Much like you I started my bird photography journey on the 55-250mm EF-S + Rebel SL2. After about 3 years of using that combo, I decided to upgrade to the 100-400mm L II + EOS M6 Mark.II. I tried the Tamron 150-600mm G2, but as great as the reach was, it wasn't nearly as sharp as the 100-400mm. For better or worse the Tamron ended up being defective and I got a refund, then decided to spend more on the 100-400 L II despite being less reach and I have ZERO regrets. The sharpness is so good that you're better off cropping on that lens than using the 600mm on the Tamron.
I've just graduated from my Canon 55-250 too by investing in a 100-400 as you did. I use it on my Canon 600D and cannot get over the quality. It's frankly superb and gives the most wonderful photos. It gives me the reach I always wanted with the clarity as well. LOVE IT!
I'm a moto filmer shooting on a 55-250mm, and I have had awesome results for the money. I'm now looking to move on to the 70-200mm's and 24-70mm's to go the next step, but I am a huge fan of the cheaper 55-250mm on a cropped sensor. No regrets!
I've also got the canon 100mm 2.8 L macro lens & the canon 100 - 400mm 4.6 - 5.6 L II lens & agree with you all the way to be both absolutely amazing lenses & like you love them ever so much, so my thanks to you for a great video enlightening people on two wonderful lenses.
I realized the older I get the weaker I get with holding my camera sometimes. Im not a professional. Just more of a hobby. I suffer from chronic pain and illness. When the weather is cold, my symptoms are worse, And I struggle now as it is with sports photography but also love shooting my son football games. I also do street photography, portraits, weather, etc My sister just bought a house near the Mississippi River and there is so many eagles!! I don’t do wildlife often but would luv to start more serious, yet for safety reasons need to stand back a little more so I don’t fall in. I worry a camera you suggested at the end (which looks amazing) could be hard to hold/carry around , I realize you mentioned it wasn’t hard to, for yourself though.
Great video, man. I’ve been trying to figure out my next step up from the 55-250 since I’m going full frame. I love the 55-250, but unfortunately it’s not an EF lens. So many choices out there. I’m currently thinking about getting a 70-200 maybe picking up a teleconverter down the line. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
well i use a canon 18 x 200 lens, its a great lens for medium range wildlife photograghy takes great pictures and a great budget lens for the beginner.
Like you the 70 - 200 F4 was love at first use and remained so until the 2.8 was added to the stable. Looked hard at the 100 - 400 and after many reviews on that and the 400mm f5.6 , the 5.6 came home because of sharpness , also helped it cost less.
darn just looking to get a new lens and i use the 90D and i gotta say lenses are very similar you have and i have/consider. used a canon 70-300mm f 4-5.6 is ii usm along time and looking for an upgrade for this 1. the macro lens is also a lens i have(also second hand) havent used it that much but it is a very specific case lens. also have a nice Canon EF-S 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM and this is also a beauty in circumstances cause i mainly shoot in zoo's and especialy reptiles and fish are hard with the 70-300. just rented a sigma 60-600 darn that thing is a beast and a rodeo and a half to handle was glad i had my monopod with me lets keep it at that. but wonder cause i see the age of this video is it still your daily/recomended one or has someting changed in the 3 years?
just purchased my cannon sl 3 camera and rode pro ext. mike and tripod and cannon 55-250 mm and sigma 150- 600 mm lens ( plus my standard 18-55mm camera fitted lens ) along with my compatible smartphone and free edit app I basicly 'have everything' to make mini youtube documentaries! cost just under 3,000 CDN $
Nice video and great research indeed. Thanks for sharing. I have some questions: 1) How much physical distance may be covered by 100-400mm IS lens using EOS 90D? 2) If I use 1.4x teleconverter will be the sharpness reduced? 3) How is the performance of 100-400mm lens in lowlight photography using 90D? Thanks.
1. Depends what you're shooting and lighting conditions. I have got shots of a snowy owl with decent evening lighting at 200 meters, but realistically for nice sharp photos I am always looking to get into a tighter range. Larger the subject, further back you can stay for a quality shot. 2. Have not used and extender but from what I have heard they will decrease sharpness slightly, especially in low light. 3. I have had relatively good success in low light with the 90D and the 100-400. Combined with the noise reduction capabilities of lightroom and Topaz (or other similar programs), its incredible what you can do in post.
Recently bought Canon EF 100-400mm is ii lens. The photos i am getting out of this are soft and there is no punch to the photos. I am not sure if i am using it rightly or my camera settings are proper. I am using it with my EOS R camera. Do you have any advice? Please help me.
