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

[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.

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.

Good points

 

[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.

You concluded correctly.
Thanks for pointing it out, I will see if I can find that issue.
However, when it comes to IQ, I am much in favor of reviews testing multiple copies... well, we all know that there is only one site that has the volume of lenses and the technical capabilities to do that... too bad that Roger at lensrentals.com hasn't measured any of the Sigma 150-600. The only lens he reported about was the Tamron (compare against the Sigma 50-500, the old Tamron 200-500 and the old Canon 100-400):
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout

I think that review was also the first to find that the Tammy's IQ pretty much falls apart beyond 500mm, later(?) confirmed by DPreview.
But it is not only about measurements... most of the shots of any of the 150-600 I have seen so far - especially those done on an APS-C body - didn't really convince me (while the same shots, were often praised by others - either those posters were just being polite, or maybe my standards need adjusting ).

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.

I have an older Kenko 1,4 extender , its a reporting one, so no AF with the 100-400 II on my 7D Mk.I unless I try taping pins.
I bought it to use with my 70-200 F4 L IS. It hasn't seen that much use, though. It really kills the bokeh in many situations and 280mm wasn't just enough additional FL to accept these limitations.

I can't believe people are still wondering about this lens.
[...]
Go get this lens NOW !

Actually, I already ordered one when it was listed for a "good" price (still ~1900€...) by a decent retailer, however, it was - and still is - on backorder. I am pretty sure that the aside from plain reach, it is the best option for me. Neither Sigma C nor Tamron look good enough on the long end and the Sigma S weighs a ton.

 

[Runnerguy]

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.

I agree totally , I also have the same setup with the 300 f 2.8II +2x III and can hardly see any difference with the 100-400 III +1.4xIII and am thinking of selling the 300 f2.8 III and getting the 600 f4 II.The 100-400II is that good !!!

 

[weixing]

Hi,

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.

I have an older Kenko 1,4 extender , its a reporting one, so no AF with the 100-400 II on my 7D Mk.I unless I try taping pins.
I bought it to use with my 70-200 F4 L IS. It hasn't seen that much use, though. It really kills the bokeh in many situations and 280mm wasn't just enough additional FL to accept these limitations.

I had the Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DGX (blue dot) and it does not work on 7D2 with Canon lens or at least not with EF 400mm F5.6L and EF 100-400mm II:
7D2 + Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DGX + EF 400mm F5.6L: 7D2 hang.
7D2 + Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DGX + EF 100-400 II: when power on, 7D2 display the message: "Firmware update failed. Try update again." ???
60D + Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DGX + EF 400mm F5.6L: Work normally.
60D + Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DGX + EF 100-400 II: Work normally.

So I thought the problem is the 7D2, but when I try 7D2 + Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DGX + Tamron 150-600mm, it work... although AF and IQ is lousy, but at least it can AF and working normally. :

Have a nice day.

 

[JonAustin]

I couldn't get past the beginning of the 2nd paragraph of the review: "Several dozen years passed from that launch [of the original 100-400L] and such a long period of time alone was enough to make the successor of the 100-400L one of the most often listed lenses in rumours circulating around the incoming premieres."

"Several dozen years ..." Wait ... what? It's difficult for me to take a review seriously if the writer fails to grasp basic arithmetic.

I bought my copy of the 100-400 II at the beginning of the year, anyway. Love it.

 

[dufflover]

I love my 100-400mm mk1 as an old workhorse. I would be thrilled to improve on the IQ even more, but every few weeks I come across a situation where my 70-200 II would've been better (simply down to the scene FL and lighting at the time) and concede that it is still the same specs (like FL/apertures) as my mk1.

... some day

 

[wallstreetoneil]

IMO, the new 100-400II is Canon's best lens period.

I have been shooting it exclusively these last two last weeks on a 5DSR (wedding, birding, landscapes) - simply cannot be beat - all handheld at reasonable SS and you get tack sharp images revealing completely amazing detail.

I would recommend this lens to everyone - when Canon's next gen higher ISO cameras come out, I might even consider selling what use to be my favourite lens - the 70-200 II F2.8 - keep my 70-200 F4 IS and this lens - no need for the F2.8.

By far my favourite lens - and it isn't even close.

 

[JonAustin]

... I would recommend this lens to everyone - when Canon's next gen higher ISO cameras come out, I might even consider selling what use to be my favourite lens - the 70-200 II F2.8 - keep my 70-200 F4 IS and this lens - no need for the F2.8 ...

Ditto. My 70-200 II has -- with the exception of one 3-day-long portrait gig -- been sitting idle since I got the 100-400 II. I'm very pleased with its performance and image quality, and quite surprised at how much I've been using it.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Might be a fine lens but I still cannot get past 400mm at F5.6! The loss of light is so severe that it's practically useless for wildlife during sunrise or sunset or under a forest canopy. Add a couple of clicks to tighten the lines and you are at F8! May be fine for air shows and surfing which are typically occurring in bright sun but for a wildlife lens, this is for harry homeowner.

I will stick with my 300 f2.8 and crop a bit.