EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS

[Heidrun]

Has anybody heard if there is gonna be a mk II version on this one. Me myself dont like push-pull zooms because of the risk of dust into the camera

[akiskev]

An 100-400 with no push-pool zoom sounds more like a wish than a rumor.

[ronderick]

We've been wishing for the 100-400 replacement back in the days when others were wishing for a new 70-200 f/2.8L.

Today, the 70-200 f/2.8 L II has been out for quite a while, and we're still wishing for the 100-400 replacement.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I hope any replacement is push-pull.  The push-pull allows it so store compactly and makes it practicwl to have a short MFD.    It could be sharper, and the IS could be updated along with lens coatings, but for the price, its pretty good.

from my back porch, my 100-400mm L and view of tower 8 miles away with 1.4X +2X TC's Stacked.



From 30 ft, Lilldeer heavy crop:

[aldvan]

Me myself dont like push-pull zooms because of the risk of dust into the camera

I get my 100-400 on February 2010. Since then I used it intensively, also in dusty environments, and until now I got no dust at all inside. Obviously it can happen, but according to me that is one of the usal overextimated Internet legend...

[bycostello]

I never got on wth the push pull, but can't believe canon make it that way on a whim.. so can't see ank mk2s being different....

it was also too heavy so e-bayed it in the end...

[neuroanatomist]

dont like push-pull zooms because of the risk of dust into the camera

It's not the push-pull, it's the fact that the zoom extends.  Rotating zooms that extend also move lots of air - hold a lens like the 24-105mm with the lens mount up to your face, and zoom in and out.  Fully internal zooms, like the 70-200mm series, do not move air like that.  However, to design a lens like the 100-400mm as an internal zoom would eliminate one of the key benefits of the lens, it's (relatively) compact size when retracted.

Has anybody heard if there is gonna be a mk II version on this one. Me myself dont like push-pull zooms because of the risk of dust into the camera

Yes, I recently read that a 100-400mm MkII was due out very soon.  But then, I read than in a POTN post from 2004. 

Seriously, despite rumors to the contrary, I would not be surprised if Canon doesn't update this lens any time soon, if at all.  The new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens is Canon's update/replacement for the 100-400mm.  The 100-400mm lens was designed when all cameras were FF (film), and for the new 70-300mm, Canon has clearly stated that their target market for that lens is the APS-C owner, where the lens provides an equivalent 112-480mm, i.e. longer than the 100-400mm on the bodies for which it was deisgned. 

I'd certainly like an updated verision of the 100-400mm, but I'm not holding my breath (and in fact, I'd like an updated 400mm f/5.6L prime with IS even more).

[Heidrun]

No i am thinking with wishes.
What if Canon made the mk II version with aperture 5,6 all true the zoom range. they made it with IF. and forget the area 100-200. Just made it with the zoom range 200-400.
I know that there is a new 200-400 coming to the marked soon. But thats for aperture 4, and cost a lot of money. Could they make one on a budget ?
Because if they made a 200-400 f.5,6 and maybe build in a 1,4 converter. Then i think Canon wil be heading in the right direktion . And if the prize was around 2000 dollar, then it would suite a lot of photographer just fine

[jcns]

@Heidrun
 a constant aperture requires complex design; read: not cheap
Canon has a 100-400 4.5-5.6
Canon has a 200-400 coming (but not your suggested 5.6)
Having a 3rd option in this range (your suggested 200-400 5.6) would "crowd" this range with possible cost of cannibalizing sales of the 300 and 400 primes.

[lol]

Constant aperture is easy, as long as it is slow enough f/5.6 should be dead easy, especially for a short zoom 200-400. I'm struggling to think why anyone would want one though, over the 100-400. I suppose possibly it would be closer to prime quality but is it worth the trade? You have a zoom or prime. Something that doesn't do much of either seems a bit redundant and too narrow a niche. And a built in extender on a f/5.6 lens is almost pointless, as anything under 1 series wont AF with it.

If the "extender" lenses catch on, maybe they could in future do something like a 100-300 f/4 extender as a baby model.

[iaind]

There is. Its called the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4X and will cost an arm and a leg
 

[Haydn1971]

Could they make one on a budget ?  Because if they made a 200-400 f.5,6 and maybe build in a 1,4 converter. Then i think Canon wil be heading in the right direction

One big problem with this, Canon would have to make AF work on new cameras at f8 on it's none 1 series bodies...  The 1.4x would push f from 5.6 to 8.0, which would currently limit AF use in extender mode to the 1D/1Ds

[UncleFester]

(and in fact, I'd like an updated 400mm f/5.6L prime with IS even more).

And hopefully 2 stage.

[6dunes]

Why do some people don t like the push-pull construction?, i love it!
I bought mine especially for (kite-)surfing pictures at the Dutch coast.
In these conditions i always use a rainsleeve. It cost me 4 euro a piece.
Even when a lens is weathersealed, sand and salt stays a big problem.
There is always a rainsleeve in my bag.


 

[lol]

Push-pull is just one of those love-hate things I guess... I'd be sad to see it go. Twist zoom is just so much slower.