Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 10 Apr 2017 (Monday) 11:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is 100-400 mk2 a true 400mm?

 
don1163
Goldmember
Avatar
1,000 posts
Gallery: 27 photos
Likes: 1785
Joined May 2015
Location: Washford, Somerset/ UK
     
Apr 10, 2017 11:26 |  #1

I am thinking of getting the Canon 100-400 mk2 but have read on several sites that is more like 370mm at the long end ..can anyone who owns the lens confirm if this is true or not..
Many thanks..


1DX, 500L f4, 70-200L f2.8II, 100L f2.8 macro ,16-35 f4, 1.4xIII, Metz 64-AF1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Elton ­ Balch
Senior Member
Avatar
972 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 86
Joined Dec 2005
     
Apr 10, 2017 13:09 |  #2

don1163 wrote in post #18324253 (external link)
I am thinking of getting the Canon 100-400 mk2 but have read on several sites that is more like 370mm at the long end ..can anyone who owns the lens confirm if this is true or not..
Many thanks..

Here is a quote from the digital picture review of this lens which may answer your question. It's close enough for me:grin:

"Some have asked if the 100-400 L II's focal length is really 400mm on the upper end. This is a fair question because it seems that manufacturers sometimes take the liberty of rounding off/up the specified focal length numbers in zoom lenses. In this case, the lens set to 400mm frames a test chart from 42.86' (13.063m) while two of Canon's prime 400mm lenses (the 400 f/2.8L II and 400 f/5.6L) frame the chart at 44.87' (13.675m) and 44.54' (13.576m) respectively. If I take the average of those two comparables, I get 44.70' (13.625m) (using the metric numbers for calculating). Using that number, the 100-400 II's max focal length seems more like 383mm or just slightly wider. Especially with distortion potentially effecting this calculation, that number is close enough to 400mm that few will care about any actual difference. Canon has claimed to be within 5% of the specified focal length number, adding credance to the calculated figure's possibility."


Elton Balch
5D Mark III, 7D Mark II, 24 mm f/1.4 L, 35 mm f/1.4 L, 50 mm f/1.2 L, 85 mm f/1.2 L, 100 mm f/2.8 macro, 135 mm f/2 L, 300 mm f/4 L, 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS ii, 580 EX Flash, Speedlight 600 EX RT, 1.4 extender, extension tubes and other stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,443 posts
Gallery: 214 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 7105
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Apr 10, 2017 13:24 |  #3

Well, if it's only 383 mm at the long end, that might add justification to me getting the 500mm lens. The 500 would be 30% longer instead of 25% as I thought before.

Unless the 500mm isn't really 500.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,418 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 336
Joined Sep 2011
     
Apr 10, 2017 13:45 |  #4

Elton Balch wrote in post #18324338 (external link)
Here is a quote from the digital picture review of this lens which may answer your question. It's close enough for me:grin:

"Some have asked if the 100-400 L II's focal length is really 400mm on the upper end. This is a fair question because it seems that manufacturers sometimes take the liberty of rounding off/up the specified focal length numbers in zoom lenses. In this case, the lens set to 400mm frames a test chart from 42.86' (13.063m) while two of Canon's prime 400mm lenses (the 400 f/2.8L II and 400 f/5.6L) frame the chart at 44.87' (13.675m) and 44.54' (13.576m) respectively. If I take the average of those two comparables, I get 44.70' (13.625m) (using the metric numbers for calculating). Using that number, the 100-400 II's max focal length seems more like 383mm or just slightly wider. Especially with distortion potentially effecting this calculation, that number is close enough to 400mm that few will care about any actual difference. Canon has claimed to be within 5% of the specified focal length number, adding credance to the calculated figure's possibility."

This is shooting a test chart at 40-45' away. I would think that as you move closer to infinity, the number would improve. So if you are shooting a bison at 200 yards, it would be closer to 400 but if you are shooting a sparrow at 15' then not so much.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
4,951 posts
Gallery: 88 photos
Likes: 1907
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Apr 11, 2017 04:07 |  #5

It's noticeably wider than the 400 5.6 prime at a distance of 620 metres (675 yards).
So you might as well consider it 383 as per the Digital Picture estimation.

It's not relevant for the vast majority of applications. For 3 times the price you could get a 400 2.8L IS that would be closer to a true 400mm with over 3 times the weight. Half the money would get a 400 5.6 prime with no IS or zoom.

The 100-400 II is a great lens, has the latest IS, sharp across the frame and a very low minimum focus distance. Forget about a few mm focal length.


Dave
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/12185187@N00/ (external link)
1DX2, 1D4, 1DS2. Canon, Sigma lenses
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Elton ­ Balch
Senior Member
Avatar
972 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 86
Joined Dec 2005
     
Apr 11, 2017 10:18 |  #6

Choderboy wrote in post #18324867 (external link)
It's noticeably wider than the 400 5.6 prime at a distance of 620 metres (675 yards).
So you might as well consider it 383 as per the Digital Picture estimation.

It's not relevant for the vast majority of applications. For 3 times the price you could get a 400 2.8L IS that would be closer to a true 400mm with over 3 times the weight. Half the money would get a 400 5.6 prime with no IS or zoom.

