Ross Cunniff

In my previous post on this lens, I used a 1.4x teleconverter on both lenses.  I got a request to repeat the test without the teleconverters, so here are the results. These are all shot at ISO 400, f/5.6 at 400mm, 1/1600s, autofocus with the center point, RAW.  It is later in the day, and it looks like light clouds and shadows moving in the breeze are slightly changing the lighting between the shots, so caveat emptor.  First the whole image with the old lens: Next, the new lens: Here are the locations of the crops I took: First, the center crop.  The old lens: The new lens - again, sharper even in the center (although the moving shadows from the windy day make it a little harder to tell): The left edge crop, the old lens: The new lens - significantly sharper: And now, the corner crop, the old lens: And the new lens.  It is no contest: The chromatic aberration is not as bad with the old lens without the teleconverter - but the sharpness i

Late last year, Canon introduced a new lens, the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM (say that three times fast!).  Reviews held that it was a significant improvement over its predecessor (which is named the same, but does not have the "II" between "IS" and "USM"), and, in fact, was equivalent to their 400mm prime in image quality, but with tons of feature advantages.  I acquired the new lens this week, and have put it through a test to compare, stealing some techniques from my brother-in-law Edward Plumer. Note - I have an addendum without the teleconverter in the mix.  It does not change the conclusion. I set the lenses up on a tripod, pointed at a fork in the tree.  The contrast and colors in the tree are similar to those I find when taking wildlife shots.  Image stabilization was disabled in both lenses.  The new lens was attached to a Canon Expander 1.4x III and the old was attached to a Canon Expander 1.4x II (the previous model). The lenses