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

So for the past week I was in the Virgin Islands on travel. Aside from a handful of landscapes (16-35 f/4) and at the wedding we attended (50L), I used the 100-400 + 1.4III a majority of the time. Every morning I went out and photographed birds, took the lens on a hike in the National Park on St. Johns (HIGHLY recommended if you visit), and it went to the beach with me a few times. The lens easily handled the birds and wildlife, but also some product shots for the wife's apparel business and portraits of said wife. That being said, it came with a price: the weight and bulk. While it's not unmanageable, it gets heavy. If it weren't for the fact I wanted to shoot birds, I wouldn't have brought it. I'm glad I endured the heft though because it really delivered some awesome results. In the future, I could see traveling with just the 100-400 and 16-35 f/4.

I used the ThinkTank Turnstyle 20 for general walk around. Was able to carry the 100-400, 1.4x, and 5D4 w/ 16-35f4 attached. That was about the limit for that bag. ThinkTank Airport Essentials was my carry-on/carry-all: AWESOME bag for travel.

View_Finder wrote in post #18384805
Ok so I've been following this thread for quite some time now...trying to convince myself that I don't "need" another lens. But I broke down and bought one last week. Now I can understand why so many of you seem to love this lens!

A quick couple test shots. As for BIF's, it is definitely a LOT easier than using the 500mm prime. Not sure if the near-instantaneous focus acquisition is due to the 7DII and/or this lens (previously used the 50D for such images). Looking forward to trying it out on the 5DIV.

Welcome to the club! Great lens, right? You'll find here shortly that it's the only lens you use anymore

nardes wrote in post #18384861
Canon 100-400mm Mk II comparison; native 400mm fl vs 560mm with Canon Extender EF 1.4 II

As you demonstrate, the 100-400II + 1.4x are like peanut butter and jelly.

Thanks, Matthew!
I've tended to leave my 500mm at home for non-photo-specific trips because of the bulk. It will be nice to have a lens to be able to take virtually anywhere with this kind of performance.

Looking forward to seeing how the IQ looks with the 2xIII!

Let us know how that goes! I haven't tried the 2x on the 100-400 yet, not sure how I'd get along with not having AF.

Thank you for posting this comparison. I have been thinking about getting the extender.

little canon wrote in post #18385368
Thank you for posting this comparison. I have been thinking about getting the extender.

I should have added that apart from a little Levels adjustment, these are Raw shots straight out of the camera, cropped and saved as jpgs.

Cheers

Dennis

Thing is though that the mark III version of the 1.4x is a mile better than the mark II.

Cheers.

RAW-Shooter wrote in post #18385549
Thing is though that the mark III version of the 1.4x is a mile better than the mark II.

Cheers.

More detail?

The V2 is a little sharper in the centre. The V3 is sharper in the middle and edges and has a little less CA. The differences are very small. Where is the mile you speak of?

First sightings of the new hummers.

GAJoe wrote in post #18385712
First sightings of the new hummers.

Hosted photo: posted by GAJoe in
./showthread.php?p=183​85712&i=i205941707
forum: Canon Lenses

See ones tongue

Hosted photo: posted by GAJoe in
./showthread.php?p=183​85712&i=i107754504
forum: Canon Lenses

Keep em coming!!

The 1.4x Mk3 has been designed specifically for the 2nd generation (Mk2) lenses and that shows. At least with my camera+lens it does.

Cheers

RAW-Shooter wrote in post #18385964
The 1.4x Mk3 has been designed specifically for the 2nd generation (Mk2) lenses and that shows. At least with my camera+lens it does.

Cheers

How can your camera and lens show that the 1.4X III was designed for 2nd generation lenses?

Good grief....

Cheers

Archibald wrote in post #18385968
How can your camera and lens show that the 1.4X III was designed for 2nd generation lenses?

I took his statement to mean that he could see the IQ difference between a TC II and a TC III on a v2 lens.

Personal experience: I used to use a Canon 1.4x II on the 7D2 with the 100-400 II, and was not happy with the IQ at the long end. No amount of AF MA helped, I used both DotTune and FoCal. Somebody (a professional photographer) recommended me to upgrade to the III. I did, and the IQ improved. Not by a mile but enough to notice. The 1.4x II went to my wife to shoot with the 6D and 70-200 f/4 IS, and it looks great.

Not related, but still: I now use the 1.4x III with the 5D4, and that I love it!

RAW-Shooter wrote in post #18386020
Good grief....

Cheers

You said the V3 is "a mile better" than the V2. You have to expect some feedback as this is way beyond the experience of others and also contradicts review sites. I use the V2 more often than the V3 as it's usually on a 7D2 and since the V2 is sharper in the centre I think that's a logical choice.

Regarding the "designed specifically for MK2 lenses" I don't believe Canon has ever made that claim. Their complete statement was "MK2 Super Teles". The 100-400II is not a Super Tele. Now, when they made that statement, the 100-400II had not been released. Some time later the 80D was released which does have an advantage with the 100-400II combined with a V3 TC: 27 AF points at f8 (and also with the 200-400 zoom).

There have been many reports both here on POTN and other sites of improved AF performance with V3 TCs and Super Teles with the latest bodies.

I'm being pedantic here, but why not? I have both V2 and V3 TCs and know I can't tell, even by pixel peeping, which was used by the results I get and I also know I can't detect any difference in AF performance between the two.

I can, when checking shots taken at the same time of the same subject, identify which was taken with my Canon V3 2xTC and which was with my Sigma APO 2X TC. That's because the Sigma results are better. Not by a mile, but by a slight amount. Obviously the Sigma was not designed specifically for any of the four Canon lenses I tested with, including the 100-400II.