EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Review WOW!

stsva wrote in post #17764987
My (very) limited experience moving from the 400 5.6 to the 100-400 II indicates that getting good shots with the new lens will be much easier in most circumstances compared to the 400. As to sharpness, the 100-400 II appears to be at least equal to the 400, and the outstanding IS functionally results in better sharpness in a lot of real-world shooting situations.

Pondrader wrote in post #17764999
So true, The 100-400LII is such a fantastic lens,.. if the 400mm 5.6 is a 10 out of 10 ...the 100-400LII is a 15 out of 10 no doubt'

Al do not rent this lens unless you have the cash to keep it lol

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17765093
I came from both. I liked the 100-400mm mkI for it's flexibility, it's lightning fast push pull zoom.

However, I also shot a lot with the 400mm f/5.6L prime for it's faster AF, and superior image quality. It's limitations in lack of IS, no zoom and terrible MFD were balanced by it's amazing performance in AF and IQ that rivaled lenses costing 8 to 10 times as much.

From the gut, I liked the prime more. It felt better to shoot, and the images stood out.
From a utility stand point, the zoom remained my "swiss army knife" of wildlife lens.

With the purchase of the 100-400mm MkII I quickly learned that my need for the prime as well as the zoom was gone,. The MkII's AF is faster than the old prime, and it's IQ seems to be equal to the prime at all focal lengths.

If I had reason to keep the prime, I would. But look at the resales of the 400mm prime and you'll see that no one is keeping it once they get there hands on the new zoom.

FYI, I go into a bit more detail on the first page of this thread if you are interested.

AnnieMacD wrote in post #17765516
I went from the 400 f/5.6 to the 100-400L II as I really struggled with the 400mm. The IS on the new zoom was a game changer for me. The light in the north of Scotland is pretty poor most of the year and even with high ISO I couldn't use a fast enough shutter speed except on exceptionally bright days. When I got the 100-400II I was taking hand-held images at 1/15 second. For BIF, of course, it's not such a major difference as you need the faster SS anyway.

You guys are killing me.

Pondrader, I know I am going to like it as the images I am seeing have been outstanding, but I have to test it to see for myself and if it's as good as everyone is saying it is, then I have some decisions to make. I found myself in a situation just this past Saturday (out with the X Country team in the woods) saying man I wish I had the 100-400 now as I saw lots of dear; that was the ideal situation to have that zoom. I am going to get the loaner from CPS within the next couple weeks.

CyberDyneSystems, when I saw the minimum focusing distance I coughed/choked. It is something that I love on my 300 f4 IS. That and IS is becoming prime reasons for my lens purchasing decisions these days - nothing more frustrating to have an image opportunity that gets to close and you have to or can't back up. I figured the image quality would be on par with the prime, which used to be my 2nd lens out on shoots.

stsva and AnnieMacD that is what I have been reading - IS is the game changer. I hand held the 5.6 a lot, but also used it mostly on a tridpod and a Jobu Jr. to get solid shots. I do find myself relying more on IS these days, especially in bad lighting situations, so IS is always welcomed.

I kind of already know how this is going to play out - haha!. I may have the 400 5.6 and 1D3 up for sell soom (not quite sure about the 1D3 though).

Thanks everyone for the insight...Al

Seeeeeee just come on over, you can have it for the rest of the day lol

Choderboy wrote in post #17766540
I was a long time user of 400 5.6, never used a 100-400 V1. I liked it so much I was conscious of the fact it would make me stick with Canon as it really had no competitor (Nikon and Sigma at least). An affordable long lens, light weight, with AF ability that defies logic (being F 5.6) with only negative being a long MFD. Lack of IS I did not consider a negative but now I do.

On reading CDS's original post in this thread I was hooked, re read that post many times and the following posts as other users chimed in. Then Bryan Carnathan's review and then Roger Cicala's tear down review.

So when I did buy the 100-400 II the first thing I did was some test shots comparing to my 400 5.6 followed by some normal use which confirmed AF was really good.
I was then satisfied I could sell my long loved 400 5.6 (that I never imagined selling). At that time there were numerous 400 5.6 Ls being sold on POTN and in my local (in Australia) online classifieds there were a few being sold and many 100-400 V1 lenses being advertised.

I would rate the 400 5.6 as being superior regards blur, ie it produces a more pleasing out of focus blur. It's not a huge difference but I think that and lower weight are the only advantages it has over the 100-400 II. EDIT, see my post above regards tripod collar / foot problem. 400 5.6 had a conventional, removeable collar which I wish the 100-400 II had.

Thanks for the insight. I am going to read the 1st post right now. I have not heard about the foot problems in any of my readings. What exactly is the issue?

