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

Archibald wrote in post #17387931
Elsewhere on the forum I have read that there is not that much difference between the 1.4X II and III. I have not tried the II myself. The III works great with my 100-400mm II. Here is an example taken with the 100-400mm2 on the 7D2 with the 1.4XIII, hand-held, heavy crop (to 30% of the width).

Hosted photo: posted by Archibald in
./showthread.php?p=173​87931&i=i36450032
forum: Canon Lenses

Same with the moorhen, but about 50% of the width.

Hosted photo: posted by Archibald in
./showthread.php?p=173​87931&i=i2312795
forum: Canon Lenses

Thanks Archie - Your bird picture was taken with the same combination I will hopefully be using.

Yes, 1.4x TC III works just fine, however "User" needs to work at least 1.4x better than average with skills, technique and settings.

Here are a couple of reviews although NOT specifically with the new EF100-400L II:

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/11264​03

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1273027

This link is more objective by using a test chart, although also NOT with EF100-400L II:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …r-EF-1.4x-III-Review.aspx

Note the following comments on the image quality difference between II and III:

Make your decisions accordingly.

I can confirm all that, however I think many don't get to see it because they haven't taken the 1.4 times more care a TC requires to squeeze out the last drop of IQ. Further, a TC multiplies all the characteristics of the lens it's mounted on, so if the lens is not equal to the TC, the TC can be erroneously judged because of the lens, and while we are at it, the same factor applies to the photographer.

Dammit I thought I had no real need for this lens.. but out shooting the other day I realised I'd have loved one. Sigh.

I had been trying to save for the rumoured 11-24 f4 too.

With all of the overcast skies + I have a normal job, I wasn't until a week ago I finally got to really get out n test it out!

Could not be happier!!!!

Having wasted a year of time with that Tamron (which I'll GLADLY let go for cheap, and it was almost tossed in the pond!), this lens actually does what it's told! The IS is unbelievable!!!

Crappy lighting, super windy day, used the 5dmkiii with the 1.4xiii:

IMAGE LINK: http://i1137.photobuck​et.com …QM6A1556b_zps1f​4f48b0.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://i1137.photobuck​et.com …QM6A2017b_zpsae​aa94e7.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://i1137.photobuck​et.com …IMG_2261b_zps8d​d6fcd8.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://i1137.photobuck​et.com …IMG_2700b_zpsc3​11b646.jpg

The hawk shots are stunning, I haven't had the chance to do any BIF but seriously thinking getting the EF1.4X III as well.

The kind of issues you have experienced with the Tamron lens is exactly why I have stayed away from 3rd party lenses, especially when the electronics started to become a major factor with AF and IS.

John_T wrote in post #17389316
I can confirm all that, however I think many don't get to see it because they haven't taken the 1.4 times more care a TC requires to squeeze out the last drop of IQ. Further, a TC multiplies all the characteristics of the lens it's mounted on, so if the lens is not equal to the TC, the TC can be erroneously judged because of the lens, and while we are at it, the same factor applies to the photographer.

Exactly. I have to discard most people's comments based on experience on such matters because people rarely make it clear what their expectations are, and whether or not they can distinguish between operation and optics, and pixel sharpness vs real detail.

All I ever ask of a TC is to spread the subject over more pixels, fully understanding that a 100% pixel view is going to be softer, because it is supposed to be softer, but the benefit is that you may get more realistic detail, as you shrink the size of the pixel-related artifacts, relative to the size of the subject.

Ray.Petri wrote in post #17387882
Hi Guys
Hope to get the 100-400L Mk2 sometime soon.

I have a 1.4X Mk2 extender - can anyone tell if it be ok on the new lens and what the difference is between the Mk2 extender and the later versions of the extender.
I was never very happy with it on the 100-400L Mk1 and have never really used it.

My results with the 1.4x TC MkII are very good. Much better than it was with the original 100-400mm. Superb in fact.

This is not to say that the MkIII ext3ender won't be better. It likely will though I have not had one to test, what I am saying is ANYONE'S results with the 1.4xII TC should be significantly better on the new 100-400mm than it was with the old.
The old lens did not take a TC well at all and I have for years advised against even bothering. With this lens, the opposite is true, and I strongly advise giving this combo a go.

I am just curious: I know that 6D does not autofocus with a lens with max aperture 5.6 and a 1.4x teleconverter. Is it that the firmware in the camera would not do it, or is it just going to be unreliable?

I used a Kenko 1.4x with a Sigma 120-400 f/4-5.6. It does AF at 5.6, but only in bright light. In not so bright light the focus hunts, and sometimes would not focus at all. In dim light - no luck at all. So what is the story with the 6D (or 70D for that matter), and the new 100-400 II plus a Canon 1.4x II?

Lbsimon wrote in post #17390011
I am just curious: I know that 6D does not autofocus with a lens with max aperture 5.6 and a 1.4x teleconverter. Is it that the firmware in the camera would not do it, or is it just going to be unreliable?

I used a Kenko 1.4x with a Sigma 120-400 f/4-5.6. It does AF at 5.6, but only in bright light. In not so bright light the focus hunts, and sometimes would not focus at all. In dim light - no luck at all. So what is the story with the 6D (or 70D for that matter), and the new 100-400 II plus a Canon 1.4x II?

The 6D's center focus point can work with f/8 with a non-reporting or reporting-but-tricky TC like the Kenko Pro 300 DGX. When you are just outside the range the camera is designed for, things like sharpness of the lens wide open, subject illumination and contrast become very important. A weakness in any of those things makes AF slow and dodgy. I have no proof, but I suspect that the quality of bokeh may have something to do with it, too.

I guess I will have to test it myself when I get the lens, closer to spring time - no point in buying it now that the days in Massachusetts are cold and dark. I have both Canon 1.4x II and Kenko 1.4x DGX, so let me see which one will work better (or at all).

I own the older Kenko Pro 300DG 1.4x, and plan to try that with this new lens and my 5D3 after I make my purchase in a month or two. If it doesn't work to my satisfaction, then I will finally invest in a Canon extender.

From today:

IMAGE LINK: http://i1137.photobuck​et.com …6A2385-2b_zps433316c3.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://i1137.photobuck​et.com …QM6A2567b_zpsbf​755dd6.jpg

I will post some of those vignetting issues soon, I have some examples.

Meanwhile, here are some photos from which I am getting sweet results from!

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pVq4​JN

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qRxb​tx

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qRxb​zp

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pUs7​LF

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qyDS​co