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

Pondrader wrote in post #17798453
little tid bit... the 100-400LII drives at least 50% slower on the 7D than on the 7DII, its not the snappy instantaneous focus I'm use to on the 7DII

Can anyone add their comments about this?

I was thinking of getting this lens before upgrading my 7D... But maybe that's not such a good idea...

primeone wrote in post #17798885
Can anyone add their comments about this?

I was thinking of getting this lens before upgrading my 7D... But maybe that's not such a good idea...

Somewhere in this thread I believe it has been mentioned that the 7D2 drives AF faster. Specifically a quote from Chuck Westfall.


http://www.the-digital-picture.com …5D-III-AF-Comparison.aspx

.....However, when all else is equal, the EOS-1D X and EOS 7D Mark II are capable of driving EF super-telephoto lenses faster than the EOS 5D Mark III, specifically during the first second of lens drive. This is due to differences in the circuitry of the camera body and these select lenses

Choderboy wrote in post #17798956
.....However, when all else is equal, the EOS-1D X and EOS 7D Mark II are capable of driving EF super-telephoto lenses faster than the EOS 5D Mark III, specifically during the first second of lens drive.

I thought that that was limited to "big whites". If so, this is the first I've seen the 100-400LII considered one, as opposed to a L tele-zoom.

primeone wrote in post #17798969
I thought that that was limited to "big whites". If so, this is the first I've seen the 100-400LII considered one, as opposed to a L tele-zoom.

I believe the quote above (and below) pre dates the 100-400 II release.

The list of current EF super-telephoto lenses capable of enhanced drive speed with the EOS-1D X includes EF200mm f/2L IS USM, EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM, EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM, EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM, EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM, EF400mm f/4 DO IS USM, EF400mm f/4 DO IS II USM, EF500mm f/4L IS USM, EF500mm f/4L IS II USM, EF600mm f/4L IS USM, EF600mm f/4L IS II USM and EF800mm f/5.6L IS USM. Drive speed for other current EF lenses is the same for all three cameras (EOS-­1D X, EOS 5D Mark III and EOS 7D Mark II).

Also stated:

AF Speed
There are two distinct aspects to AF Speed that need to be compared individually: AF calculation vs. lens drive speed. Both of these parameters have a bearing on total system speed.

Maybe it is not driving faster but is calculating faster

Actually, the question is whether people who have both the 7D and the 7DII feel that there is a difference.

You've found the explanation for the phenomenon... We don't know if it exists

primeone wrote in post #17798983
Actually, the question is whether people who have both the 7D and the 7DII feel that there is a difference.

You've found the explanation for the phenomenon... We don't know if it exists

Very interesting. I must stick mine on my better half's 7D and compare it to my 1dIV. I for one would be interested in thoughts on the AF speed of the 7D II Vs the 1d IV if anyone has thoughts (Jake?).

All my lenses were a tad slower on the 7D but there is no reason why anyone can't do well with this lens on a 7D. Just need to be a little more patient.

Pondrader wrote in post #17798787
I wanted a 100-400L f4

Im feelin for ya Dave. I just don't use mine the way I have used others i the past. the foot I mean

Trying out a Sigma 150-600 S. Not expecting any problems with the foot on that.

Now that's a foot! Pretty sure the lens plate will stay attached.

Choderboy wrote in post #17799026
Trying out a Sigma 150-600 S. Not expecting any problems with the foot on that.

Now that's a foot! Pretty sure the lens plate will stay attached.

It should. My RRS plate is attached to my 100-400 foot with one screw.

I didn't say panic, Some of us have both and use both from time to time. It was just an observation I made using the 100-400LII on the 7D yesterday. Your 7D will still drive your other lenses and this one just as it has in the past. but it won't match the drive speed of the 7DII of which I am very use to

I'm not panicking, I'm considering my upgrade path

Archibald wrote in post #17798766
Agreed. What we really need is an EF-S 400 f/4.

We already have it. And it happens to be a DO lens.
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …b002_ef_400mm_f​_4_do.html

I do not believe that being a DO makes it more expensive than it would be if it weren't a DO.
In other words, I think a "regular" 400mm f4 with IS would cost right around $7,000, just like the 400 f4 DO does.
On these forums, many folks severely underestimate what hypothetical lenses would cost, if Canon were to make them.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17799924
We already have it. And it happens to be a DO lens.
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …b002_ef_400mm_f​_4_do.html

I do not believe that being a DO makes it more expensive than it would be if it weren't a DO.
In other words, I think a "regular" 400mm f4 with IS would cost right around $7,000, just like the 400 f4 DO does.
On these forums, many folks severely underestimate what hypothetical lenses would cost, if Canon were to make them.

That's an EF lens.

Archibald wrote in post #17799930
That's an EF lens.

Whoops! I should have read his post more carefully; I missed the "EF-S" part.
Would having a 400mm made for 1.6 crop sensors really save any appreciable size or weight? I thought those advantages were pretty much negated with the longer focal lengths.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17798735
I'm not sure why you seem to want a prime 400 f5.6 IS so badly. The new 100-400mm offers everything that a 400 prime IS would offer, but it also has the ability to do 100mm thru 399mm. It's not as if AF would be any faster or more accurate if it were a straight 400 instead of being a zoom.

In other words, I agree with the replies by Jeff and 2loose (quoted below).

I just like what I like. I've been shooting long primes ever since getting into photography back in 2008. The zoom will take some getting used to as I found out when I had a loaner. The zoom seemed a bit odd in its placement, but I can adjust. I can see me with the 100-400 II.