I bit the bullet...

[rpcrowe]

My last photoshoot of the Blue Angels practice convinced me that I wanted or needed a zoom telephoto lens like the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II. It will be considerably lighter carrying a single camera with the 100-400mm lens than to carry a pair of cameras with a pair of my lenses (70-200mm f/4L IS, 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L). Additionally, although I can shoot at higher speeds when using my 400mm f/5.6L, I would like Image Stabilization for shooting propeller aircraft so I could shoot at lower speeds not to freeze the propellers. The Mode 3 on the 100-400L II seems like it was designed for my purposes. Finally, the 100-400L II has a shorter MFD than my 300L or 400L.

The best price I could find for that lens (from a dealer whom I know as reputable) is $2099 (all prices in U.S. Dollars) after a $100 instant rebate. I did see a couple of cheaper prices but, they were from dealers that I do not know.

When prices are significantly cheaper than B&H, Adorama, or 17th Street Photo, something is amiss. I chose Adorama (all of these vendors offer free shipping and no sales tax (which amounts to a whopping $167.92 for someone living where I do).

Adorama offers an "accessory bundle"
77mm Filter Kit (UV/CPL/ND2)
FocusShifter DSLR Follow Focus & Rack Focus
Cleaning Kit
Capleash II
Flex Lens Shade
Pro Software Package (Includes Corel PaintShop Pro X7 & Corel AfterShot Pro 2 & Nuance OmniPage 18 & FileCenter Standard 7)

Normally, I never consider that type of "bundle". However, the price of the lens WITHOUT the bundle is $2099 and the price of the lens WITH the bundle is $2099. That is a no-brainer for me. Even though the filter package is probably junk, I can sell it for a few dollars and a couple of the other items like the Flex Lens Shade and Software Package interest me. I can play with the Flex Lens Shade (Adorama supplies all of the standard Canon gear such as the Front Lens Cap E-77II, Rear Lens Cap E, ET-83D Lens Hood, LZ-1326 Protective Lens Case. and Canon 1 Year USA Warranty) and I can give the Paintshop Pro to one of my volunteers who is starting to do a decent job photographing our rescue dogs in the Los Angeles area.

The final thing that swayed me to the 100-400 (besides wanting a single lens with that focal range) is that the ET-83D lens hood has a lock and a door to access CPL filter rotation. My 300L and 400L lenses have retractable lens hoods which I do love because it is easy to access my CPL filters for rotation. The door should make it as easy to access the CPL with my new lens...

I purchased this lens using PayPal credit and will be able to sell my 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L lenses before I have to pay for the 100-400L II. The combined used prices of these two lens will greatly offset the price of my new lens.

I was going to rent this lens but, $76 for four days rental plus one way shipping (I think) is pretty expensive. Especially when I am sure that I want this lens....

[Tronhard]

I love the 100-400L MkII. Not a lightweight, but considering the amount of glass and the all-metal construction, it's great. I had the MkI, and it was good, but I prefer the rotating zoom rather than the push-pull system. Good luck with it shooting your aircraft!

[rpcrowe]

BTW: Canon sells refurbished 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lenses for $1759.00 U.S. Dollars. However it has none of these lenses in stock! I could have waited and hoped that one would come along but, I decided to purchase new!

[Tronhard]

When I bought my MkII unit new I paid about $2,500Can (about $1,800US), but by selling my MKI I managed to get half of that back again.

[Bobobird]

Congrats. Excellent decision.

That is one great lens. I dumped everything within the 70-400 range. Tack sharp on a full frame or a crop.

[rpcrowe]

I have not read any negative comments on this lens except the price (which I can redeem a great proportion of by selling my two prime telephoto lenses) and weight (certainly lighter than a pair of cameras + the two prime telephotos). The lens is promised to be delivered by this afternoon.

We are always wishing for rain here in Southern California but, I hope that the rain hold off long enough to do some shooting tomorrow. Actually, I want to try this lens in close-up shooting which I can do even if it is raining. I have a lot of gear (both photo and fishing) that I want to shoot for eBay.

There is one advantage of a zoom telephoto over a prime, especially when shooting against the sky or the ocean. When you cannot locate the subject (aircraft, surfer, whale, etc.) at 300mm or 400mm with a prime lens, you can always zoom back to 100mm on the zoom, locate and center your subject and then zoom out to fill the frame as much as possible.

It would be nice if this lens was parfocal (having the same focus at telephoto as wide angle). I used an Angenieux 12-120mm zoom lens on a 16mm cinema camera in the 60's and 70's. It was simple to zoom all the way to 120mm; achieve critical focus on the subject and the zoom back to the focal length at which you wanted to shoot with the focus holding. Obviously, this was a manual focus lens and autofocus capability pretty well negates the need to focus in this manner.

[John 2]

Just gone down the same road Richard. I have jumped ship on Nikon and Part exed all my Nikon outfit for the new Fuji 100mm - 400mm zoom plus 1,4 converter. Bit of a wrench but it should be worth it when Spring arrives. Now for some inspiration.

[rpcrowe]

My first informal test of the new 100-400L f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens was generally underexposed by at least two stops... BECAUSE, I had left my 5D2 camera with a -2 stop EC dialed in I ALMOST always return my camera to a shooting mode when I am finished with any shoot but, didn't do it in this case!

