100-400mm MII Answers (Page 2): I use Tamron 100-400mm on my D850,a great pair.

WesIam Loc: Phoenixville, Pa

I use Tamron 100-400mm on my D850,a great pair.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Architect1776 wrote:

I did, it is incredible.

When you see what it takes to build a top quality lens the question is no longer 'Why does it cost so much' but rather 'How can they sell them so cheaply?'
I watched a documentary a while back on the making of lens elements. Very labor intensive for high quality lenses.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

LFingar wrote:

When you see what it takes to build a top quality lens the question is no longer 'Why does it cost so much' but rather 'How can they sell them so cheaply?'
I watched a documentary a while back on the making of lens elements. Very labor intensive for high quality lenses.

Exactly my thought.
Mechanically a prime is simpler by far.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

WesIam wrote:

I use Tamron 100-400mm on my D850,a great pair.

??

agillot

i inherited a 28/300 tamron xr di , same thing , it will focus very close .perfect walk around lens , small / light .i ll bet cheap now on the used market .

ggab Loc: ?

Architect1776 wrote:

We took a walk on the Susquehanna River at the Hia... (show quote)

Well done.

Jolly Roger Loc: Dorset. UK

robertjerl wrote:

That is why I have owned the first model and now the second model.

Same here Robert.

ggab Loc: ?

riscpc wrote:

Take a look at this Teardown of the Lens to see how well built it is.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/canon-100-400-is-l-mk-ii-teardown-best-built-lens-ever/

For those that don't want to read the article, here is the important part:

"I know I can’t really, without showing you dozens of other lenses, do a good job of impressing you with just how robustly engineered this lens is. I will say that the insides look more like what we’d expect to see in a 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 lens, rather than a telezoom. It’s by far the most heavily engineered zoom lens Aaron and I have ever seen; and we’ve seen the insides of dozens of lenses in this range.

Well done, Canon engineers, well done"!

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Orson Burleigh wrote:

img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)

I agree that the Canon EF 100-400mm II is a great lens. However, it is not a macro, not even close.

The photos below are of Spring beauty flowers, which are consistent in size, about 5/8" in diameter. The first photo was taken with the Canon EF 100-400mm II a couple of days ago at minimum focus and at 400mm focal length, the second with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro focused not quite as close as possible.

Mike

(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Architect1776 wrote:

We took a walk on the Susquehanna River at the Hia... (show quote)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Blenheim Orange wrote:

I agree that the Canon EF 100-400mm II is a great lens. However, it is not a macro, not even close.

The photos below are of Spring beauty flowers, which are consistent in size, about 5/8" in diameter. The first photo was taken with the Canon EF 100-400mm II a couple of days ago at minimum focus and at 400mm focal length, the second with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro focused not quite as close as possible.

Mike

It sure beats the heck out of Nikon and Sony offerings.
Also over and over it is NOT a macro lens but close.
The 50mm macro and Nikon 55mm micro are MACRO lenses and go to 1/2 life size. The 100-400mm is in reality a bit more than 1/3 life size which is incredible for a 400mm range zoom.
PS I also have the 100mm f2.8 L macro and yes I know it goes to 1:1.
I also use bellows and extension tubes exceeding 400mm on the bellows so I AM aware of what macro is and so do the others commenting here.
It is just an amazing zoom lens with a versatility far exceeding a fixed 100mm macro and except for hyper small things does an admirable job up close at 400mm. Try getting the flower I showed then the duck by just turning around with no fumbling around changing lenses. Then think about which for a walk in the woods utterly smokes the other.

Photocraig

Architect1776 wrote:

Thx.
This subject comes up a lot and I wanted to really show besides being a long zoom it is an incredible near macro lens.

With plenty of working room.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Photocraig wrote:

With plenty of working room.

ggab Loc: ?

Architect1776 wrote:

Thx.
This subject comes up a lot and I wanted to really show besides being a long zoom it is an incredible near macro lens.

I knew you would get called out on your "incredible near macro lens" comment.
I am just surprised it took to page 2.
Some people are just too literal here on the Hog!

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Architect1776 wrote:

It sure beats the heck out of Nikon and Sony offer... (show quote)

I love the 100-400mm II. I have been using that lens walking in the woods the last 10-12 days or so. It is a remarkable lens, no question about that. But it is not "very close to macro," or even "close to macro." That is not a criticism of the lens, nor of you, nor of your images, but rather merely a point of clarification.

Mike