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

TheAnalogGuy wrote in post #18891399
Yes, you are right! But then you have to test the lens under different circumstances and find out when and where it doesn’t perform. Right?
And that is what I have done. But the disappointment comes when your precious £1700 lens baby doesn’t meet your expectations. I still have it, but I have to admit that I don’t use it anymore. It is replaced by the EF 70-300L which I find more versatile and useful.

If you find the 70-300L to be better suited for what you want to do, that's great. There's no requirement that the 100-400 II belongs in the arsenal of every photographer. That being said, there's something wrong with either your lens copy or your shooting technique if your 100-400 II isn't performing well in bright light stopped down. Because this thread is full of fantastic images of all kinds - planes, cars, birds people, etc. etc. in bright sunlight and I don't see halos around any of them.

TheAnalogGuy wrote in post #18891355
I have also discussed this lens with professional photographers who have used it, and they confirm my claim: In bright sunlight at small apertures the lens will not perform at its best!

I don't like doing this, but I'm going to essentially agree with you. I'm not real happy with airplane images taken at a small aperture. Diffraction is an issue. If you take a look at the planes I posted a couple of pages ago, you'll see that they are in bright sunlight, 1/160th shutter speed, ISO around 100, and just f/7.1 or f/8. The "miracle" it takes to accomplish this is nothing more than a good 3-stop neutral density filter. Mine is a B&W that I got several years ago for about $100. Without the ND filter, the f-stop would have been around f/20 and the photos would not have been as good.

That said, the 100-400 II is an amazing lens. I used to shoot with a 300 2.8 II, but after getting the 100-400 II (and using it properly) the 300 just ended up gathering dust in my closet. I sold it about 3 years ago.

LJ3Jim wrote in post #18891502
I don't like doing this, but I'm going to essentially agree with you. I'm not real happy with airplane images taken at a small aperture. Diffraction is an issue. If you take a look at the planes I posted a couple of pages ago, you'll see that they are in bright sunlight, 1/160th shutter speed, ISO around 100, and just f/7.1 or f/8. The "miracle" it takes to accomplish this is nothing more than a good 3-stop neutral density filter. Mine is a B&W that I got several years ago for about $100. Without the ND filter, the f-stop would have been around f/20 and the photos would not have been as good.

That said, the 100-400 II is an amazing lens. I used to shoot with a 300 2.8 II, but after getting the 100-400 II (and using it properly) the 300 just ended up gathering dust in my closet. I sold it about 3 years ago.

Isn't diffraction more a function of sensor size than the lens itself?

LJ3Jim wrote in post #18891502
I don't like doing this, but I'm going to essentially agree with you. I'm not real happy with airplane images taken at a small aperture. Diffraction is an issue. If you take a look at the planes I posted a couple of pages ago, you'll see that they are in bright sunlight, 1/160th shutter speed, ISO around 100, and just f/7.1 or f/8. The "miracle" it takes to accomplish this is nothing more than a good 3-stop neutral density filter. Mine is a B&W that I got several years ago for about $100. Without the ND filter, the f-stop would have been around f/20 and the photos would not have been as good.

That said, the 100-400 II is an amazing lens. I used to shoot with a 300 2.8 II, but after getting the 100-400 II (and using it properly) the 300 just ended up gathering dust in my closet. I sold it about 3 years ago.

Thats a photographer that knows his equipment and understands the multiple ways to accomplish his/her task! there are a lot of lenses that don't like to be stopped down, but thats why they make filters!!!

mike_d wrote in post #18891507
Isn't diffraction more a function of sensor size than the lens itself?

I believe the physics of diffraction is due to the lens itself (light going through a small hole). But it makes sense that it would be more of an issue on denser sensors. Here's one explanation:

https://www.kenrockwel​l.com/tech/diffraction​.htm

lijoec wrote in post #18891513
Thats a photographer that knows his equipment and understands the multiple ways to accomplish his/her task! there are a lot of lenses that don't like to be stopped down, but thats why they make filters!!!

Thank you. I've learned so much from these forums over the past 7 years! It's nice to be able to give back once in a while.

It's a combination of the diffraction due to the smaller aperture, in combination with the size of the pixel on the sensor relative to the Airy disk produced by the aperture.

That being said, even for a small pixel size sensor like in a 7D2, the onset of diffraction effects should be well past F/11. Moreover, I don't see the difference between a 70-300L and a 100-400L II to be significant as far as the effect of a diffraction limited aperture is concerned.

If at 100 ISO and F/11, a shutter speed of 1/8000 is still too slow, then yes, get an ND filter!

Scrumhalf wrote in post #18891541
If at 100 ISO and F/11, a shutter speed of 1/8000 is still too slow, then yes, get an ND filter!

For propeller airplanes, 1/160th is needed to get appropriate prop blur. For helicopters, it's even worse (1/40th). Thus the ND filter on bright days...

LJ3Jim wrote in post #18891555
For propeller airplanes, 1/160th is needed to get appropriate prop blur. For helicopters, it's even worse (1/40th). Thus the ND filter on bright days...

Ah, good point! I only shoot flying objects of the feathered variety! Definitely an ND filter then!

LJ3Jim wrote in post #18891555
For propeller airplanes, 1/160th is needed to get appropriate prop blur. For helicopters, it's even worse (1/40th). Thus the ND filter on bright days...

Ooh, 1/40th on a 400mm lens could be "interesting". Challenge accepted. Lol

LJ3Jim wrote in post #18891520
Thank you. I've learned so much from these forums over the past 7 years! It's nice to be able to give back once in a while.

I have learned from just browsing and looking at others photos in these forums about what to expect from equipment or not. I kept thinking I needed new gear when it was me all along. Once I figured out I had to learn I began to realize my equipment was quite good!

mat vanella wrote in post #18891560
Ooh, 1/40th on a 400mm lens could be "interesting". Challenge accepted. Lol

better practice your panning and don't ware out that IS

mat vanella wrote in post #18891560
Ooh, 1/40th on a 400mm lens could be "interesting". Challenge accepted. Lol

The 14 fps of the 1DX2 helps me get a sharp shot now and then. Yield is very low.

I never thought of using a 3 stop filter like that. That’ll come in handy for an air show I want to shoot in September.

mat vanella wrote in post #18891560
Ooh, 1/40th on a 400mm lens could be "interesting". Challenge accepted. Lol

Luckily the helicopters tend to hover for a while, giving more time to get a good shot. But yeah, the hit rate at the shutter speed isn't great hand held, even with good IS.