Pondrader wrote in post #17768074
Seeeeeee just come on over, you can have it for the rest of the day lol

Believe me right now I'd love too. Your front and back yard is busier than the mega square miles places I've been visiting; it'l heat up once it gets colder though. The 600 would be too much.

KainguLodge wrote in post #17767535

John_T wrote in post #17767395
I was annoyed to find the four screws on mine had loosened. I tightened them to snug, not over tight, and they have remained so since. From what I can see, the RRS, Kirk or 4th Gen feet will not help with this issue at all, may even make it worse if the foot increases leverage on those four screws.

I use mine normally on tripods or monopods, but do not carry it by the foot. I wouldn't dream of attaching a sling strap to it.

It might be rickety, but it still works for it's standard applications.

Exactly the same issue with mine. I tightened them up and so far so good, between I saw the size of these screws (as well as the loosening issue) my black rapid carrying method suddenly looked very unappealing... The Sigma 120-300 has a primitive, crude but absolutely bomb-proof collar.

FWIW I found the black rapid strap invaluable with the mk1 version and was not going to sacrifice it's benefit with the mk11 so I have done a belt & braces approach.


In the main I have come to trust the newer foot fitting,thankfully mine has not had the loosening mentioned especially bearing in mind it hangs upside down from the BR. However I have made use of an OpTech lens loop and attach that to a short ProLoop which is fixed to the slot at the leading edge of the detachable foot.......so if the foot fitting should suffer an unexpected catastrophic failure it will not drop to the ground.

bidkev wrote in post #17767656
.
.

Had my first pair of Galahs visit today. Used to get them at my old place but this is the first here. I've never seen a male this brightly coloured either..............th​e Northside Brizzy varieties always look like they've been dragged through the mangroves The male didn't feed, he just kept an eye on his mate............and on me, as the 3rd shot shows

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Ax4E​5i Galah - female by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Afs7​do Galah (2) by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zAax​xM Galah (3) by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zAap​ec Galah (4) by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

https://flic.kr/p/zAaf​3gGalah by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

Flamingo galahs!! I don't think I've ever seen galahs with so much colour . . .

I just ordered one of these lenses from cannonpricewatch for $1,859. Can't wait! How would the 1.4 version ii TC work with this lens?

ShutterPonch wrote in post #17768537
I just ordered one of these lenses from cannonpricewatch for $1,859. Can't wait! How would the 1.4 version ii TC work with this lens?

It works quite well if you have a body that will autofocus @ f/8

Such as a 5diii or 7dii?

Exactly

Methodical wrote in post #17768093
Thanks for the insight. I am going to read the 1st post right now. I have not heard about the foot problems in any of my readings. What exactly is the issue?

The lens comes with the first non removeable (that I am aware of) tripod collar. It also has a removeable foot, secured with a thumb screw.
The thumb screw mates with a threaded insert which is in a small plate which is secrured to the collar via 4 very small screws.
Quite a few users reported those screws were loose from new. I suspect mine were loose and then due to use threads were damaged.
Those screws now become loose after an hour or less use. On just about any other Canon lens I could buy a new collar, genuine or third party.
On this lens disassembly will be required to replace the collar.

Choderboy wrote in post #17768955
The lens comes with the first non removeable (that I am aware of) tripod collar. It also has a removeable foot, secured with a thumb screw.
The thumb screw mates with a threaded insert which is in a small plate which is secrured to the collar via 4 very small screws.
Quite a few users reported those screws were loose from new. I suspect mine were loose and then due to use threads were damaged.
Those screws now become loose after an hour or less use. On just about any other Canon lens I could buy a new collar, genuine or third party.
On this lens disassembly will be required to replace the collar.

Good to know. If I get one, I will check those screws.

ShutterPonch wrote in post #17768537
I just ordered one of these lenses from cannonpricewatch for $1,859. Can't wait! How would the 1.4 version ii TC work with this lens?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17768700
It works quite well if you have a body that will autofocus @ f/8

ShutterPonch wrote in post #17768720
Such as a 5diii or 7dii?

Would he be better served with the 1.4III vs the 1.4II?

A couple I got while vacationing in Arkansas earlier this year:

IMAGE LINK: https://edle.smugmug.c​om …/3W5A4298-X3.jpg&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: https://edle.smugmug.c​om …/3W5A4320-X3.jpg&lb=1&s=A

After much thought, I have decided I will use metal epoxy to permanently assemble collar and plate.
Pics showing the bits could be helpful to other owners if they have problems.

Collar base with the plate in place.
If I strip the threaded insert for the foot I'm screwed, pun intended. I doubt that will happen and then I would need to replace collar, which is really the situation I'm in now.

Unfortunate. The lens is built like a tank, they say, but these four screws are a big exception. It's hard to understand why Canon did not make them bigger.