Is 100-400 mk2 a true 400mm?

ed rader wrote in post #18329900
this would prevent you from buying the lens?

Possibly....I shoot wildlife 99% of the time so maximum reach is very important but I was thinking of getting it as a walk about lens for when I dont want to carry my 500f4.

ed rader wrote in post #18329900
this would prevent you from buying the lens?

don1163 wrote in post #18332943
Possibly....I shoot wildlife 99% of the time so maximum reach is very important but I was thinking of getting it as a walk about lens for when I dont want to carry my 500f4.

I, too, shoot wildlife 99% of the time. Birds, of course, are included in that 99%.

As a wildlife and bird photographer, the new Canon 100-400 is my most useful lens. I have a Sigma 300-800mm and the Canon 400mm f2.8, but the lens that produces the most quality wildlife and bird photos for me, year in and year out, is the 100-400mm.

The 100-400mm works best as a companion to big glass, not as an alternative to it. The 100-400mm is for shooting different situations and for creating different kinds of images. If you want to create a body of wildlife work that has a great deal of diversity, then I don't know how you could do it without using a mid-range zoom AND a big lens.

.


.

It's a barely perceptible difference when I compare my 100-400 II to the 400 DO II @ 400mm.

If there was one thing I could say, and the peoples of the internet would take my word for it, it would be: the 100-400 II is the best lens Canon makes. Buy it without fear, you will love it. Thank me later, and no, I don't accept monetary gratitude, kind words are good enough.

MatthewK wrote in post #18333069
It's a barely perceptible difference when I compare my 100-400 II to the 400 DO II @ 400mm.

If there was one thing I could say, and the peoples of the internet would take my word for it, it would be: the 100-400 II is the best lens Canon makes. Buy it without fear, you will love it. Thank me later, and no, I don't accept monetary gratitude, kind words are good enough.

I think it's absolutely in the very top tier of Canon lenses factoring in value and functionality. The 70-200 f2.8 IS ii and the 24-70 f2.8 ii along with the 100-400 ii are definitely the three best lenses Canon makes and it's hard to choose one over another. It's a draw in my opinion

70-200 f/2.8L II is right up there too, if it was the end of the world and I had to choose just one, I don't think I could. But, since I am primarily shooting outdoor wildlife these days, 100-400 to the end of time

It's true about the 100-400mm II being as sharp as the 400mm DO II. I see the superiority of my DO II only at the frame edges and when adding a 1.4xTC and comparing both at 560mm (and, of course AF with the DO II with the 2xTC).

AlanF wrote in post #18334017
It's true about the 100-400mm II being as sharp as the 400mm DO II.

I don't see how that could be possible. The DO II is sharpest wide open, and the zoom doesn't open that far. If the zoom is as sharp at f/5.6 as the DO II is at f/4, then it is sharper than the DO II at f/5.6. Of course, if you're talking about lenses stopped down to the same f-number, then the more you stop down, the smaller that lens differences in sharpness generally become, as diffraction tends to be the main source of blur.

The larger your pixels, the more they equalize lens performance. Your TC comment would suggest larger pixels, taking the TC to see the difference. Other factors like mirror slap, insufficient shutter speed, picture style and NR can limit apparent lens performance as well. There's a limit to what pixels and technique can and software will show you. You could get a magical lens that could do 20 line pairs at 50% contrast in the width of one of your pixels, and you will never see them, and your AA filter will limit pixel contrast in the RAW capture to 20%, even though the lens was capable of 99% with that pixel size. On top of that, your RAW conversion parameters may prevent details one pixel wide, especially with luminance variations in an area of consistent color.

So, there is a difference between two lenses being nearly equally sharp in a certain practice, and them being equal in analog optical ability. The difference between two lenses would be very muted on a 4MP original 1D compared to a 5Dsr plus a 2xIII, or better yet, adapted to a Pentax Q, which has the pixel density of a 450MP FF camera.

don1163 wrote in post #18332943
Possibly....I shoot wildlife 99% of the time so maximum reach is very important but I was thinking of getting it as a walk about lens for when I dont want to carry my 500f4.

