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

fiveohmike wrote in post #18250395
Well after reading this entire thread, I just lightened my wallet and purchased the 100-400L II. It will be here this evening. Weather looks terrible so I will only be able to play inside, but cant wait to get this out to the zoo or something easy for the first outing. Will compare the images between the 5D Mark IV and 7D Mark II

Also, has everyone been doing any MFA or is the lens pretty close to spot on out of the box?

Don't you just hate bad weather with new gear in hand. I picked up a 5D4 in December when winter hit us hard. It was -40 a week ago and 0 yesterday so I spent 3 hours driving down country roads trying to find an owl or anything flying. Nothing. Just an occasional raven and when you pull over they move away quickly. I hate this time of year

My static tests with my 1.4 III went great. I did get out to the airport the day before just so I could shoot something in the air. It worked very well.

A few more. All about 50% or so crops

Nice shots!

The wait is killing me (if you read my other thread in the camera bodies section, i just repurchased most of me gear after a long court battle due to theft) so will be the first time going out with a DSLR in a couple of years.

fiveohmike wrote in post #18250412
Nice shots!

The wait is killing me (if you read my other thread in the camera bodies section, i just repurchased most of me gear after a long court battle due to theft) so will be the first time going out with a DSLR in a couple of years.

Must be a good feeling. Looking forward to seeing your posts.

fiveohmike wrote in post #18250395
Also, has everyone been doing any MFA or is the lens pretty close to spot on out of the box?

My 100-400mm II needed only a very small adjustment, and from what I have heard, that is common. But MFA is there for variances in bodies and lenses, so every case will be different.

If you plan to use it with a tele extender, definitely do MFA. Mine required something like +13.

I'm not a big supporter of MFA mostly because I don't support correcting Canon's manufacturing glitches. I'll tell you know I don't win the popularity contest for that view. I shoot all Canon so typically the variance is very small. At times not even worth entering. I did have an expensive L lens that needed +15 at the long end. After 2 trips to Canon they found it was mis-calibirated.

My numbers are are below. As you can see with the 1.4 III it needed a lot of correction. I believe Archibald has the same numbers with his same TC. Since it was OK without the TC I really had no choice so I picked up FoCal. Since getting FoCal I did all my lenses. That +13 is pretty much consistent with my 7D2 and my recent 5D3.

In fact FoCal will not play with Mac Sierra right now, only for Nikon. FoCal is waiting for Canon to release whatever is needed to make it work which they say should be this month. So all I did was enter my 5D3 values and it is tack sharp with the 5D4.

digital paradise wrote in post #18250410
A few more. All about 50% or so crops

This is adorable.

CyberCat wrote in post #18250524
This is adorable.

Thanks. We have a bird sanctuary within the city limits. Got the deer shots there on the same day. Summer is full of geese and ducks.

fiveohmike wrote in post #18250395
Well after reading this entire thread, I just lightened my wallet and purchased the 100-400L II. It will be here this evening. Weather looks terrible so I will only be able to play inside, but cant wait to get this out to the zoo or something easy for the first outing. Will compare the images between the 5D Mark IV and 7D Mark II

Also, has everyone been doing any MFA or is the lens pretty close to spot on out of the box?

Congratulations on your new lens. I am sure you will enjoy it immensely. This lens breathed new life into my 7D and with the 7D-II it is amazing.

Mike

digital paradise wrote in post #18250509
I'm not a big supporter of MFA mostly because I don't support correcting Canon's manufacturing glitches.

The thing is: any component (be it electrical, electronic, or mechanical) will have a tolerance range; where any given sample can deviate from "perfect". The smaller the allowable tolerance range, the higher the cost of production - and usually things get really expensive when the required range is low.

Any sample of any DSLR (and any lens) will have some variation, and whether or not MFA is required (and by how much) is purely pot luck; and the combination of a particular lens sample on a particular body sample will be unique to that pairing.

sploo wrote in post #18250687
The thing is: any component (be it electrical, electronic, or mechanical) will have a tolerance range; where any given sample can deviate from "perfect". The smaller the allowable tolerance range, the higher the cost of production - and usually things get really expensive when the required range is low.

Any sample of any DSLR (and any lens) will have some variation, and whether or not MFA is required (and by how much) is purely pot luck; and the combination of a particular lens sample on a particular body sample will be unique to that pairing.

I know about standard deviation. I facilitated statical process control workshops during total quality initiatives at work. Nothing human made is perfect. I still don't support Canon selling me a $2,500 mis-calibrated lens. I spend thousands on Canon gear. I don't recall ever ordering it that way If it is off I don't know what else it is doing incorrectly. Two different Canon USA service techs told MFA is for emergencies only. One encouraged me to send that lens in. I'm not going to worry about a few ticks because of deviation as long as it within their specs but 15 is way too much.

