New Canon 100-400L

[graham68ktm]

those swimming photos look really good William and anything sharper than that would be amazing depending if I have the skill to use the gear , I should have mentioned that I do own a 18-270 tamron lens and was thinking a purchase of a 70-200 f2.8 would be a better quality unit and f2.8 would allow more low light flexability and with the addition of the 2x extender would give me some more reach for wildlife and sport ! a lot to think about but I think the 70-200 might be a better choice over the 100-400 just for the 70-100 FL usage !

[dolina]

A little bit of trivia. This lens is the top selling L lens since pre-ordering was announced online. It is outdone by the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Lens and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens.

[acko]

This is interesting. I have the 70-200 2.8 and like it a lot. It covers most of what I do, but like everything we always want more. I will wait to see who stocks this new lens and what deals they can offer.

[Speedway]

I have the 70-200 F2.8 ii is and the 2xiii extender + the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS and use these 3 90% of the time on both my 7D and 400D for landscapes, buildings, old cars and machinery, motor sports, football, wildlife and birds. I am hoping to get my 150-500 sigma repaired (OS problem) while in Melbourne over Christmas, the extra reach is handy.
Cheers
Keith.

[acko]

I have the 70-200 F2.8 ii is and the 2xiii extender + the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS and use these 3 90% of the time on both my 7D and 400D for landscapes, buildings, old cars and machinery, motor sports, football, wildlife and birds. I am hoping to get my 150-500 sigma repaired (OS problem) while in Melbourne over Christmas, the extra reach is handy.
Cheers
Keith.

Well, going down the path of the extender is certainly a cheaper option than a new lens. It would be interesting to see how the quality compares.

[Speedway]

Well, going down the path of the extender is certainly a cheaper option than a new lens. It would be interesting to see how the quality compares.

Here are a couple of shots with the 2x extender on the 70-200 both shots taken hand held in misty early morning low light. Minimal processing.
Cheers
Keith.

1. Uncropped, ISO400, 1/250th, F8, 400mm.
IMG_3539aSz2.jpg

2. Small crop, ISO400, 1/200th, F8, 400mm.
IMG_3549aCrpSz2.jpg

[William W]

Well, going down the path of the extender is certainly a cheaper option than a new lens. . .

It is if one already has the original lens and is just buying the Extender EF, (i.e. in this case already owning the 70 to 200/2.8 MkII), then just buyig the extender is a less expensive option - but I don't think it is cheaper in absolute dollar terms to buy a 70 to 200/2,8MkII and a x2.0EF MkIII, compared to the new 100 to 400 MkII.

Ball-park AUS$ Discount Prices / today are (I beleive)

70 to 200/2.8L MkII plus x2.0MkIII = $3140
100 to 400L MkII = circa $2560

WW

- - - Updated - - -

Here are a couple of shots with the 2x extender on the 70-200 both shots taken hand held in misty early morning low light. Minimal processing.

Thanks,

I’d be interested to see samples at F/5.6 and in harder light – from my experience (as per my comments above) I expect they’d be very sharp.

WW

[in2fx]

If I did not already own the old version, I would get the new one for sure

- - - Updated - - -

Well, going down the path of the extender is certainly a cheaper option than a new lens. It would be interesting to see how the quality compares.

My original plan was to put the 2x on the 70-200 f/2.8 because I thought it would be just as good and faster, but I was disappointed at the quality of that combination compared to the 100-400 by itself, so after being in possession of one for about 1½ years (not mine), so ended up buying one.
I would love to try out the new version

[red2thebones]

those swimming photos look really good William and anything sharper than that would be amazing depending if I have the skill to use the gear , I should have mentioned that I do own a 18-270 tamron lens and was thinking a purchase of a 70-200 f2.8 would be a better quality unit and f2.8 would allow more low light flexability and with the addition of the 2x extender would give me some more reach for wildlife and sport ! a lot to think about but I think the 70-200 might be a better choice over the 100-400 just for the 70-100 FL usage !

Funnily enough, I own pretty much the same gear - Tokina 11-16 2.8 mk2, Canon 100m F2.8L Macro, Canon EF-S 18-200 - and was thinking the same thing when looking for ideas on upgrade paths.
If you do take the plunge, would love to hear about your experience (and hopefully samples )

[nardes]

Picked up one of these yesterday and then popped into the Roma Street parklands for a test in the afternoon. Here is a sample of the test shots. Initial thoughts are that this is an excellent lens, is as sharp as my 400mm F5.6L prime, has the blessing of IS and a much closer min focus distance.

Cheers

Dennis

[Filter]

Nice range of pic's to show off the lens, this is proof that my new lens should get the same results, hopefully.

[acko]

Wow, if those shots in the park lands are any indication, this lens will be a cracker!

[nardes]

These were all taken with the 5D Mk III (Raw frames) and I have attached the following files to show the effects of cropping and processing to separate the native abilities of the lens and what has been "added" or "achieved" in post capture processing:

• Full Raw frame SOC resampled down to 1024x768.
• 1024x768 crop from Raw file saved as jpg (no processing at all).
• 1024x768 processed in CS6 and then saved as a jpg to illustrate how CS6 has pumped the data.

Cheers

Dennis