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

LV Moose wrote in post #18566303
Just received this lens a few days ago. I'm loving it. Much nicer than the Tamron 150-600

Hosted photo: posted by LV Moose in
./showthread.php?p=185​66303&i=i187381955
forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive

Hosted photo: posted by LV Moose in
./showthread.php?p=185​66303&i=i124603836
forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive

The hummingbird shot is an absolute stunner

LV Moose wrote in post #18566303
Just received this lens a few days ago. I'm loving it. Much nicer than the Tamron 150-600

I wish I hadn't read that. I have been resisting it for the longest time, given that I already have the version 1, and the Tamron 150-600.

Sibil wrote in post #18566604
I wish I hadn't read that. I have been resisting it for the longest time, given that I already have the version 1, and the Tamron 150-600.

Having owned a Canon 400/5.6, Tamron 150-600 (1st version), Sigma 150-600 Sports and now the 100-400 II, the 100-400 II is without doubt the best lens in that category, by far. Tamron was the worst, Sigma was good from 150-400mm but it's a big lens and is front heavy when extended, and the Canon is super sharp, very light but no IS really hurts it.

That said, the 100-400II is crazy sharp for a zoom, very fast AF, 4 stops of IS, is quite light and small and best of all, plays very, very nicely with a 1.4x extender, so you can get up to 560mm f8 and it still focuses sharp and quick.

Vladdo wrote in post #18567023
...and best of all, plays very, very nicely with a 1.4x extender, so you can get up to 560mm f8 and it still focuses sharp and quick.

Probably depends on the extender. I may try the Canon 1.4X mk III down the road, but with the Kenko pro 300 DG 1.4X, it cost contrast, added CA, and wasn't as sharp as the naked lens cropped to the same field of view. I'm sure the Canon yields better results.

You can't really compare the same focal length with and without an extender. Of course, you're always going to lose light and AF speed. But for those moments when you do need that extra bit of reach, a high quality extender is much better than no extender at all. At some point I had a couple of Kenko extenders and they don't compare at all to the Canon versions. I've also had a 2x Sigma extender which was complete and utter rubbish. You're also short changing yourself if you go to all the expense of buying an expensive body and lens combo only to cheap out on an extender.

I used to hate extenders. However, I've recently bought a 500/4 and use a 2x extender on that, and a 1.4x extender on my 100-400 and it makes for a killer airshow kit.

Vladdo wrote in post #18567051
You're also short changing yourself if you go to all the expense of buying an expensive body and lens combo only to cheap out on an extender.

Agreed. I've had the Kenko for several years; I didn't buy it to go with this lens. Using a poor quality extender is like using poor quality filters. My point was, as far as playing well with extenders, it depends on the extender. I've heard nothing but good things about the Canon mk III.

Goldfinch having lunch

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/24qC​U9Y

First non-hummer bird shots with this lens. Kinda short to be a birding lens on a full-frame, except for maybe back-yard stuff.

Dark-eyed Junkos, I think.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GrAu​bE

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/21Ph​YkC

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/24vp​eRS

Ok. Sorry to post again so soon, but this lens continues to slay me. Here's an F-16 I shot today, and an extreme crop (rotated so it's easier to read) showing the maintenance crew's names on the panel just behind the air intake:
SrA Jesus Abejar and A1C Aaron Stevens. That's just crazy to me.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Gtf9​dm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/23eP​1iP

Putter

Canon EOS 7D MkII + EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM @ 100mm F/11

Sibil wrote in post #18566604
I wish I hadn't read that. I have been resisting it for the longest time, given that I already have the version 1, and the Tamron 150-600.

I had the Tamron, it's fine for perched/predictable situations, especially moonrises/long distance landscape compression.... but, I found the IS to be rather unpredictable, had the firmware updated, not much change. I then found out that somehow it would do better with the IS off, but I prefer IS on while trying to get BIF, so I sold it and went to the 100-400 II, which, is insanely sharp and pairs excellently on a crop sensor if you need extra reach.

Vladdo wrote in post #18567023
Having owned a Canon 400/5.6, Tamron 150-600 (1st version), Sigma 150-600 Sports and now the 100-400 II, the 100-400 II is without doubt the best lens in that category, by far. Tamron was the worst, Sigma was good from 150-400mm but it's a big lens and is front heavy when extended, and the Canon is super sharp, very light but no IS really hurts it.

That said, the 100-400II is crazy sharp for a zoom, very fast AF, 4 stops of IS, is quite light and small and best of all, plays very, very nicely with a 1.4x extender, so you can get up to 560mm f8 and it still focuses sharp and quick.

I rented an older sigma I think 150-500, same thing, with the front heavy issue, only worked good if you were shooting from the car where you can rest it on the door frame. Oddly, it actually did better than the Tamron on those hell mary shots, but ultimatly, the 100-400 II is just well engineered. At this point I've learned to trust Canon, and there just are no shortcuts sadly.

100-400 II will work great on crop/full frame.

If ya wanna go full frame, then ya really need a 500-600 F4 as I did try a full frame 5div+1.4xIII for BIF for over year / 72,000 shots, and sadly, F8 just doens't cut it in most cases where backround / composition count. Yes, I did nail a few lucky ones here n there, but I'm doing much better having gone back to a 70d and bare lens combo. Cannot wait for Canon to get us a 7dIII!!!!!

I...see...you....

Northern harrier at Shoreline Park, Mountain View, CA.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/25cZ​5DW