I think that's a great option if you already own a 70-200mm F2.8, but the 100-400mm stock reach is more well suited for wildlife photography + you can also tele-extend them as well. Besides the 70-200mm F2.8 III is only $400 less than the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 II so, in terms of potential reach, the 100-400mm is a generally better long term choice in most cases. 1.4x = (FF) 140mm - 560mm F/8 -- and/or -- (APS-C) 224mm - 896mm F/8 2.0x = (FF) 200mm - 800mm F/11 -- and/or -- (APS-C) 358mm - 1280mm F/11
I own the canon 90D aswell as the 5DIII...I also own the canon 100-400 II aswell as the tamron 100-400..... no difference in IQ there.... just some info for people who are not dedicated canon fanboys..... and want to save a lot of money.... and its much lighter
Great vid and thanks for sharing. I'm in the process of purchasing the 100-400 but still doing some research. Currently using a Tamron 18-400mm with my 7D mark II for wildlife but I want sharper images. Would you recommend also investing in a 1.4 teleconverter for the 100-400mm?
I haven't had a chance to experiment with the 1.4x teleconverter yet but I have heard some great things about it. Main disadvantage I have heard about is slowing down focus speed for BIF shots.
@@outdoorguayphoto5328 thanks again. Would you at some point try the teleconverter and post a vid on your experience with it? I really like your content and how you explain everything. I've share this vid with some friends who are getting into wildlife photography and they understood everything lots better.
Much like you I started my bird photography journey on the 55-250mm EF-S + Rebel SL2. After about 3 years of using that combo, I decided to upgrade to the 100-400mm L II + EOS M6 Mark.II. I tried the Tamron 150-600mm G2, but as great as the reach was, it wasn't nearly as sharp as the 100-400mm. For better or worse the Tamron ended up being defective and I got a refund, then decided to spend more on the 100-400 L II despite being less reach and I have ZERO regrets. The sharpness is so good that you're better off cropping on that lens than using the 600mm on the Tamron.
I've just graduated from my Canon 55-250 too by investing in a 100-400 as you did. I use it on my Canon 600D and cannot get over the quality. It's frankly superb and gives the most wonderful photos. It gives me the reach I always wanted with the clarity as well. LOVE IT!
I'm a moto filmer shooting on a 55-250mm, and I have had awesome results for the money. I'm now looking to move on to the 70-200mm's and 24-70mm's to go the next step, but I am a huge fan of the cheaper 55-250mm on a cropped sensor. No regrets!
The perfect video I’m looking for. Thanks for sharing!
I've also got the canon 100mm 2.8 L macro lens & the canon 100 - 400mm 4.6 - 5.6 L II lens & agree with you all the way to be both absolutely amazing lenses & like you love them ever so much, so my thanks to you for a great video enlightening people on two wonderful lenses.
I love wild life Photography I am a beginner Photographer i recently started taking wild life Photography.
I realized the older I get the weaker I get with holding my camera sometimes. Im not a professional. Just more of a hobby. I suffer from chronic pain and illness. When the weather is cold, my symptoms are worse, And I struggle now as it is with sports photography but also love shooting my son football games. I also do street photography, portraits, weather, etc My sister just bought a house near the Mississippi River and there is so many eagles!! I don’t do wildlife often but would luv to start more serious, yet for safety reasons need to stand back a little more so I don’t fall in. I worry a camera you suggested at the end (which looks amazing) could be hard to hold/carry around , I realize you mentioned it wasn’t hard to, for yourself though.
Great video, man. I’ve been trying to figure out my next step up from the 55-250 since I’m going full frame. I love the 55-250, but unfortunately it’s not an EF lens. So many choices out there. I’m currently thinking about getting a 70-200 maybe picking up a teleconverter down the line. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Just remember witha 2 x it will cut you light down
well i use a canon 18 x 200 lens, its a great lens for medium range wildlife photograghy takes great pictures and a great budget lens for the beginner.
Gorgeous Photographs, Great video. Canon glass is THE best. Subscribed.
Like you the 70 - 200 F4 was love at first use and remained so until the 2.8 was added to the stable. Looked hard at the 100 - 400 and after many reviews on that and the 400mm f5.6 , the 5.6 came home because of sharpness , also helped it cost less.
Nice review. I use canon 100_400f.4 version 2&100 f2.8macro . Love them
Liked this video
Clarified my doubts.
Thanks
500 and 1 subscriber here
darn just looking to get a new lens and i use the 90D and i gotta say lenses are very similar you have and i have/consider. used a canon 70-300mm f 4-5.6 is ii usm along time and looking for an upgrade for this 1.
the macro lens is also a lens i have(also second hand) havent used it that much but it is a very specific case lens.
also have a nice Canon EF-S 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM and this is also a beauty in circumstances cause i mainly shoot in zoo's and especialy reptiles and fish are hard with the 70-300.
just rented a sigma 60-600 darn that thing is a beast and a rodeo and a half to handle was glad i had my monopod with me lets keep it at that.
but wonder cause i see the age of this video is it still your daily/recomended one or has someting changed in the 3 years?
