100-400 iS II?

ben_r_ wrote in post #10106986
...especially if its that new hybird IS system their using now...

I thought that was a macro-only thing. Or maybe a 'lens-with-really-narrow-DOF' thing. A 5.6 lens simply doesn't need the hybrid IS.

ben_r_ wrote in post #10106986
Unless they intend to make it four stop IS AND f/4 I wouldnt bother upgrading. Same with the 24-70, adding IS wouldnt be enough to get me to give them more money, especially if its that new hybird IS system their using now... Im not really liking how clunky that sounds when the lens it unmounted.

that would be a huge and very expensive lens, Ben . if/when canon upgrades the 100-400L i expect 4-stop IS, incremental improvement to sharpness and several hundred dollars added to the price.

and i would upgrade with a quickness but until then the 100-400L is "still the one" .

ed rader

I put off buying a 100-400 for over a year because of comments here about their not being sharp at 400 wide open. But a friend consistently kept churning out sharp images from his and I ised it several tomes shooting for him and finally got one. It's better than my 70-200 2.8 IS was and I thought that was a really good lens, especially after Canon had reworked it, I thought it was stellar. But I've had the 100-400 for a couple of months now and really regret not getting it a lot earlier, I am also suprised how good the IS is.

I went with a prime instead as their was too much copy variation for my liking with the 100-400. I suspect they've made some QC changes as people with recent copies tend to be quite pleased. The zoom action also isn't to many peoples liking, and there is the occasional failure with it too.

One thing I doubt they'll be able to improve with a new version is OOF appearance, which IMO isn't all that appealing with the 100-400 (of course it's a bit of an opinion thing). It has something like 21 elements inside it, it's always going to have a more "complex" appearing to OOF areas as the primes that have 7 elements I believe.

Got no problem with my 100-400 at wider than f/8 (7D, 400 mm, f/6.3):

Once again, and I assure you I say this with all due respect, while that image is nice and plenty usable, it's not nearly as crisp as images coming out of some of Canon's other L zooms at varyingly wide aperatures.

The issue is people are trying to talk about something like sharpness in absolute terms; that it is or isn't sharp. Like I said, the original 70-200 2.8 was plenty sharp. Yet the 70-200 2.8 II blows it away. I feel like I've got a good copy of the 100-400 and enjoy using it. BUT, if there's a Canon L lens that could stand to have that boost in IQ, I think this would be a prime candidate.

Just wondering if there was any material talk about it from anyone in the know.

Grentz wrote in post #10106752
375mm ISO1250 1/400 f/5.6 (handheld w/IS)

Do you really think that this is the correct way how to test the sharpness?

Some have brought up the 400 f5.6 prime. I could get seriously interested in it with 4 stop IS.

Hi Peacefield,

With the same humble respect that you've given various readers twice in this thread, could you please post a few images of what you would consider sharp from your collection - as it would make a really good comparison, you know what they say a picture paints a thousand words. I understand that differing bodies and individual skill & technique play a part but literally just by way of a comparison so that we can get a feel of where the 100-400mm should be compared to other L series zooms, as this is a lens that I'm also considering.

Jermainek wrote in post #10132912
Hi Peacefield,

With the same humble respect that you've given various readers twice in this thread, could you please post a few images of what you would consider sharp from your collection - as it would make a really good comparison, you know what they say a picture paints a thousand words. I understand that differing bodies and individual skill & technique play a part but literally just by way of a comparison so that we can get a feel of where the 100-400mm should be compared to other L series zooms, as this is a lens that I'm also considering.

+++1 Thank you.

MY old 100-400L TACK sharp!

30D 1/1600 ISO200 f/5.6 handheld

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

silvex wrote in post #10539319
MY old 100-400L TACK sharp!

30D 1/1600 ISO200 f/5.6 handheld

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

That's quite possibly the ugliest bird I've ever seen in my life.

ben_r_ wrote in post #10106986
Unless they intend to make it four stop IS AND f/4 I wouldnt bother upgrading. Same with the 24-70, adding IS wouldnt be enough to get me to give them more money, especially if its that new hybird IS system their using now... Im not really liking how clunky that sounds when the lens it unmounted.

Agree on this!

Zooms are for convenience only they'll never be as sharp or fast as a prime lens! they need to dump the 100-400is f4-5.6 for a 200-400is F4.

Are you serious ?. How many people can actually afford 200-400 f/4 IS ?. Not to mention the weight you have to deal with.

shadowcat wrote in post #10677685
Zooms are for convenience only they'll never be as sharp or fast as a prime lens! they need to dump the 100-400is f4-5.6 for a 200-400is F4.