EF 100-400 II officially announced...

I'd hold off on gushing too much about the 400DO II until we can see what OOF specular highlights look like.  That has been the downfall of DO technology so far.  This is something that tests like those done by the usual places and Lens Rentals never evaluates but can be really important, especially for bird shooters around wet rocks, shorelines, etc.

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

Andy Trowbridge wrote:Lens Rental has just posted a quick resolution test on the 100-400mm version II vs the old version and the 400mm DO version II vs the old version.  Interesting the 100-400mm version doesn't show that big of an improvement over the old version, well not in this comparison anyway.  The 400mm DO Version II seems pretty awesome though.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/12/a-brief-400mm-comparison

Yes, that 100-400 is pretty disappointing I'd say. Hopefully some error or sample variation or something.

I thought the same thing looking at the TDP comparison posted earlier.  A big improvement in the full frame corners but the old and new 100-400L look similar to me in the center and mid-frame.    Lensrentals seems to be getting same results so that's two reviews and the story isn't that impressive for the new version of the 100-400L.   I was hot to upgrade but since I have a sharp copy of the original maybe I'll have to slow down a bit until more quantitative reviews come out.

I don't know, those edges on the new 100-400 are pretty darn impressive.  There wasn't a significant center issue to be fixed so fixing the corners is a pretty darn good upgrade.  Also the performance with a TC is impressive for a 4x zoom.

I think everyone is splitting hairs...the Sony 70/400 f4-5.6, the Nikon 80/400 f4.5 to 5.6, or the new Canon will be fine for their intended uses, some will have brighter f stops or more range but they will fit your camera and be acceptable.

Mike in O wrote:I think everyone is splitting hairs...the Sony 70/400 f4-5.6, the Nikon 80/400 f4.5 to 5.6, or the new Canon will be fine for their intended uses, some will have brighter f stops or more range but they will fit your camera and be acceptable.

That's right. My Nikon buddy is all gaga with with his 80-400, has stopped taking the 200-400 with him now and given that the 600 sees little use anyway, he's quite content to just have that single lens as his main workhorse. Having seen his images from various recent shoots, I was quick to buy the Canon 100-400, got it earlier this week. I would be thrilled if it delivers like its Nikon counterpart. I sold my version 1 in 2008, and IIRC, it was sharp but not enough for me overall.

Pradeep

Like pretty much all new Canon lenses released in the last two or three years, the new Canon 100-400 II is superior to the Nikon 80-400 but not by as much as the Digital Picture comparison would indicate.

I have the new 100-400 on my desk. Have taken it out of the box and mounted it - AF seems snappy and the best thing is the close focus has been pretty much cut in half! This will be a very versatile lens if it performs well (remains to be seen and I am not commenting yet until I have some time with it...)

My only gripe is the lens collar - completely and utterly silly design. The foot is proprietary and removable but the collar not removable which for a lens this size is unacceptable IMO.

The thee foot minimum focus distance is intriguing. The new DO lens is nearly 11' feet minimum, considerably more than the 300f2.8's six feet.

Here's the review and verdict of Photozone:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/89 ... s2?start=2

Wolfgang

Scott Fairbairn wrote:The thee foot minimum focus distance is intriguing. The new DO lens is nearly 11' feet minimum, considerably more than the 300f2.8's six feet.

The lens is no longer a 400mm lens from 3 feet away. A 300 f4 L IS + 1.4x will give more magnification from 5 feet away.  Both these lenses sound great to me. I already have the 300 f2.8 and the 70-300L and have been happy with both of them. If was buying new today I might configure my choices differently, but I feel no need to sell my current lenses at a loss only to spend more money on either of these. Money spent on equipment only takes away funds for traveling for me.

Comprehensive review. Their results mirror mine on a single sample I've shot test targets with:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/89 ... 00f4556is2

Why is it no longer 400mm at 3ft min focus?

Greg Downing wrote:Why is it no longer 400mm at 3ft min focus?

Focus breathing, almost all internal focus lenses and especially zooms are much shorter in focal length at minimum focus than they are at infinity, often as much a 33% shorter.  Probably the worst common lens for this is the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 which is only 130mm at MFD.  I didn't check the one 100-400 II that I had in for it but will figure out what the real focal length at MFD is with the next one I get.

Greg Downing wrote:Why is it no longer 400mm at 3ft min focus?

As EJ said, IF lenses lose focal length the closer they're focused. Next time you're out with your 600mm lens (or really any other IF lens) focus on something 20 ft. or so away. Then put an extension tube on the lens and focus on the same subject from the same spot. The photo with the tube on will appear to have more magnification. That's not because the tube is magnifying anything but because the lens lost less focal length with the tube on. In more practical situations at typical bird distances of 30 to 50 ft. a 800mm lens + 1.4x + 12mm tube gives pretty much exactly the same magnification as does a 600mm lens + 2x.

I had heard about focus breathing, but was thinking it's more a pixel peeper thing than anything one should be concerned about. Well, here is a nice video demonstrating the effect, and it can be non negligible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8lbCrLBEs
Probably especially disturbing for video applications...

lelouarn wrote:I had heard about focus breathing, but was thinking it's more a pixel peeper thing than anything one should be concerned about. Well, here is a nice video demonstrating the effect, and it can be non negligible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8lbCrLBEs
Probably especially disturbing for video applications...

It has absolutely nothing to do with pixel quality which is what pixel peepers look at.  It is a subject magnification thing and can be very substantial on some lenses.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Like pretty much all new Canon lenses released in the last two or three years, the new Canon 100-400 II is superior to the Nikon 80-400 but not by as much as the Digital Picture comparison would indicate.

EJ, from the pictures I've seen with the Nikon, I would be very pleased if it simply matched the quality. The slight edge is simply some very nice icing on an already sweet cake.

Pradeep

Thanks for the info - I did not realize it could be that significant. Royce great tip on the extension tube. I use one a lot when I know I don't need to shoot anything close to infinity but haven't really taken notice to the exact effect on the focal length or magnification (though I knew there was some increase.)

The increase in size from the extension tube isn't very much due to the 12mm; that's almost nothing in terms of the lens overall focal length - 512mm vs. 500mm or just 2.4%.  If you are shooting a subject at say 15 feet with a 500 which is pretty close to MFD for that lens and then you put on an extension tube you are now shooting with the focusing elements much closer to infinity and that is where you are actually getting most of the additional magnification from, which as stated before, with some lenses can be 20-30%.

As an example, folks, like me, that do a lot of focus bracketing in landscape shots know this phenomenon well.  You take a shot focused close to the camera, one a little farther away and one at infinity.  When you bring them all together, you will see that the shot focused close to the camera has detail in the shot that is noticeably smaller than the rest of the shots so we have to actually do a transformation on the images to have them all at the same magnification before we can do the masking to extend the DOF in the final shot.

Greg Downing wrote:
My only gripe is the lens collar - completely and utterly silly design. The foot is proprietary and removable but the collar not removable which for a lens this size is unacceptable IMO.

Hey I felt the same about the Nikon 80-400mm and replaced it with the Kirk aftermarket version. Problem solved. Most likely Kirk (or RRS) will do something for the Canon?