JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you accept the use of cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 174000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
Pros: Extremely sharp and contrasty, portable, takes the Canon 1.4x III tele-converter well, fast accurate focusing, excellent IS (image stabilization), and the minimum focus distance is 1 meter.
Cons: Occasional purple fringing on high-contrast subjects. Bokeh isn't as nice as a prime, of course (but it isn't terrible). I wish the tripod collar was removable. Expensive.
Opinion: This is the best tele-zoom I've ever used. It is an improvement in every way over the original 100-400. It is sharper, faster focusing, more accurate, has better stabilization, and handles the 1.4x TC III well. However, the best feature for me is the 1m close focus (1/3 life size at 400mm), which lets me get closer to frogs than before. While the bigger faster super-teles have advantages, this is the best portable tele available for Canon. I've used the original 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 300f/4L, original 100-400L... the 100-400 mark II is better than all of them... except the 300/f4L is smaller/lighter. None of the other lenses I listed are bad (they are all excellent), but the 100-400 mark II is noticeably better.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Opinion:Maybe I've been a bit drastic in Pros and Cons but things are pretty much the same. Of Course that starts from 4.5, of course it is heavy but it is a 100-400 of great quality and worth it. For so many years I preferred the 70-200/2.8 But if I have to carry a cannon behind then that is at least a 400. I compare with 70-200 because I will make a similar use and, from the first jokes, I already see that it is not inferior as quality, indeed. It Produces the blur even better at focal lengths than the 200, not fathomable with the 70-200 of course. The difference in brightness can be a problem up to 200 about but in the daytime does not prevent anything, in the evening or indoors in theaters or similar the light is always on the framed part that, by force of things, is less than that framed with 70-200. It Also lends itself to all other fields of application where these focals are used in their own way (and not improper as I do). As definition and sharpness I didn't really think it could even be higher than the classic biancone. I have taken it from very little but, at the moment, I am fully satisfied.
Pros:Extraordinary sharpness and weight. Unattainable by any other objective at the moment on the market of Reflex
Cons:Hard to find
Opinion:Undoubtedly the best tele in Reflex field for several years to this part. Extraordinary sharpness at any aperture, construction and exceptional materials. The weight is very low and allows you to work anywhere. I assure you that I used it even in climbing wall it was a lot of magnesite. The cost must not mislead because in my opinion, in view of the excellent tool that is delivered, is even underestimated. Congratulations Canon!
Pros:Sharpness on all focal zooms not overly heavy excellent resolution even with low lights great with Canon MT 1/4 III loses very little AF excellent and good stabilizzattore that has 3 settings like the last generation of the brothers
Cons:Nothing
Opinion:For me it is one of the best zoom 100-400 in circulation seems to have been created together with the 7dii is an exceptional pairing and since I replaced it with the 400f. 5.6 I no longer removed from my 7dii use it even with the Canon MT1/4 III without any problem I use it even with the 5DIII for stolen portraits because it has an excellent blurred up to F. 8 I use it more for birdlife and up to 30mt. It is great if you use it in full light is amazing and with little light is spectacular is enough to hit AF immediately at the first shot and with times and ISO guessed that no Will disappoint you for me deserves a 10 +
Pros:Sharpness at all focal lengths, general robustness, much smoother focal block on zoom, stabilization, color, minimum MAF distance improved.
Cons:Perhaps, but only perhaps, the uncomfortable disconnect of the bracket and only partially. But just to write something also in this section...
Opinion:Still improved compared to my much-loved 100-400 I; I think it's pointless to write torrents of words but only because using it you realize you have a top optics to use for years without sagging. For yield, elasticity of use, general quality, balancing. Having also the excellent 150-600 Sigma S I do not consider however this optics at all in overlap, given the comfort and ductility in the use. Rating: 10, and praise.
The sample photos are selected automatically between all photos posted by JuzaPhoto members, using the camera and the lens selected in the techs. If you find evident errors (e.g. photos taken with cameras and lenses that are not available yet), you can contribute to improve the page by sending a private message to the user that has entered incorrect values in the photo caption.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
![[editors pick]](shared_files/layout/ep_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
![[retina]](shared_files/layout/retina_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
