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

Thanks for all the thoughts on attaching the Black Rapid strap. I guess I was hoping for someone to point me to a BR engineered solution.

I will stick to using the tripod foot on the lens as this has worked well for me with the 300 f4 for several years.

Box Brownie wrote in post #17532447
Nice moonshot

Only used mine on an outing yesterday and have yet upload them......soon!

A quick question to other users? I had the mkI and was used to the smooth/tight ring having a lot more rotation than on this new one. It seems to be approx a quarter turn.....is yours the same?

The other thing I noticed was in the zoom rotation was a very slight difference in feel & sound of zooming, in that there is as it zooms there is a vaguely audible noise like rubbing and possibly my imagination that the zoom feels less smooth during that part of the rotation. This was I am sure with tensioning ring at the most smooth end? Any thoughts and feedback would be welcome

New owner of this lens. Just gave it a quick test and inspection and all pretty much looks good so far. I do also hear a vaguely audible noise when zooming however. The lens still zooms smoothly, albeit with a minor rubbing like sound. Does this seem quite normal?

Very Normal,...they all sound like that. this lens has bearing roller's

Pondrader wrote in post #17625049
Very Normal,...they all sound like that. this lens has bearing roller's

Appreciate the confirmation, thank you.

I'm looking into getting a 1.4x for this lens on my 6D. Would anyone recommend either 1.4x II or III or perhaps a Kenko one? I realize AF isn't supposed to work, but taped they should all AF?

Jan Jasinski wrote in post #17625090
I'm looking into getting a 1.4x for this lens on my 6D. Would anyone recommend either 1.4x II or III or perhaps a Kenko one? I realize AF isn't supposed to work, but taped they should all AF?

I currently have a Kenko 1.4x TC that I've owned for many years. It works quite well with the 100-400L II, but I am using it with a 5D3 and 7D2 -- both of which still auto focus with the TC. I have been contemplating buying a Canon 1.4 III, but am not sure if it will offer enough improvement to justify the cost.

Here is a shot with the 5D3, 100-400L II and Kenko TC, handheld and cropped further in LR. I did not own the 7D2 yet when I took this shot.

Thanks! Which version of the Kenko are you using? I assume it is black coloured also!

I have the discontinued Kenko Teleplus Pro 300DG 1.4x, which is indeed black. The current version is the Teleplus Pro 300DGX.

Alright thanks! I may look into the Canon II version though as the price is basically the same here for one.

hi i have both the canon 1.4 11 and the 1.4 111 and will be selling the 11 as the 111 is significantly better on both the 100- 400 v1 and the v11 but that may just be an individual extender thing - others dont see as much difference i believe
cheers rob

patrol50 wrote in post #17625425
hi i have both the canon 1.4 11 and the 1.4 111 and will be selling the 11 as the 111 is significantly better on both the 100- 400 v1 and the v11 but that may just be an individual extender thing - others dont see as much difference i believe
cheers rob

What aspects do you find to be significantly better between the 1.4 III and 1.4 II? Sharpness, bokeh, auto focus performance, etc.? I have about $250 in Amazon credits that I am considering applying to a 1.4 III purchase, but I've read various others state the differences between the III and II are not very apparent unless you have one of the new super telephoto primes.

I would be using this mostly on the 7D2 with the 100-400L II, with some occasional use on a 5D3. It may also get used occasionally with my 70-200 f/4 IS and 135L. The Kenko I own is very close in performance to the Canon 1.4 II.

just in the sharpness and just a crisper cleaner photo taken by the 111 compared to the 11 to my eyes - not really any noticebale difference in af or bokeh or maybe just a touch with the bokeh - i have often read where others say that about the 2 x 111 compared to the 11 but seems less prevalent with the 1.4 but it certainly is evident with mine
cheers rob

I've also read comments about less CA

smythie wrote in post #17626142
I've also read comments about less CA

Funny you say that. I noticed CA with my Canon 1.4 II. When I researched the 1.4 III Photozone actually mentions less CA as compared to II.

For the sports photographers, how does the IQ of the 100-400mm compare with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II? I'm finding I'm using more of the 200mm end on a 5DMII and could use more length in shooting basketball and golf. I tried the Canon 1.4X and 2X III extenders and did not like the drop off in IQ.