Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3              5       6       end
  

Archive 2014 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...

  
 
russel.wallace
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


.. if I just want good IQ and I plan to shoot only on the long end on a tripod, is it worth getting the new 100-400 version II over the old version?

The LensRental test seems to suggest "no".

The DP site samples also look like only a mediocre improvement over the 100-400 I , and it seems like the 400 f/5.6 still does better.

Based on both of these site, the new 100-400 would not appear to be a game-changer like the 16-35 f/4 was: a plod rather than a leap forward.

Yet lots of people are gushing about how great the 100-400 v2 is. This site and other sites are flooding with ooohs and ahhhs. And certainly the sample images seem great, though these have all been PP'd and shown in resized JPG's. Maybe the DP site got a bad copy. But LensRentals tests multiple copies, right? So why the discrepancy in user opinions and these tests? New-broom syndrome? Or New-broom-that-we-have-been-waiting-for-years-for syndrome?



Dec 19, 2014 at 10:36 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


I can not answer your question about various discrepancies and reasons for them, other than to note that there has always been some inconsistencies in various lens test/evaluation reports, with some lenses more so than with others.

However, as far as 100-400 MkII is concerned, I'd suggest that you take a look at the reviews as well as pictures by experienced wildlife photographers on different photography forums such as FM, Bird Photographer's Net, Naturescapes.Net, POTN etc. I think you might find that most, if not all, of those early reviews are fairly consistent in saying that 100-400 MkII is is a significantly improved photography tool over the MkI, and that includes better IQ too.
That is all which matters to me because it comes from sources where the lens meets the road.



Dec 19, 2014 at 11:01 AM
John_T
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


What Petrus said...

...taken by fog and rain light.













Edited on Dec 19, 2014 at 12:23 PM · View previous versions



Dec 19, 2014 at 11:25 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


PetKal wrote:
However, as far as 100-400 MkII is concerned, I'd suggest that you take a look at the reviews as well as pictures by experienced wildlife photographers on different photography forums such as FM, Bird Photographer's Net, Naturescapes.Net, POTN etc. I think you might find that most, if not all, of those early reviews are fairly consistent in saying that 100-400 MkII is is a significantly improved photography tool over the MkI, and that includes better IQ too.
That is all which matters to me because it comes from sources where the lens meets the road.


Good advice, and important to consider. I'll have one of the new lenses before long, and I'll take a good close look at. (I have an old 100-400 to compare to, as well.)

I think that the general sense of the lens's quality is more important than any one or two reviews — though, depending on the source, those shouldn't be discounted either. One thing for sure, we can't really know the full story until this or any other lens gets into the hands of a fairly large group of users, at which point some collective sense of the abilities of the lens begins to emerge.

I think, based on what I've read and seen so far, that the IQ of the lens is going to be excellent. However, we can't discount what they saw at Lens Rentals, generally a source of level-headed evaluations. Anyone who is concerned should not hurry to decide either way. Wait a bit and we'll know more.

By the way, you write that IQ* "is all which matters to me." IQ is certainly important (and one of the important reasons that I'm getting this lens), but I would go so far as to say that it should be all that matters, at least not for most photographers. Among a group of lenses that all perform quite well, other factors may be more important than pure resolution differences, including a lot of functional differences.

YMMV,

Dan

* I originally typed "IS" here, confusing the heck out of both people who read my post! ;-)


Edited on Dec 19, 2014 at 12:38 PM · View previous versions



Dec 19, 2014 at 11:32 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


russel.wallace wrote:
.. if I just want good IQ and I plan to shoot only on the long end on a tripod, is it worth getting the new 100-400 version II over the old version?

The LensRental test seems to suggest "no"...


That's an interesting interpretation, considering that the guy who did the testing said,

"Still, the fact that the new lens has a regular rotating zoom ring rather than a trombone barrel and much better IS system will be plenty of reason for a lot of folks to upgrade. (Personally, I liked the trombone, but I'll give it up for the stronger IS.)

I'm picking up my Mk II in about two hours. I bought it for the improved weather sealing, better IS and faster AF. The fact that it has slightly better IQ is a bonus.



Dec 19, 2014 at 11:40 AM
bipock
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


Russel, I've had my copy for exactly one week now. I was one of the first, if not the first, in the US to receive their US retail version.

Having had 3 copies of the 100-400 v1 and having found them all lacking in both AF speed and IQ, I took the chance that the new version would be 70-200 like. It is, without a doubt certianly in that ballpark.

