I recently purchased the Canon 100-400 II.
I confirm I concur with all the great reviews I have read. It is a truly wonderful piece of kit.
Last evening I carried out a specific test to ascertain the performance of the lens with and without a Kenko 1.4x pro 300 DG extender (old version, not the newer DGX) and also against the Sigma 150-500 I have owned for many years.
The test was simple, unscientific and done indoors without flash in quite poor light. I used a Canon 760D mounted on a tripod and took photos of the small print on a bottle approx 4m away. I could barely read the small print when the bottle was in my hand and had absolutely no chance with a naked eye from across the room.
The 100-400 II autofocussed very quickly even in the poor light.
The 100-400 II autofocussing slowed down somewhat with the extender attached (pins taped), but focus was achieved.
The 150-500 autofocus speed was slower than the bare 100-400 II but maybe marginally faster than the 100-400 II with extender. Certainly similar. Both will focus much faster outdoors in better light.
The 150-500 would not autofocus with the extender attached in this light, although it will just about AF in very good outdoors light.
When I reviewed the photos, it is remarkable that in all three photos the small print was clearly legible and readable. In all three the autofocus worked very well, despite the poor lighting.
When all three photos were resized to be similar in size, despite the differing focal lengths of 400mm, 500mm and 560mm, it was very easy to distinguish which text had the best resolution and was easier to read.
The resized 400mm was better than the 500mm but neither were as good as the 560mm.
Incidentally all three were better than the a resized photo taken with a Canon 70-200mm L IS lens.
As I said, a simple unscientific test, but I believe the conclusions are valid nevertheless. The purpose of all this was to satisfy myself that the new 100-400mm lens will be a better bird/safari lens than my faithful Sigma. I think the light weight, fast focussing, wide 100-560 range (with extender) are additional benefits. Unfortunately I do not have the new Sigma 150-600mm to also compare. I expect that performs considerably better than the 150-500.
I confirm I concur with all the great reviews I have read. It is a truly wonderful piece of kit.
Last evening I carried out a specific test to ascertain the performance of the lens with and without a Kenko 1.4x pro 300 DG extender (old version, not the newer DGX) and also against the Sigma 150-500 I have owned for many years.
The test was simple, unscientific and done indoors without flash in quite poor light. I used a Canon 760D mounted on a tripod and took photos of the small print on a bottle approx 4m away. I could barely read the small print when the bottle was in my hand and had absolutely no chance with a naked eye from across the room.
The 100-400 II autofocussed very quickly even in the poor light.
The 100-400 II autofocussing slowed down somewhat with the extender attached (pins taped), but focus was achieved.
The 150-500 autofocus speed was slower than the bare 100-400 II but maybe marginally faster than the 100-400 II with extender. Certainly similar. Both will focus much faster outdoors in better light.
The 150-500 would not autofocus with the extender attached in this light, although it will just about AF in very good outdoors light.
When I reviewed the photos, it is remarkable that in all three photos the small print was clearly legible and readable. In all three the autofocus worked very well, despite the poor lighting.
When all three photos were resized to be similar in size, despite the differing focal lengths of 400mm, 500mm and 560mm, it was very easy to distinguish which text had the best resolution and was easier to read.
The resized 400mm was better than the 500mm but neither were as good as the 560mm.
Incidentally all three were better than the a resized photo taken with a Canon 70-200mm L IS lens.
As I said, a simple unscientific test, but I believe the conclusions are valid nevertheless. The purpose of all this was to satisfy myself that the new 100-400mm lens will be a better bird/safari lens than my faithful Sigma. I think the light weight, fast focussing, wide 100-560 range (with extender) are additional benefits. Unfortunately I do not have the new Sigma 150-600mm to also compare. I expect that performs considerably better than the 150-500.