canon 100-400mm ii replaces 100mm macro?

Ken Rockwell says the 100mm f2.8 Macro is redundant and inferior to the new 100-400mm ii. True?


http://www.kenrockwell​.com/canon/lenses/100-400mm-ii.htm

This doesn't even deserve a response, because of he who shall not be named' and his blog.'

But...

The answer is unequivocally NO.

Very best,

On the sample pictures forum you can see some impressive close-up type pictures taken with the new 100-400 but no way are they true macro shots.

Oh and you will rarely find anyone here who agrees with the reviews and blog you referenced!

That's interesting, I just bought a lens based on review from that blog, but i did not agree with the assessment and returned it.

He has been accused of being the "Chuck Norris" of photography.
I would let that ride if he was in some way athletic or super human,


IMHO he is more the "Donald Trump" of photography.

texshooter wrote in post #17662483
Ken Rockwell says the 100mm f2.8 Macro is redundant and inferior to the new 100-400mm ii. True?


http://www.kenrockwell​.com/canon/lenses/100-400mm-ii.htm

I reread Rockwell's review and conclude that you are wrong in your assertion. He never said what you claim. In fact, the words "redundant" and "inferior" do not appear anywhere in his review.

IMO, his review of the new 100-400 is fine.

As Usual- Ken is full of concentrated Horse Dunk. Lets see him break out that 100-400 in a crowded dressing room and/or reception area at 6400-12800 ISO at F/5.6 and stand back 10FT t get the ring shots- What a Moron.

100-400ii + 1.4x v3 + 25mm ET. Works for me:

100% zoom:

umphotography wrote in post #17663019
As Usual- Ken is full of concentrated Horse Dunk

No he isn't, the OP is.

Well its not a bad closeup, but it hardly comes close to macro. I'm not sure what reproduction ratio you have achived at a guess I would think about 1:3 based on the full frame image. Since by definition Macro refers to images that are at least 1:1 magnification at the sensor that's quite a way off. Unfortunatly macro is one of the most abused words in photography. It almost seems as if some lens manufacturers are willing to add Macro to a lens name if it will manage about 1:5 magnification at MFD.

Alan

texshooter wrote in post #17662483
Ken Rockwell says the 100mm f2.8 Macro is redundant and inferior to the new 100-400mm ii. True?


http://www.kenrockwell​.com/canon/lenses/100-400mm-ii.htm

Where does he say that? Not in the post you linked.

umphotography wrote in post #17663019
As Usual- Ken is full of concentrated Horse Dunk. Lets see him break out that 100-400 in a crowded dressing room and/or reception area at 6400-12800 ISO at F/5.6 and stand back 10FT t get the ring shots- What a Moron.

Wha...?? The 100-400L II is just as capable of shooting at 100mm as any 100mm macro lens. The macro at f/2.8 is going to have incredibly thin DOF. I don't do weddings, but I am sure f/2.8 of rings is not a good idea. The 3' MFD may be an issue, but that is what 400mm is for. Perhaps KR is only an imbecile, not a moron.

While he doesn't say redundant, he does say that because of the focusing distance, the new 100-400 replaces both his macro and 70-200. The OP's paraphrasing is acceptable.

BigAl007 wrote in post #17663308
Well its not a bad closeup, but it hardly comes close to macro. I'm not sure what reproduction ratio you have achived at a guess I would think about 1:3 based on the full frame image. Since by definition Macro refers to images that are at least 1:1 magnification at the sensor that's quite a way off. Unfortunatly macro is one of the most abused words in photography. It almost seems as if some lens manufacturers are willing to add Macro to a lens name if it will manage about 1:5 magnification at MFD.

Alan

Yep, I used to have a Sigma 17-70 OS, and it was marketed (and labeled) as a 1:2.7 "macro".

If you call 1:3 macro, you're not shooting macro.