I love wildlife photography..planing to buy a camera
Top Video mate really appreciate it, you have helped alot
Using a Canon 100-400mm mk2 but over here we get ripped off so paid £2500. Not been out much yet but took a few shots.... very clear 👌
Don't worry, give it a few months and you'll be buying a 500 F4 MK2 like I did, ditched my 100-400 MK2 lol. :)
Can I have your old one? 😆
just purchased my cannon sl 3 camera and rode pro ext. mike and tripod and cannon 55-250 mm and sigma 150- 600 mm lens ( plus my standard 18-55mm camera fitted lens ) along with my compatible smartphone and free edit app I basicly 'have everything' to make mini youtube documentaries! cost just under 3,000 CDN $
wow nice lens..i love it
I use a Sigma 150-600 on my EOS T7, I do need a macro though
sick bro👍🏼
Nice love from Nepal 🇳🇵🙏❣️
What do you think Canon EF 70-300 L lense, especially in comparison EF 70-200?
Nice video and great research indeed. Thanks for sharing. I have some questions: 1) How much physical distance may be covered by 100-400mm IS lens using EOS 90D? 2) If I use 1.4x teleconverter will be the sharpness reduced? 3) How is the performance of 100-400mm lens in lowlight photography using 90D? Thanks.
1. Depends what you're shooting and lighting conditions. I have got shots of a snowy owl with decent evening lighting at 200 meters, but realistically for nice sharp photos I am always looking to get into a tighter range. Larger the subject, further back you can stay for a quality shot. 2. Have not used and extender but from what I have heard they will decrease sharpness slightly, especially in low light. 3. I have had relatively good success in low light with the 90D and the 100-400. Combined with the noise reduction capabilities of lightroom and Topaz (or other similar programs), its incredible what you can do in post.
@@larryguay8610 Thank you :)
Great i started on same route and have all but the 400 one ugg don’t feel like paying tho grrr ha
why not buy a 2x extender we have one that we use for night sky photography with a 70-200mm which makes it a 140-400.
This video helped, Thank you
Don't bother asking questions; he wont respond.
That's why he only has 523 Subs! LMAO
Thank you for the advice, after one year do still recommend 100-400mm II ? I have canon 90D as well and looking for the lens that perfect for wildlife
i have the same 55-250.. heavily discounted.. ill never buy a brand new lens again lol... ive been considering the 150-600 sigma and a 70-200 canon.
Recently bought Canon EF 100-400mm is ii lens. The photos i am getting out of this are soft and there is no punch to the photos. I am not sure if i am using it rightly or my camera settings are proper. I am using it with my EOS R camera. Do you have any advice? Please help me.
best is to buy a 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x extender . great video
I think that's a great option if you already own a 70-200mm F2.8, but the 100-400mm stock reach is more well suited for wildlife photography + you can also tele-extend them as well. Besides the 70-200mm F2.8 III is only $400 less than the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 II so, in terms of potential reach, the 100-400mm is a generally better long term choice in most cases.
1.4x = (FF) 140mm - 560mm F/8 -- and/or -- (APS-C) 224mm - 896mm F/8
2.0x = (FF) 200mm - 800mm F/11 -- and/or -- (APS-C) 358mm - 1280mm F/11
great video !!! Did you think about just getting the 2.0 extender for the 70-200?
I have a 70-200mm f2.8 is ii and I wasnt happy with the images I was getting with 2x teleconverter
What about the 70-300L? Any good? I just purchased one for my 80d. Would that be any good?
I own the canon 90D aswell as the 5DIII...I also own the canon 100-400 II aswell as the tamron 100-400..... no difference in IQ there.... just some info for people who are not dedicated canon fanboys..... and want to save a lot of money.... and its much lighter
Great vid and thanks for sharing. I'm in the process of purchasing the 100-400 but still doing some research.
Currently using a Tamron 18-400mm with my 7D mark II for wildlife but I want sharper images. Would you recommend also investing in a 1.4 teleconverter for the 100-400mm?
I haven't had a chance to experiment with the 1.4x teleconverter yet but I have heard some great things about it. Main disadvantage I have heard about is slowing down focus speed for BIF shots.
@@outdoorguayphoto5328 thanks again. Would you at some point try the teleconverter and post a vid on your experience with it? I really like your content and how you explain everything.
I've share this vid with some friends who are getting into wildlife photography and they understood everything lots better.
hi is this lens 100 to 400 f4-5.6 fit on a canon t 6 Thanks
Nice video ! How does the Canon 90D RAW files look at 3200 ISO ?
Can I use the canon 100-400 on my canon t7i
Yes you can, both EF and EF-S lenses work for your camera.
Can you put that 100-400mm on a canon m50 mirrorless??
Nope.
You need adapter I believe
Holy shit thats dark
,
,
Wow ❤