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

Archibald wrote in post #17641862
You can push-pull the new model, but you have to grasp it at the end, which is awkward.

For me the moniker "Push-pull" is shorthand for "push-pull while maintaining the perfect balance point". That's not possible with the new lens.

Canon creates it's best action wildlife & BIF camera in the 7D II, then at close to the same time it releases an upgraded 100-400 lens, taking away that which made the original version so fast in the field.

How did this happen? Physics and logic make any argument about the speed & efficiency between the two systems a waste of words. Perhaps Canon's right hand didn't know what the left was doing? Maybe they need better advisers, or the ultimate decision maker needs to be reassigned to the mail room.

Just my humble opinion.

alliben wrote in post #17641963
For me the moniker "Push-pull" is shorthand for "push-pull while maintaining the perfect balance point". That's not possible with the new lens.

Canon creates it's best action wildlife & BIF camera in the 7D II, then at close to the same time it releases an upgraded 100-400 lens, taking away that which made the original version so fast in the field.

How did this happen? Physics and logic make any argument about the speed & efficiency between the two systems a waste of words. Perhaps Canon's right hand didn't know what the left was doing? Maybe they need better advisers, or the ultimate decision maker needs to be reassigned to the mail room.

Just my humble opinion.

Blame those who abused the original 100-400 by calling it a dust pump.

You weren't one of those, were you?

Archibald wrote in post #17641993
Blame those who abused the original 100-400 by calling it a dust pump.

You weren't one of those, were you?

I hope you're kidding, I thought I made my admiration for the lens plain. It's hard to believe that Canon would change the zoom action because a few may have had a bad seal, resulting in some dust. They surely are bright enough to see the fallacy of the dust argument based on zoom action.

The new lens has given me a great many photos sharper than my version 1. The "updated' zoom action has cost me some photos my old version would have delivered, while remaining as dust free as the new.

lol,....You old guys sure are stuck in your ways lol,....Kidding......l​ol ,. I don't think I have any trouble being where I need to be. Mind it can be a long way around,.. but I'm always two steps ahead of the game anyway. I don't like relying on this lens to catch up because its not going to. And on the dust pump thing,..I'm flat out embarrassed at the amount of dust in my very young lens. does it still shoot,...YUP. Does it still work as normal,....At the moment it does, Will I trade it for something that is all internal,...The very second I win the lottery.

I only ever used a friend's borrowed Mk 1. I liked the push/pull zoom for its speed of operation, but I'm pretty comfortable with the new lens operation. Given that there are so few push/pull zoom lens models around, I'm guessing that there are reasons for preferring a rotating zoom construction over push/pull - strength? precision and maintenance of alignment? simplicity of design? cost of manufacture? Anyone with any insight?

But if you like to run and shoot, move fast and stay up with the game,...this is the lens for you

and man this thing can shoot!!

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/vssW​pK

It's a feeder party.

Butterfly

bidkev wrote in post #17642178

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/wft9​8r Longleat1Z0A2055 by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

Kevin, wtf is that?!?

alliben wrote in post #17642079
I hope you're kidding, I thought I made my admiration for the lens plain. It's hard to believe that Canon would change the zoom action because a few may have had a bad seal, resulting in some dust. They surely are bright enough to see the fallacy of the dust argument based on zoom action.

The new lens has given me a great many photos sharper than my version 1. The "updated' zoom action has cost me some photos my old version would have delivered, while remaining as dust free as the new.

Sorry for suggesting you might have maligned the old version. While you and I did not, many others did. I'm sure Canon was aware of the unflattering moniker, and that created a marketing issue. People were basically saying the lens was a dust magnet, and implying that the push-pull was to blame. I'm guessing that might have influenced Canon in the redesign of the zoom mechanism.

John_T wrote in post #17642454
Kevin, wtf is that?!?

I'll play. Marmoset?

interesting creature with the eye's of an Owl

John_T wrote in post #17642454
Kevin, wtf is that?!?

Geoffroy's Marmoset. Identified by the full white face as opposed to the common marmoset that just has white tufts to the side of face.

bidkev wrote in post #17642618
Geoffroy's Marmoset. Identified by the full white face as opposed to the common marmoset that just has white tufts to the side of face.

Ahaa, not Oz native, thought I'd missed something. So cute I could cry.