I am thinking of getting the Canon 100-400 mk2 but have read on several sites that is more like 370mm at the long end ..can anyone who owns the lens confirm if this is true or not..
Many thanks..
don1163 Goldmember  More info | Apr 10, 2017 11:26 | #1 I am thinking of getting the Canon 100-400 mk2 but have read on several sites that is more like 370mm at the long end ..can anyone who owns the lens confirm if this is true or not.. 1DX, 500L f4, 70-200L f2.8II, 100L f2.8 macro ,16-35 f4, 1.4xIII, Metz 64-AF1
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 10, 2017 13:09 | #2 don1163 wrote in post #18324253  I am thinking of getting the Canon 100-400 mk2 but have read on several sites that is more like 370mm at the long end ..can anyone who owns the lens confirm if this is true or not.. Many thanks.. Here is a quote from the digital picture review of this lens which may answer your question. It's close enough for me Elton Balch
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Archibald You must be quackers!  More info | Apr 10, 2017 13:24 | #3 Well, if it's only 383 mm at the long end, that might add justification to me getting the 500mm lens. The 500 would be 30% longer instead of 25% as I thought before. Canon R5 and R7, assorted Canon lenses, Sony RX100, Pentax Spotmatic F
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 10, 2017 13:45 | #4 Elton Balch wrote in post #18324338 Here is a quote from the digital picture review of this lens which may answer your question. It's close enough for me  "Some have asked if the 100-400 L II's focal length is really 400mm on the upper end. This is a fair question because it seems that manufacturers sometimes take the liberty of rounding off/up the specified focal length numbers in zoom lenses. In this case, the lens set to 400mm frames a test chart from 42.86' (13.063m) while two of Canon's prime 400mm lenses (the 400 f/2.8L II and 400 f/5.6L) frame the chart at 44.87' (13.675m) and 44.54' (13.576m) respectively. If I take the average of those two comparables, I get 44.70' (13.625m) (using the metric numbers for calculating). Using that number, the 100-400 II's max focal length seems more like 383mm or just slightly wider. Especially with distortion potentially effecting this calculation, that number is close enough to 400mm that few will care about any actual difference. Canon has claimed to be within 5% of the specified focal length number, adding credance to the calculated figure's possibility." This is shooting a test chart at 40-45' away. I would think that as you move closer to infinity, the number would improve. So if you are shooting a bison at 200 yards, it would be closer to 400 but if you are shooting a sparrow at 15' then not so much. Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Choderboy I like a long knob More info | Apr 11, 2017 04:07 | #5 It's noticeably wider than the 400 5.6 prime at a distance of 620 metres (675 yards). Dave
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 11, 2017 10:18 | #6 Choderboy wrote in post #18324867 It's noticeably wider than the 400 5.6 prime at a distance of 620 metres (675 yards). So you might as well consider it 383 as per the Digital Picture estimation. It's not relevant for the vast majority of applications. For 3 times the price you could get a 400 2.8L IS that would be closer to a true 400mm with over 3 times the weight. Half the money would get a 400 5.6 prime with no IS or zoom. The 100-400 II is a great lens, has the latest IS, sharp across the frame and a very low minimum focus distance. Forget about a few mm focal length. That sums it up--love mine for sure Elton Balch
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 11, 2017 16:02 | #7 What is the alternate? Mine is excellent. Canon G1X II, 1D MKIV, 5DSR, 5DIV, 5D MKII, 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, IS, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II, 500/4 L IS II, 24-105/4 IS, 50/2.5 macro, 1.4x MKII, 1.4X MKIII, 2X MKIII,580EX II, 550EXs(2), ST-E2.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MatthewK Cream of the Crop More info | Apr 12, 2017 05:06 | #8 It's definitely 400mm... the truth is that every other Canon 400mm is actually 417mm, so the 100-400 appears shorter. Not sure why they did that, I paid for 400mm, I don't want 417mm.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nick5 Goldmember  More info | Apr 12, 2017 08:15 | #9 What was the mm of the 100-400 L IS Version 1? Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon PRO-300 Printer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 12, 2017 10:07 | #10 Tapeman wrote in post #18325355 What is the alternate? Mine is excellent. Based on the question I would assume the 400 part of the zoom is where the majority of the need is. Based on that alternative might be 300/4 IS with 1.4 TC as well as the Tamron and Sigma 150-600's and possibly the new 100-400 from Sigma but something tells me that will have less actual MM's than the 100-400 II Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Archibald You must be quackers! More info | Apr 12, 2017 10:13 | #11 Nick5 wrote in post #18325892 What was the mm of the 100-400 L IS Version 1? IIRC the focal lengths of the two versions are the same, according to some observations reported here on POTN some time ago. Canon R5 and R7, assorted Canon lenses, Sony RX100, Pentax Spotmatic F
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TomReichner "That's what I do."  17,629 posts Gallery: 213 photos Best ofs: 2 Likes: 8372 Joined Dec 2008 Location: from Pennsylvania, USA, now in Washington state, USA, road trip back and forth a lot More info Post edited over 6 years ago by Tom Reichner. | Apr 12, 2017 12:20 | #12 It seems like a lot of folks are confusing focal length with angle of view. Yes, the two are closely related, but they are different. "Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 12, 2017 12:32 | #13 Tom Reichner wrote in post #18326073 It seems like a lot of folks are confusing focal length with angle of view. Yes, the two are closely related, but they are different. Focal length is actually a measurement between the 'optical center of the lens' and the focal plane, when focused at infinity. So basically that means that focal length is a measurement (usually expressed in millimeters) between a glass element (or a specific point between elements) and the camera sensor. Angle of view is a by-product of focal length, but is not its equivalent. You don't determine focal length by measuring angle of view - you accurately determine focal length by taking a measurement from the optical center of the lens and the focal plane (when the lens is focused to infinity). This is the focal length of the lens, regardless of what angle of view you get. . For those with lots of time on their hands, here is the "long version". Let me know when your eyes glaze over... Elton Balch
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BigAl007 Cream of the Crop  8,118 posts Gallery: 556 photos Best ofs: 1 Likes: 1681 Joined Dec 2010 Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK. More info | Apr 12, 2017 19:48 | #14 Elton Balch wrote in post #18326086 For those with lots of time on their hands, here is the "long version". Let me know when your eyes glaze over... http://www.bobatkins.com …asuring_focal_length.html
LOG IN TO REPLY |
edrader "I am not the final word"  More info | Apr 16, 2017 23:45 | #15 this would prevent you from buying the lens? http://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is MWCarlsson 748 guests, 175 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