The 100-400 II is a great lens, has the latest IS, sharp across the frame and a very low minimum focus distance. Forget about a few mm focal length.

That sums it up--love mine for sure:mrgreen:


Elton Balch
5D Mark III, 7D Mark II, 24 mm f/1.4 L, 35 mm f/1.4 L, 50 mm f/1.2 L, 85 mm f/1.2 L, 100 mm f/2.8 macro, 135 mm f/2 L, 300 mm f/4 L, 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS ii, 580 EX Flash, Speedlight 600 EX RT, 1.4 extender, extension tubes and other stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tapeman
Sliced Bread
Avatar
3,714 posts
Likes: 119
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Twin Cities
     
Apr 11, 2017 16:02 |  #7

What is the alternate? Mine is excellent.


Canon G1X II, 1D MKIV, 5DSR, 5DIV, 5D MKII, 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, IS, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II, 500/4 L IS II, 24-105/4 IS, 50/2.5 macro, 1.4x MKII, 1.4X MKIII, 2X MKIII,580EX II, 550EXs(2), ST-E2.
Gitzo 1228, 1275, 1558, Lensbaby 3G. Epson 3880, Bags that match my shoes.:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MatthewK
Goldmember
Avatar
3,033 posts
Gallery: 480 photos
Likes: 6425
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Maryland
     
Apr 12, 2017 05:06 |  #8

It's definitely 400mm... the truth is that every other Canon 400mm is actually 417mm, so the 100-400 appears shorter. Not sure why they did that, I paid for 400mm, I don't want 417mm.


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
2,970 posts
Likes: 154
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Apr 12, 2017 08:15 |  #9

What was the mm of the 100-400 L IS Version 1?


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,418 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 336
Joined Sep 2011
     
Apr 12, 2017 10:07 |  #10

Tapeman wrote in post #18325355 (external link)
What is the alternate? Mine is excellent.

Based on the question I would assume the 400 part of the zoom is where the majority of the need is. Based on that alternative might be 300/4 IS with 1.4 TC as well as the Tamron and Sigma 150-600's and possibly the new 100-400 from Sigma but something tells me that will have less actual MM's than the 100-400 II


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,443 posts
Gallery: 214 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 7105
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Apr 12, 2017 10:13 |  #11

Nick5 wrote in post #18325892 (external link)
What was the mm of the 100-400 L IS Version 1?

IIRC the focal lengths of the two versions are the same, according to some observations reported here on POTN some time ago.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,065 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2841
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited over 1 year ago by Tom Reichner.
     
Apr 12, 2017 12:20 |  #12

It seems like a lot of folks are confusing focal length with angle of view. Yes, the two are closely related, but they are different.

Focal length is actually a measurement between the 'optical center of the lens' and the focal plane, when focused at infinity. So basically that means that focal length is a measurement (usually expressed in millimeters) between a glass element (or a specific point between elements) and the camera sensor.

Angle of view is a by-product of focal length, but is not its equivalent. You don't determine focal length by measuring angle of view - you accurately determine focal length by taking a measurement from the optical center of the lens and the focal plane (when the lens is focused to infinity). This is the focal length of the lens, regardless of what angle of view you get.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Elton ­ Balch
Senior Member
Avatar
972 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 86
Joined Dec 2005
     
Apr 12, 2017 12:32 |  #13

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18326073 (external link)
It seems like a lot of folks are confusing focal length with angle of view. Yes, the two are closely related, but they are different.

Focal length is actually a measurement between the 'optical center of the lens' and the focal plane, when focused at infinity. So basically that means that focal length is a measurement (usually expressed in millimeters) between a glass element (or a specific point between elements) and the camera sensor.

Angle of view is a by-product of focal length, but is not its equivalent. You don't determine focal length by measuring angle of view - you accurately determine focal length by taking a measurement from the optical center of the lens and the focal plane (when the lens is focused to infinity). This is the focal length of the lens, regardless of what angle of view you get.

.

For those with lots of time on their hands, here is the "long version". Let me know when your eyes glaze over...

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …asuring_focal_l​ength.html (external link)


Elton Balch
5D Mark III, 7D Mark II, 24 mm f/1.4 L, 35 mm f/1.4 L, 50 mm f/1.2 L, 85 mm f/1.2 L, 100 mm f/2.8 macro, 135 mm f/2 L, 300 mm f/4 L, 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS ii, 580 EX Flash, Speedlight 600 EX RT, 1.4 extender, extension tubes and other stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,720 posts
Gallery: 526 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1483
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Apr 12, 2017 19:48 |  #14

Elton Balch wrote in post #18326086 (external link)
For those with lots of time on their hands, here is the "long version". Let me know when your eyes glaze over...

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …asuring_focal_l​ength.html (external link)


Very enlightening link, and my eyes did not glaze over at all, even though it is currently 01:45 BST here (00:45Z).

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
22,787 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 303
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Apr 16, 2017 23:45 |  #15

this would prevent you from buying the lens?


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

12,320 views & 17 likes for this thread
Is 100-400 mk2 a true 400mm?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is highendheadshots
452 guests, 354 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.