At 400, which is where you're asking, it is better than any copy of the 100-400 I ever had, and very much on par with the 400 5.6. When you factor in the additionals (much improved AF speed, greatly improved IS and improved weather sealing), the lens, IMO, supercedes the v1 by a long shot.

Now if you have an outstanding copy of the v1 and it's working for you, then probably no need to upgrade. But, if not, then it is an easy call. I can't speak on the LR review and won't read it because the results in my testing more than prove it's place in my bag.

There's a couple hands-on reviews over on POTN from other members backing my claims.



Dec 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM
John_T
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


If you dissect a frog seeking the source of its life, you will probably end up with a dead frog.

I'm finding this lens is the sum total of it parts and it is a refreshing delight simply to take pictures with it.



Dec 19, 2014 at 11:49 AM
Kathy White
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


If you're going to use a tripod and manually Focus each and every time you use then lens then maybe it's not worth it for you. You can only judge for yourself. I loved the 400 primes AF speed, but didn't like how fast you had to keep the shutter with no IS. I don't want to use a tripod EVER for wildlife, or at the zoo or watching the gkids play in the park. Also, my eyes are old and I don't see as well as I used to, so I am thankful for the best AF I can get. It's a real biggie for me.
I going to enjoy a lens going all the way from 100 to 400 mm with super IS, that AF's really well even when it's not a sunny day. I got good results from mine yesterday when it was really getting dim out and on a drab day outside. So, Yep, I'm gushing, and no, not just because I spent the money and it's bright and shinny. It's because I'm judging by the total package this lens delivers. The upgrade was worth it for how I like to shoot.



Dec 19, 2014 at 11:53 AM
Shasoc
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


russel.wallace wrote:
.. if I just want good IQ and I plan to shoot only on the long end on a tripod, is it worth getting the new 100-400 version II over the old version?

The LensRental test seems to suggest "no".

The DP site samples also look like only a mediocre improvement over the 100-400 I , and it seems like the 400 f/5.6 still does better.

Based on both of these site, the new 100-400 would not appear to be a game-changer like the 16-35 f/4 was: a plod rather than a leap forward.

Yet lots of people are gushing about how great
...Show more



If you plan to shoot only on the long end on a tripod and are interested only in IQ the 100-400 MkII it is not a "game-changer" compared to the old version.
If you are shooting hand holding IF subjects (or moving subjects) the 100-400 MkII is a game-changer in terms of AF, frame rates and number of keepers with an improved sharpness and IQ.
Socrate



Edited on Dec 19, 2014 at 12:07 PM · View previous versions



Dec 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM
matt4626
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


My 100-400 version 1 is a great lens but I have lost too many shoots by mounting it on a tripod and forgetting to turn off IS...so I'm on a pre-order list for the new one...


Dec 19, 2014 at 12:07 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


.. if I just want good IQ and I plan to shoot only on the long end on a tripod, is it worth getting the new 100-400 version II over the old version?

For your needs, the EF 400mm f/5.6L should be a better choice.

Based on both of these site, the new 100-400 would not appear to be a game-changer like the 16-35 f/4 was: a plod rather than a leap forward.

Based on resolution crops? The EF 100-400L IS II is more than that. You are dismissing the entire zoom range and only concentrating on the long end. To me, the new 100-400mm zoom is a more rounded lens when comparing to the previous version. The IQ in the entire range seems more equalized and is high from center to corner.

Consider other aspects of IQ as well. Aberrations seem to be improved. How about flare control, rendering and bokeh?
How about 4-stop IS and faster AF?

My point is, there is more to a lens than pure resolution to consider and from the initial tests, the new lens is a winner in that regard as well.



Dec 19, 2014 at 12:10 PM
JohanEickmeyer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


I always thought the v1 was excellent on full frame, but it's ASP-C where it seemed to fall flat in image quality.

Too bad TDP comparison does not have the 60D test in there.

Also, 99% of the people who buy this lens bought it for 400mm, I assume. Why do lens makers keep designing these lenses to perform so well at the shortest focal length, or is that just the way telephoto zooms always work out with their designs?



Dec 19, 2014 at 12:18 PM
Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...




I find your comments a bit confusing:

russel.wallace wrote:
.. if I just want good IQ and I plan to shoot only on the long end on a tripod, is it worth getting the new 100-400 version II over the old version?


