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

MatthewK wrote in post #18277029
I've missed posting in this thread, so it's good to be legit again.

I'm now seriously considering selling my 100L now, as the 100-400 + 1.4x can do some awesome up-close work. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 135L. What say you all?

I have a friend that has gone through so many camera's and lenses this last year.. I believe he's lost $12,000,.. if you don't have to sell hang on to everything.

Elton Balch wrote in post #18277024
I'll make sure not to hit the scotch when I'm lens shopping!

It only took 1 finger of Monkey Shoulder Batch 27, and I slipped and hit the Buy button. I'm a light weight

MatthewK wrote in post #18277029
I've missed posting in this thread, so it's good to be legit again.

I'm now seriously considering selling my 100L now, as the 100-400 + 1.4x can do some awesome up-close work. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 135L. What say you all?

I don't have a 100L but I do have the Canon 100mm, I love it and I think it still will always have a place in my bag.
My 100-400mm IS L II is a really, REALLY good close-up lens, but it's not a macro at all. (I know you know, but I just have to clarify to anyone reading) I took a shot yesterday of a small butterfly that was 20 feet away and also another one that was right at 30 feet away, I was really amazed at the quality it has. I was only playing around but I was still impressed, I only opened the images up in my FastStone Image Viewer but still, it looked really impressive.
I have tried the same with my Tamron 100-600mm, that was some really, REALLY bad crap from that. heheh
My Canon 400mm 2.8 does a really nice job at close-up shooting like that, but it's no match for the 100-400mmL II, matter of fact I think I have hung the 2.8 up for good.

I also took a shot of a Green Bottle Fly about 25 feet away and I could see details in its eyes but not the separate eyes within the eye, almost though.

I'm going to do a LOT of close-up photography with my new 100-400mmL II lens, but it won't replace my macro.

Randy

I want to also say that I have used it as a close-up just by itself, not a long range close-up as I was talking about, I just mean it does well on both ends.

Randy

recrisp wrote in post #18277036
I don't have a 100L but I do have the Canon 100mm, I love it and I think it still will always have a place in my bag.
My 100-400mm IS L II is a really, REALLY good close-up lens, but it's not a macro at all. (I know you know, but I just have to clarify to anyone reading) I took a shot yesterday of a small butterfly that was 20 feet away and also another one that was right at 30 feet away, I was really amazed at the quality it has. I was only playing around but I was still impressed, I only opened the images up in my FastStone Image Viewer but still, it looked really impressive.
I have tried the same with my Tamron 100-600mm, that was some really, REALLY bad crap from that. heheh
My Canon 400mm 2.8 does a really nice job at close-up shooting like that, but it's no match for the 100-400mmL II, matter of fact I think I have hung the 2.8 up for good.

I also took a shot of a Green Bottle Fly about 25 feet away and I could see details in its eyes but not the separate eyes within the eye, almost though.

I'm going to do a LOT of close-up photography with my new 100-400mmL II lens, but it won't replace my macro.

Randy

The super-close MFD of the 100-400 II is what does it. It's crazy how versatile this lens is, which is why I've decided to let it back in. But, the 100L is probably the most versatile prime, so it's tough to part with. More than likely I'll keeping it.

MatthewK wrote in post #18277008
ALERT!!! Refurbished 100-400 II's on sale RIGHT NOW at Canon Store.

I'm 2 seconds from checking out.

EDIT: aaannnnnnd I jumped on it. Stupid Scotch made me do it. Oh well, 100-400 and 400 DO can peacefully coexist.

Great deal but since Canon charges me sales tax (9.6%), I always have to factor that in. Last week I got a deal from Canonpricewatch.com for the 100-400mm II and another lens, with the current rebates, I only ended up paying about $50 more than I would have with this deal.

Mine arrives Monday, can't wait!

MatthewK wrote in post #18277044
The super-close MFD of the 100-400 II is what does it. It's crazy how versatile this lens is, which is why I've decided to let it back in. But, the 100L is probably the most versatile prime, so it's tough to part with. More than likely I'll keeping it.

At least give it a few months, your 100L, I mean.

Randy

LoneRider wrote in post #18277063
Great deal but since Canon charges me sales tax (9.6%), I always have to factor that in. Last week I got a deal from Canonpricewatch.com for the 100-400mm II and another lens, with the current rebates, I only ended up paying about $50 more than I would have with this deal.

Mine arrives Monday, can't wait!

Nice find, man!!! What other lens did you go with?

Yeah, the sales tax dampens the fun.

recrisp wrote in post #18277078
At least give it a few months, your 100L, I mean.

Randy

Absolutely. The 100L is one of my favorite lenses, it won't be easy to part with.

MatthewK wrote in post #18277084
Nice find, man!!! What other lens did you go with?

Yeah, the sales tax dampens the fun.

The 100-400mm II and the 100mm 2.8L Macro for $2640 before the $200 rebate so $2440 after rebate.

Canon has this refurbished lens in stock for $1,583.28 now. All of their refurbished sales are 10% off this weekend.

bjbsav wrote in post #18277156
Canon has this refurbished lens in stock for $1,583.28 now. All of their refurbished sales are 10% off this weekend.

Which made it too good to pass up!

MatthewK wrote in post #18277029
I've missed posting in this thread, so it's good to be legit again.

I'm now seriously considering selling my 100L now, as the 100-400 + 1.4x can do some awesome up-close work. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 135L. What say you all?

I still use my 100L macro even though the 100-400 works for some things. I doubt I'll sell it until I am too old to hold a DSLR.

Now a question for you..... you have the 70-200 f/2.8 ll and the 135. Why do you keep both?

Start of baseball season.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/SeWo​8M

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/SeWk​Ek

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/SeWi​Rv

MatthewK wrote in post #18277029
I've missed posting in this thread, so it's good to be legit again.

I'm now seriously considering selling my 100L now, as the 100-400 + 1.4x can do some awesome up-close work. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 135L. What say you all?

Don't do it! The 100-400 can do some great close-up work but it's still not a macro lens. Remember that f2.8 will come in handy as well.