Canon 100-400ii

[stever]

got the 100-400ii yesterday and shot Imatest target today at 400mm and 560mm with 1.4xiii on 5D3 and 400eff and 560eff on 7D

center resolution is about the same as 400 f5.6 - edges not quite as good but massively better than 100-400.  Only 6% loss of resolution (center and edges!) with the 1.4x - a little sharper than on the 7D at 560eff and about 10% sharper in the center (and 40-50% better edges) than the 100-400 on the 7D. Shooting at 400mm with the 5D3 and extender no resolution is lost, only the f-stop. I'm expecting satisfactory 17x25 prints from the 5D3 with extender which is a clear step up from the old 100-400. 

Overall, a useful improvement in center resolution.  Edge sharpness and performance with the extender make it a much more useful all-around lens.  May also be acceptable with extender on the 7D2.

Initial impression is that the zoom is very smooth (much better than the 70-300 I tried a while ago).  Haven't tested AF or stabilization but expect improvement based on my experience with the 35mm f2.  Hope RRS will make a Arca tripod foot, the new design does not work well with existing Arca plates.

[stever]

also - stopping down to f8 at 400mm with the 5D3 improves center resolution by 7% and nearly eliminates falloff at the edges

[E.J. Peiker]

I tested three copies this week and my findings concur with yours.  My only complaint about the lens is that to me, the lens collar/foot combo has a bit more flex in it than I would like.

[Hans Kruse]

Sounds very interesting and this lens might also be a nice lens for landscape photographers.

[Rajan Parrikar]

Sounds very interesting and this lens might also be a nice lens for landscape photographers.

It is an outstanding lens for landscape work.  I gave it quite a workout in Death Valley recently.

[stever]

unfortunately, it looks like the flex is in the ring around the lens at the base of the foot and/or between the ring and the lens since the ring is not clamping the diameter of the lens as in the traditional design.  even though it does not feel quite nice it's probably not a problem.  on the other hand I fail to see any  advantages to this complex and somewhat fussy re-invention.

the old lens hood fits but does not lock (without a bit of gaffer's tape)

somewhere I read that a uv filter is necessary for weather sealing - looking at the construction that does not appear to be correct

have not yet tested it against my 70-200 f4 but don't expect much difference - I intend to use it for landscape

E.J. - how did the 3 copies compare?  My recent experience is that Canon has brought manufacturing variation under better control (at least on L-glass) in the last 2 or 3 years.

[shadowblade]

How does it compare with the 24-70 II and 70-200 II for sharpness?

Obviously it is a lot better than the previous 100-400, but is it up to the standard of Canon's best, recent, primelike zooms?

Has anyone compared it with the Sigma 150-600 Sport?

[Rajan Parrikar]

How does it compare with the 24-70 II and 70-200 II for sharpness?

You can check the comparison charts at The Digital Picture.  Based on my experience in the field, I no longer see the need to switch to the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II for the 100-200mm range while working the landscape (that is, if you don't need f/2.8 ).  The 100-400 II shows significant improvement over its predecessor in that regime.

[E.J. Peiker]

E.J. - how did the 3 copies compare?  My recent experience is that Canon has brought manufacturing variation under better control (at least on L-glass) in the last 2 or 3 years.

They were all three very good.  No discernible difference.  I also tested it against the 70-300L at 300mm and it wins hands down against that lens for resolution and distortion.  Not surprising since that's at the 70-300's focal length limit but I thought it would be worth mentioning.

[stever]

got around to a comparison with the 70-200 f4

the 100-400ii is at its best at 200mm f5.6 where it's slightly sharper than the 70-200 center and edges with less distortion and lower CA.

at 100mm the 100-400ii resolution goes down about 5% center and weighted from 200mm f5.6 while the 70-200 improves about 5% in the center.

there is essentially no resolution change for the 100-400ii at 100 or 200mm stopping down to f8.  at 200mm using the 1.4x center resolution is down 8% and weighted 12%

although better performance will be possible with primes or the 70-200 f2.8ii, I can't find anything in the IQ of the 100-400ii to complain about over the focal length range.  if you've got enough light and a camera that will autofocus at f8 then 140-560mm with the 1.4xiii is a viable option

[dwswager]

How does it compare with the 24-70 II and 70-200 II for sharpness?

Obviously it is a lot better than the previous 100-400, but is it up to the standard of Canon's best, recent, primelike zooms?

Has anyone compared it with the Sigma 150-600 Sport?

While I find the New Canon 100-400mm better than the current Nikon 80-400mm, based on my view of image files, you are still much better off using the Canon 70-200mm to 200mm, but are better using the 100-400mm versus the 70-200mm with Teleconverters.  It ends up being a tradeoff.  If you have both, there will be times you would carry the 70-200 and others when you would forgo it and take the 100-400mm instead.  If you are only going to have 1 of these in your kit then you've got to decide if the quality from 70-200mm holds more value or if the 200-400mm range is more important to you.

Again, I'm Nikon, but I do not shoot in the 300-400mm range much so I choose the 70-200mm and suffer the losses using the 1.4X TC if I really need more range.  I know from personal experience that Landscape/Close-up type guys keep the 70-200mm while Landscape/Wildlife guys tend to keep the 100-400mm.