Pondrader wrote in post #18244963
shooting small birds at 1/400 with the 1.4 T-con on the 100-400LII at 560mm can be done by some sometimes but walking around shooting like that you will get motion blur more often than not. I know its a nice small package but your reaching 560mm and shooting at 1/400. Yes we all do it but if your not floating that camera so as to cut down on your shake your gone get just what you see 90% of the time. and only if your IS is working for you. Grab a stick about 6 feet long and try and hold the other end completely still, bet ya can't do it. now think of the 30 foot stick your thinking you can do easily with every shot. big lenses on tripods are completely different animal. yes you can hand hold them both but motion blur is the killer of detail everytime, along with using servo..like we all do. we expect way more from our cameras than ever before and I think the branch has your focus so the birds eye is not as sharp as you would like but his wing and the branch are. That little point your seeing through the viewfinder is indeed way bigger than your thinking. I would have tried to walk the focus up through his head and pulled the trigger as I was leaving the bird completely and maybe 2 or 3 inches above him. which would have left the bottom edge of the focus on the top of his head. I shoot spot 99% of the time.

Yes I agree with your thinking. I don't often shoot from the monopod (usually my 600/4 on a tripod) and I think I've gotten a bit lazy with my technique. Coupling that with an over-reliance on the AF algorithm getting the focus right on what is a small target.

I will bump my shutter speed when shooting from the monopod and with this combo, and will try your focus technique - thanks

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #18245100
I remember a line I heard quoted by Tony Northrup on one of his videos when he was shooting wildlife - and it was, first use the proper SS to get a tack sharp image - and once you know that you have a few good ones in the bag, then you can lower your SS, maybe dramatically in order to get a much lower ISO, but be prepared to take 20,30,50 shots and hope for a sharp one.

When I look at your exposure data (F9, 1/400, ISO 500) what I see is something that is half pregnant - i.e. not a fast enough SS at that FL with that pixel density and that distance on a small detailed object to 90% of the time get it tack sharp, and not a scenario I mentioned above trying for ISO 100/200 and accepting that 1 in 30 might work out. As an example your (F9,1/400, ISO 500) is equivalent to (F8, 1/800, ISO 800) - a SS more closer to getting a much higher hit rate (but still not 90% in my opinion) - or maybe even better for tack sharpness (F8, 1/1250, ISO 1250).

There is no question, once you start shooting with a high megapixel density camera (7D2, 5DSR) the tendency is to crop and pixel peep - but that is when we start to really, really see that things are not as sharp as we thought (unless we really nail it). My guess is really the same as I mentioned above, and it is that it is a combo of a bigger steadier rig, and that with more aperture you are using faster shutter speeds. If you had of showed us a 1/800-1/1250 SS picture that wasn't sharp then maybe there might have been a lens problem - as it is, 1/400 at 560mm on a 7D2 pixel density on a fast moving small bird at distance = not unexpected - but take 30 pictures and you should get a few real keepers.

Thanks. I've managed to get down to 1/320th and 1/400th comfortably with my 600/4 on a tripod, and I think I tried to plant that onto this rig (100-400 II + 1.4x TCIII on monopod) and got caught out.

Each combo no doubt has a different sweet spot and behaves differently. I'm certainly happy with this lens most of the time, it was just this time that I felt it was a bit of a miss at times.

I've been doing this for a year (Birding) with different equipment, you'd think I'd have the hang of it by now LOL.

digital paradise wrote in post #18250706
I know about standard deviation. I facilitated statical process control workshops during total quality initiatives at work. Nothing human made is perfect. I still don't support Canon selling me a $2,500 mis-calibrated lens. I spend thousands on Canon gear. I don't recall ever ordering it that way If it is off I don't know what else it is doing incorrectly. Two different Canon USA service techs told MFA is for emergencies only. One encouraged me to send that lens in. I'm not going to worry about a few ticks because of deviation as long as it within their specs but 15 is way too much.

I'm not trying to be aggressive/provocative​, but surely an understanding of standard deviation and a claim that Canon is selling mis-calibrated gear are mutually exclusive?

If components and products will have some deviation from perfect then it's inevitable that a combination of two samples of gear (whose deviation combines unfavourably) may show a noticeable problem.

The only way to avoid that would be to have all samples rolling off the production line with a maximum deviation small enough that (for all practical purposes) every combination is perfect. But then the costs would go up hugely.

Same here. Just this morning. Good luck!