Comments on: EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (CR2)

By: Sjakie

Sjakie — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:37:14 +0000

@ Mattia,

The Dutch Canon website has a typo for the 100-400. If you look at the partnumber it’s just a normal 100-400.

By: Mattia

Mattia — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:39:42 +0000

Just to add a little to the rumour mill – the Dutch Canon RRP PDF file (listing prices of all Canon products on sale in NL) for January no longer lists the 100-400 F/4-5.6, but it does list a (more expensive) 100-400 F/4 IS USM:

http://www.canon.nl/Images/Canon%20CCI%20advies%20verkoop%20prijslijst%20januari%202009_tcm16-621024.pdf

By: Peyton

Peyton — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:49:53 +0000

I’m really hoping this is a production item. I am looking at the 500 f/4, but would love an awesome twist zoom to fill the gap between it and my 70-200 2.8 IS – I have used various 100-400L ‘dust pumps’ and I am not 100% happy with it.

By: Ruben

Ruben — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:41:21 +0000

New EF 100-400mm 4.0L IS USM

This is a lens I will buy if it is true…

By: Ralf

Ralf — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:38:27 +0000

What about this price list???

http://www.canon.nl/Images/Canon%20CCI%20advies%20verkoop%20prijslijst%20januari%202009_tcm16-621024.pdf

New EF 100-400mm 4.0L IS USM?????
No more EF 70-200mm 2.8L (without IS)
No more EF 400 F5.6L

Or are they just typo’s

By: Zeb

Zeb — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:30:37 +0000

Not sure if it is really feasible to do a 100-400 zoom with a turn mechanism, would mean that you would have to do a lot of turning to reach the 400 end. Would never be as fast as the push/pull mechanism, imho.

/Zeb

By: Mischa

Mischa — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:57:11 +0000

I really don’t like the current 100-400 design. I’ve heard some people complaining about dust in the lens because of the push/pull system. But a new 100-400 would raelly complete my gear (longest is 70-200 2.8 IS).

Well, let’s hope it’s true this time, just a few weeks waiting for the announcement…

By: Gonzoo

Gonzoo — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:46:14 +0000

If this becomes true I will buy it – provided it is significantly sharper than the current 100-400.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 23:49:42 +0000

Indeed, i think something like a 200-400 F4 or F5.6 should be considered by Canon first before update the 100-400. Since that the current 100-400 is not bad at all, and Canon’s lack of a lens to compete with Nikon’s excellent 200-400. And half of the 100-400 is a waste of money if you have any of those 70-200s… At least I would like to see a 200-400/4L IS to be introduced not the updated version of 100-400.

By: nounours18200

nounours18200 — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 23:19:16 +0000

If your annoucement about a 500/5.6L IS is true, O buy it as soon as it is available…

By: cfibanez

cfibanez — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:50:48 +0000

Very nice. I was about to get the current 100-400 but will hold for a while.

Now to the CR guy: Why the CR2 score on this one? Unreliable source? How can we help you to make this a CR3 or CR4?

Thank you.

By: Rod

Rod — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:45:21 +0000

@Greg:

Oh yes, I should have known it was too good to be true!

I just hope Canon hurry up and build my ideal lens’s to compliment my already fantastic 70-200 2.8L IS –

a 16-70mm F2 L IS
and a 200-400 F4 L IS

Both no more than Ã‚Â£1,500 please :)

Thank you.

By: OM

OM — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:59:13 +0000

I really dislike the push pull and the poor weather seal so the new one sounds good to me. However, one very important feature to look for is if the autofocus will work with the extender? For me itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a must in order to move away from my 300 f/4Ã¢â‚¬Â¦

By: Antony

Antony — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:05:17 +0000

I think the likelihood of a constant f/4 is very remote