I'm having similar thoughts, except I don't own a 500 f/4, instead I have the DO II. Because of this arrangement, I use the DO a LOT more thanks to it getting me out to 800mm, and the zoom takes a back seat. I'm pondering whether or not the DO and 100-400 are redundant, and changing out the DO for the 500 f/4.

The thing is, the DO is amazing for its hand hold-ability. 800mm is easy. It fits in a backpack no problem. I'm a mobile photographer, I can't envision having a lens that more or less needs a tripod for comfort. How hand hold-able is the 500 f/4 II.

Apologies for off topic

AlanF wrote in post #18334017
It's true about the 100-400mm II being as sharp as the 400mm DO II. I see the superiority of my DO II only at the frame edges and when adding a 1.4xTC and comparing both at 560mm (and, of course AF with the DO II with the 2xTC).

It's close, the DO and 1-4II, and you'd be hard pressed to tell a difference if you compare both shot wide open. BUT, like you said, the DO w/ TCs is insane at how little degradation there is in IQ, whereas I can see the IQ hit the zoom takes.

MatthewK wrote in post #18334764
It's close, the DO and 1-4II, and you'd be hard pressed to tell a difference if you compare both shot wide open. BUT, like you said, the DO w/ TCs is insane at how little degradation there is in IQ, whereas I can see the IQ hit the zoom takes.

Like I said previously, pixel largeness and AA filters mask the differences between sharp, very sharp, and extremely sharp lenses, by losing more of what the sharpest lenses can do.

I'm not advocating for no AA filter here; I'd prefer higher pixel density over no AA filter to fully appreciate analog lens detail, and removing an AA filter does not really improve resolution, contrary to popular opinion.
What removing it does is increase *contrast* at the same maximum resolution, which, due to semantic loopholes, is often called increased resolution. Higher pixel density actually increases the maximum resolution.

That's good information, it gets confusing when deciding what tool to use on a shot (cropping vs. TC, APSC vs. FF). But in this case here, I'm comparing shooting both lenses on the same camera, back to back.

MatthewK wrote in post #18334886
That's good information, it gets confusing when deciding what tool to use on a shot (cropping vs. TC, APSC vs. FF). But in this case here, I'm comparing shooting both lenses on the same camera, back to back.

On the same camera, cropping vs TC for me is determined by needed AF ability. The TC version is only superior if focus is achieved. Of course, if a subject is too large and jumping around a lot, the TC can also lose the subject's head, feet or wing tips. There is no right or wrong way to make these decisions; either choice can lead to a greater success or a greater disaster. The choice is an art. When you start deciding between two different cameras, then things can get more complex, as you have to take noise, pixel density, AF ability, and burst speed differences, etc, all into account.

If you follow forums and posts about this lens, you will get one as soon as possible.

Are you waiting for someone to give you some cash to help with the purchase?

Different cameras, sure, all of that is indeed a consideration. Aside from that, I was more so referring to the choice of choosing to use either a TC vs. cropping to fill the frame, in which case obviously an in focus photo trumps a missed or ill focused photo. But on a purely technical basis, using a TC results in a shot with better detail and print capability vs. cropping, due to more pixels remaining on target, despite the IQ hit it takes from the additional elements in the TC.

Crop camera vs. TC on FF, crop camera all the way for the reasons you stated, especially because of the better AF of the "naked" camera + lens.

MatthewK wrote in post #18334886
That's good information, it gets confusing when deciding what tool to use on a shot (cropping vs. TC, APSC vs. FF). But in this case here, I'm comparing shooting both lenses on the same camera, back to back.

You cut off 40% of pixels in each direction to use image cropping, but you lose only about 10% of the IQ with a teleconvertor (this statement based upon photozone.de past testing of multiple versions of Canon 70-200mm lenses with and without a Canon 1.4x TC.

MatthewK wrote in post #18333069
It's a barely perceptible difference when I compare my 100-400 II to the 400 DO II @ 400mm.

If there was one thing I could say, and the peoples of the internet would take my word for it, it would be: the 100-400 II is the best lens Canon makes. Buy it without fear, you will love it. Thank me later, and no, I don't accept monetary gratitude, kind words are good enough.

You are right