Now I have to go shopping with my wife and cannot do more testing util tomorrow...

[Tronhard]

If this makes you feel better, DP Review did some in-depth reviews on the 100-400MkII at these links:

Their original review: http://www.dpreview.com/products/can...400_4p5-5p6_ii
Upgrading a classic: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/upgr...mark-ii-review

Hope this will help until your wife stops shopping!

[rpcrowe]

Thanks for the references. It is always nice to see that my choice has been verified as a good one.

What actually surprised me is that, although this lens is heavy, it doesn't seem overwhelmingly heavy and it seems to balance quite well on my 5Dii and my 7D. Actually, it is just slightly heavier than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS ii.

It is raining out now (we always need the rain) and on the first clear day, I'm going to run the lens thru its paces at the San Diego Safari Park (AKA: Wild Animal Park).

I'm quite amazed at the iS capability of this lens. Here's a shot hand-held Canon 5D Mark 2 at ISO 400, 220mm, 1/20 second, f/5 That is, with rough calculation, at least a 3-stop advantage...



As with all tests, I used my standard workflow, including RAW pre-sharpening because that is the way I always process my images and I want to determine how good the lens is FOR MY USE and WITH MY P.P. (not how it would be with anyone else's workflow)

[Cantab]

Thanks for the references. It is always nice to see that my choice has been verified as a good one.

What actually surprised me is that, although this lens is heavy, it doesn't seem overwhelmingly heavy and it seems to balance quite well on my 5Dii and my 7D. Actually, it is just slightly heavier than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS ii.

It is raining out now (we always need the rain) and on the first clear day, I'm going to run the lens thru its paces at the San Diego Safari Park (AKA: Wild Animal Park).

I'm quite amazed at the iS capability of this lens. Here's a shot hand-held Canon 5D Mark 2 at ISO 400, 220mm, 1/20 second, f/5 That is, with rough calculation, at least a 3-stop advantage...



As with all tests, I used my standard workflow, including RAW pre-sharpening because that is the way I always process my images and I want to determine how good the lens is FOR MY USE and WITH MY P.P. (not how it would be with anyone else's workflow)

Richard, even though I'm looking at this on an iPad, the sharpness looks almost unbelievable for handheld 220mm at 1/20! Congratulations on a good puchase. I suppose I should try a similar shot with my marki 100-400; there'd be another variable in addition to the different lens but it would give me a comparison in the context of my use of the lens.

[Tronhard]

Richard, even though I'm looking at this on an iPad, the sharpness looks almost unbelievable for handheld 220mm at 1/20! Congratulations on a good puchase. I suppose I should try a similar shot with my marki 100-400; there'd be another variable in addition to the different lens but it would give me a comparison in the context of my use of the lens.

The quality of these lenses was what brought me to Canon. I fell originally for the 70-200 2.8L MkII, but since then the 70-300L and now the 100-400LMkII have continued a legacy of high quality glass. There are often comments that Canon bodies lag behind those of other brands. Not to denigrate other makers, but for me the glass is the most important element and people have got great images from way back with Canon bodies.

[rpcrowe]

First birds with my new lens...

[Marie Hass]

Very nice, Richard! Definitely a great lens choice.

Marie

[rpcrowe]

One mistake I made was attempting to mount a short Arca compatible plate on the lens foot in order to attach the lens to an Arca compatible clamp. The lens and camera were not all that secure with the short plate and the unit tended to twist around on the tripod screw that attached the plate to the lens foot...

I then attached a Giottos MH647 plate to the foot of the lens.

This plate has two red tabs which elevate and are approximately the correct distance apart to prevent the lens foot from rotating.

I would like a longer plate and Giottos supplies a longer MH648 plate which will allow me to adjust the position of the camera/lens over the monopod/tripod in order to attain better balance. Since the lens extends as it zooms, the point of balance shifts. about $30 cost

An expensive but, really IMO the best solution for security and ease of use would be to totally remove the Canon Foot and replace it with a RRS Foot made especially for this lens and which is Arca Compatible...
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/LCF-...00mm-IS-II-USM
About $100 cost

However, after spending over two thousand bucks on this lens, I hate to have to spend another hundred for a new foot. OTOH, this foot would be far more secure since there would not be an extra piece of gear between the lens foot and the Arca clamp. I think that this is the way I will go...

There are two holes in the bottom of the Canon foot...

One is threaded and has a steel insert for a 1/4 x 20 tripod screw and the other is not threaded. If the second hole were threaded, I could use a long Arca plate (which I have) and attach the lens to the plate with two screws. I don't think that using a tap to thread the second hole would be a good idea because the foot is not made from material that would hold the threads.

If Canon had thought ahead and put Arca channels on this foot, the problem would not have come up...

[rpcrowe]

I noticed this lens plate on eBay that has a non threaded insert (brass) as well as a threaded tripod mounting screw (shown with 3/8 and 1/4 inch screws)...



This plate should fit the foot of the 100-400L II lens with the non-threaded insert ensuring that the lens foot will not rotate around the tripod screw. The length of the plate might also help to balance the camera/lens. The herring bone pattern inserts along both sides of the tripod screw channel should also help to stabilize the lens foot...