Another thing that I like about my 100-400L II

[rpcrowe]

When I was using my prime Canon telephoto lenses (300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L) I would sometimes have problems zeroing in on smaller targets at a distance, especially against bland or blank backgrounds (sky or water). I would use this sportsfinder to get the initial target acquisition.



Since the 100-400L II is (obviously) a zoom lens, I can easily zoom back to 100mm and find my subject, center it, then zoom out to the focal length at which I want to shoot and then frame the subject.. This only takes a split second

Although I will still most often carry the the sportsfinder on the hotshoe, I find myself using it less and less.

Additionally...

The autofocus of this lens on a 7D Mark 2 seems faster than the autofocus of the 300mm f/4L + 1.4x TC which I sometimes used to bring that lens up to 420mm. It seems to equal or exceed the autofocus speed of the 400mm f/5.6L. Of course, I sold both these primes to fund my 100-400L II so I never had a chance to make a head to head comparison...

Naurally, using a zoom, I can frame the subject exactly how I want to

[Tronhard]

I think it is a tribute to the lens that at least two sites have indicated that the performance of the 100-400L II is almost identical to that of a prime in given reasonable light. I can recall DP Review being one, and the Digital Picture was the other.

This from the Digital Picture:
"There are a large number of people interested in getting the longest focal length they can for a reasonable price. Going beyond 400mm in a Canon lens while maintaining an f/5.6 or wider max aperture means a very big hit on the wallet at checkout. These people are looking at the 100-400 L II lens only for the 400mm focal length and in that case, the 400mm primes become valid alternatives. Only the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Lens (and possibly the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Lens with a 1.4x extender) is in the same price league. The 400 f/5.6L has been in the Canon lineup for 5 years longer than the original 100-400 L IS, yet it is a very good performing lens with image quality essentially equivalent to the 100-400 L II and less distortion (compared at 400mm). The 400 f/5.6L is lighter, longer and considerably less expensive, but this lens is sorely missing image stabilization. I find the zoom to be a far more useful lens.

Those with larger budgets needing 400mm or longer focal lengths can consider the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens. While I still await this lens' arrival, I expect it to perform at least as well as the 100-400 L II and likely better – especially with extenders. The DO II's 1 stop wider aperture is helpful in low light and especially when extenders are in use. While it is an especially compact and light lens for its specs, the 400 DO II is still larger and heavier than the 100-400 L II."

see http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...-USM-Lens.aspx

This is an AWESOME piece of glass!

[saea501]

I'll second the fact that this lens is quite a piece of work. I've been using it a lot for birding....both smaller birds..



....and somewhat larger birds...





Works quite well.

[Donald]

Me, I just stick to my landscapes.

[Bobobird]

Awesome lens. Everyone/place seems to look at it as a zoom, which it is of course. But I find its most interesting feature is its ability to focus as close a 18 inches.

The one thing I do not like about the lens is when it is on a crop camera - the background blur does not look all that great. Fine on a ff camera though.

[NorthernFocus]

Richard, the technique that you describe for finding/framing a subject and then zooming to desired composition is oft quoted and (apparently) widely used. Yet I've never found it useful for anything but static /slow moving subjects. I find it very difficult to zoom in while keeping a fast moving target in the viewfinder. Particularly when hand holding. It is somewhat easier on a tripod.

When shooting long glass the technique that works for me is to keep both eyes open while trying to get on target. One eye looks through the viewfinder, the other looks over the top of the camera. When I see the target in both eyes, I then close the "off" eye and track it in the viewfinder. This is the only way I was finally able to become successful shooting birds in flight.

Honestly I'm simply not coordinated enough to shoot and zoom at the same time. A zoom lens in my hands is essentially a variable focal length lens. For fast moving subjects whatever length the lens is set to when I raise the camera to my eye is the length I shoot at.

[Ken MT]

And I was hoping to see a building on top of that massive.

[Donald]

Honestly I'm simply not coordinated enough to shoot and zoom at the same time. A zoom lens in my hands is essentially a variable focal length lens. For fast moving subjects whatever length the lens is set to when I raise the camera to my eye is the length I shoot at.