So it makes no sense that you would even be considering a zoom lens.

The DP site samples also look like only a mediocre improvement over the 100-400 I , and it seems like the 400 f/5.6 still does better.

Maybe you should rely more on real-world shooting, rather than on lab tests. I could show you 100 16x20 prints made from shots taken with the 400 f5.6 prime and the 100-400 and would gladly bet you could not pick out which prints were from which lens.

Based on both of these site, the new 100-400 would not appear to be a game-changer like the 16-35 f/4 was: a plod rather than a leap forward.

As pointed out by others, there is more to a lens than just IQ.



Dec 19, 2014 at 12:41 PM
Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Also, 99% of the people who buy this lens bought it for 400mm, I assume.


Bad assumption. Just yesterday, I was cursing because I had the 400 prime on my body and not the zoom. As a result, I could not get the whole subject in the frame because there was no time or room to back up. The 100-400 would have give me multiple perspectives in seconds by simply zooming down from 400mm. That is why the zoom is more versatile than the prime.



Dec 19, 2014 at 12:46 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


russel.wallace wrote:
.. if I just want good IQ and I plan to shoot only on the long end on a tripod, is it worth getting the new 100-400 version II over the old version?

The LensRental test seems to suggest "no"...

"Still, the fact that the new lens has a regular rotating zoom ring rather than a trombone barrel and much better IS system will be plenty of reason for a lot of folks to upgrade. (Personally, I liked the trombone, but I'll give it up for the stronger IS.)

jcolwell wrote:
That's an interesting interpretation, considering that the guy who did the testing said,
I'm picking up my Mk II in about two hours. I bought it for the improved weather sealing, better IS and faster AF. The fact that it has slightly better IQ is a bonus.


The IS alone is really impressive and the AF of the old lens was always iffy on rapidly moving subjects.

EBH



Dec 19, 2014 at 01:15 PM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


jcolwell wrote:
That's an interesting interpretation, considering that the guy who did the testing said,

I'm picking up my Mk II in about two hours. I bought it for the improved weather sealing, better IS and faster AF. The fact that it has slightly better IQ is a bonus.


Pondering a 100-400L purchase, Jim's list of improvements seem right on target; the AF and IS of most import, and for my use the 'two' ring design, now to save of this beastie



Dec 19, 2014 at 01:25 PM
mikeengles
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


Hello
The greatest deterrent to upgrading in the UK is that the price inc all taxes is UKP1999 or USD3122.
Even with tax at 25%, it is a hell of a premium over the US price. All European prices are of the oder of the UK price. Difficult to understand as the European market is at least as large as that of the US.
MDE



Dec 19, 2014 at 01:50 PM
Rajan Parrikar
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


I don't have my version 1 copy any more to make a direct comparison. But to my eyes, the new version II is superior by every measure, even at 400mm. True, at 400mm the difference is not dramatic but that is because the original was no slouch to begin with.

I just did a small test. Canon 5D Mark III, 100-400L II, Live View, tripod, IS not engaged, triggered via cable. The focus plane is the yellow sticker (with a thread deliberately taped in there). I ran it through my usual capture sharpening using Topaz InFocus (which is a deconvolution algorithm that essentially de-blurs the effect of the optical low pass filter on the sensor). No other post processing corrections. I was about 12 feet or so from the target. 100% crops.







@ 400mm, f/5.6







@ 300mm, f/5.6




Dec 19, 2014 at 02:01 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


EB-1 wrote:
The IS alone is really impressive...


No kidding. I just picked up mine. Here's a handheld interior shot in my office, taken while seated with arms in 'normal' position (i.e. not supported by chair arms or similar).

Shutter speed 1/8 sec. f = 227mm. From RAW, no PP at all.














Dec 19, 2014 at 02:14 PM
Sy Sez
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 100-400 2: Better AF, IS, and IQ in the 100-300 range, but otherwise ...


I think the updated IS would be a useful upgrade for "hand-holders"

Not surprising that the IQ is not leaps & bounds above the "old" one, since they both have Flourite, & Super UD glass elements; though the MK-2 has what's described as improved coatings for better contrast.

Since my old original is mostly on a Tripod/gimbal head, and AF is fine; I think I'll hang on to it for awhile; & see how the two new SIgma 150-600's compare.

Leigh
http://www.leighwax.com



Dec 19, 2014 at 02:18 PM
1
       2       3              5       6       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3              5       6       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.