due to the limited number of AF points.

5D3 will be the best choice, but the price is way out of budget for a me, so I get the 7DII. The IQ is not as good as the 6D, but the focusing is faster, more accurate when shooting small object, so I can be further away from the subject. Also composition is easier and faster due to so many AF points and the frame rate is great.

Have a nice day.

 

[DanoPhoto]

I wish he had included the 1D MK IV in those

+1, would be interesting to see 7D2 versus 1D4.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Its interesting to compare the lens at 400mm on the 7D MK II wide open at f/5.6 versus wide open on a 1Ds MK III with 1.4X TC. Note, the lens is better wide open than stopped down, and matches the FF in the corner, but not quite in the center when wide open.


The images are very carefully set up and manually focused to be the best the camera can do. The 7D MK II is a hair better than the 60D, since it has a few more MP, the improvement is proportional.


I wish he had included the 1D MK IV in those tests.



7D MK II at 400mm f/5.6 (center)

7D MK II at 400mm f/5.6 (corner)

1DS MK III with 1.4X TC wide open - f/8 (center)

1DS MK III with 1.4X TC wide open - f/8 (corner)

This will make zero noticeable difference in real world photos unless you are shooting lens charts in a lab.
I'm pretty confident in saying both the new 100-400L and the 7DII will sell very well for Canon and for good reason.