That's my learning point for today. If someone who produces the quality of images that Dan does uses this technique, then that'll do for me. Thanks, Dan.

[DanK]

I have to say, having splurged on one of these in a moment of weakness not long ago, I am cheered by all of the positive comments. (Richard, I took your advice, and I have a Kirk replacement shoe arriving tomorrow.) In this case even more than some others, I will have confidence that it's my own fault, not a limitation of my gear, when I mess up.

The one problem I have noted already is that it's big and heavy enough that I won't have it with me unless I am pretty sure I will need it. When I bought my 70-200 years ago, I bought the f/4 partly because it weighs half what the f/2.8 weighs, and I can throw it in the bag even if I have no idea whether I will use it.

The one thing I do not like about the lens is when it is on a crop camera - the background blur does not look all that great. Fine on a ff camera though.

I don't understand this. If you compose so that the image on the sensor is the same size--as opposed to framing so that the image fills the same fraction of the frame on both cameras--and if the pixel density is similar, shouldn't the bokeh be identical? It's a function of the optics, not the size of the surface onto which you are projecting the image.

[NorthernFocus]

...I don't understand this. If you compose so that the image on the sensor is the same size--as opposed to framing so that the image fills the same fraction of the frame on both cameras--and if the pixel density is similar, shouldn't the bokeh be identical? It's a function of the optics, not the size of the surface onto which you are projecting the image.

That presumes a distant BG. What Richard is referring to may simply be due to the difference in DOF.

[DanK]

That presumes a distant BG. What Richard is referring to may simply be due to the difference in DOF.

That makes sense.

[rpcrowe]

I have to say, having splurged on one of these in a moment of weakness not long ago, I am cheered by all of the positive comments. (Richard, I took your advice, and I have a Kirk replacement shoe arriving tomorrow.) In this case even more than some others, I will have confidence that it's my own fault, not a limitation of my gear, when I mess up.

The one problem I have noted already is that it's big and heavy enough that I won't have it with me unless I am pretty sure I will need it. When I bought my 70-200 years ago, I bought the f/4 partly because it weighs half what the f/2.8 weighs, and I can throw it in the bag even if I have no idea whether I will use it.



I don't understand this. If you compose so that the image on the sensor is the same size--as opposed to framing so that the image fills the same fraction of the frame on both cameras--and if the pixel density is similar, shouldn't the bokeh be identical? It's a function of the optics, not the size of the surface onto which you are projecting the image.

I totally agree with Donald... I will try this technique.

[rpcrowe]

I did have a very slight problem using this lens on the 5D2 full frame camera. It did some vignetting which, however, was easily remedied in ACR.

As far as the weight of this lens: it is very close to that of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens. I purchased the f/4 version of that lens to use as a walk around lens in conjunction with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens because I figured that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II would be too heavy to carry. (I was right - too heavy for me anyway) I use the 100-400L II as a specialty lens for occasions such as airshows, etc., when I know that I am going to need it! I once carried a pair of 7D cameras with a 300mm f/4L IS and a 400mm f/5.6L mounted. I now carry the 100-400L II on my 7D2. That's a LOT lighter in weight and more versatile than the two camera and two lens setup... Although the 100-400L II will do much of the work of the 70-200mm f/4L IS, I plan to keep both lenses for their specific uses

I plan to visit the Blue Angels training site near El Centro, California next Thursday (2/9/17). Last time I shot this, I used the 300mm prime on my 7D2. This time I will use the 100-400L II and see just what a difference that makes. Actually, the 100-300mm range of this lens will (I expect) be as valuable as the 300-400mm range; since the aircraft fly extremely close over the shooing site. So close that we are asked to either tie down our hats or remove them to prevent the being blown off anc sucked into a plane's intake



There are two sets of flights: one at 9 am and the other at 1 pm. I only stayed for the first flight last time but plan to stay for both flights this time. The main difference will be the angle of the sun in comparison to the aircraft...