70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?

[RMC33]

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms.  The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens.  At some point you just need to change lenses.  That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses.  What is next, a 10-800mm? 

Actually, the point of a lens like that is that the things you shoot with it (birds, wildlife, outdoor sports) contain subjects that move a lot and might be 10ft from you one minute and 50ft from you the next. Changing lenses doesn't solve the issue, and for some of them (let's say on a Safari or shooting a mother bear and her cubs) getting closer is perhaps not the best idea.

Pretty much all zooms, except those on the very extreme ends (ultra-wides and fast super-tele), make a 3-4x zoom. Your 70-200's, 70-300's, 24-70, etc. Don't see too many people complaining about the tradeoffs of a 3x zoom in their new 24-70 or 70-200. And even the current 100-400 is pretty good optically, it just uses a different style zoom and could probably stand for some weight-saving technology that Canon has updated their other lenses with.

I've been shooting subjects like that (close and then far) for years.  The solution is to use two bodies with two different lenses on them.  Photographers have been using this standard setup for ages for close and then far subject matters such as field sports.  I would rather shoot with a great prime and then a great zoom on two bodies rather than use a mega zoom with lower quality. 

Again, that is my personal preference and the quality of the mega zooms is getting better all of the time (just not enough to entice me right now). 

Couldn't agree more. Depending on the situation I sometimes will carry 3 bodies if my location permits and I want to get a large variety of shots. I routinely keep my 200 f/2 or 400 f/2.8 on one 24-70 or 70-200 on a 2nd and an 8-15 fish on a third. This is location dependent, Edge of a 600m Half-pipe (long) I use 3 so when my subject is at the top I can get the images I want and as they advance towards me I can swap down to shorter lengths while maintaing the high (640+ Prefer 1/1000) shutter speeds I want. If I shoot DH or Super G I keep my 400 and 200 as the action is BLAZING fast and focus pre-sets are a must (and Canon does not make a 200-400... yet!).

[AvTvM]

I've been shooting subjects like that (close and then far) for years.  The solution is to use two bodies with two different lenses on them.  Photographers have been using this standard setup for ages for close and then far subject matters such as field sports.  I would rather shoot with a great prime and then a great zoom on two bodies rather than use a mega zoom with lower quality. 

My personal preference is having to buy and carry only ONE camera at a time.
A 100-400 Tele-Zoom bears no resemblance to a  28-300 "super zoom",  bridging WW to tele range.
The current 100-400 L is optically quite decent already if you manage to get a good copy.
It could certainly be improved optically by about the same margin as the old 24-70 L compared to the new 24-70 II.  Actually it should be easier, since it is a pure tele-zoom.

[RS2021]

That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses.  What is next, a 10-800mm? 

You are behind times...Sony already made it and I think I saw one in the assorted mixed-bin, right next to the Extended Version of Matrix Trilogy at Walmart.

[Studio1930]

I've been shooting subjects like that (close and then far) for years.  The solution is to use two bodies with two different lenses on them.  Photographers have been using this standard setup for ages for close and then far subject matters such as field sports.  I would rather shoot with a great prime and then a great zoom on two bodies rather than use a mega zoom with lower quality. 

My personal preference is having to buy and carry only ONE camera at a time.

This won't apply to everyone, but professionals such as myself would rather shoot with two bodies and two lenses so that a backup body is already with you.  No time to run back to the car for that spare body when the action is happening right there in front of you at that moment.  Shooting with one body is just not an option for some situations so using two lenses on two bodies just makes sense.

Just providing a view of a professional and why mega zooms are often not practical since you might already need two bodies anyways.  Many wedding photographers do this as well since having that second body on you allows you to not miss that important, non-repeatable, moment in the event that a body breaks (easy enough to swaps lenses from each body at that point).  One body with one mega zoom won't work for you in that case.

(Again, depending on what you are shooting this may not apply to you.)

[AvTvM]

This won't apply to everyone, but professionals such as myself would rather shoot with two bodies and two lenses so that a backup body is already with you. 

I realize that for many professionals 2 bodies is standard / "best practice".
It does not apply to me personally. Especially when I want to have reach up to 400mm.
Never brought a 100-400 to a wedding.

I do not consider a 100-400 a "mega-zoom". To me a 4x telezoom is a quite benign, even conservative zoom-lens class that has been around for 20+ years.

My usage of a 100-400 would primarily be for all sorts of "outdoor sports/activities" and for all sorts of "wildlife" - from zoo to National Parks/Safari.

In additon to a few prime lenses I currently use 3 zooms (on 7D): 10-22, 17-55, 70-200/2.8. I do not consider purchase of a 400 prime lens. I want one additional, handholdable longer Tele-Zoom ... and 100-400 would be perfect. But I will stay clear of the current dinosaur Canon 100-400, which is outdated in every way - from its  push-pull design to its image quality which is ok, but not great by today's standards and its 2-stops-at-best-IS whcih is substantially inadequate in 2013.

Basically I want a 100-400 II that matches my 70-200/2.8 L IS II in every respect. Build, sealing, IS, IQ - all the way to 400mm. At 400/5.6 it should be every bit as good as the current 400/5.6 ... and no, I do not believe this to be possible only in a 200-400/4.0 @ 12,000 Euro.

So, Canon .. get to work. It's time to deliver. :-)

[RS2021]

Basically I want a 100-400 II that matches my 70-200/2.8 L IS II in every respect. Build, sealing, IS, IQ - all the way to 400mm. At 400/5.6 it should be every bit as good as the current 400/5.6 ... and no, I do not believe this to be possible only in a 200-400/4.0 @ 12,000 Euro.

So, Canon .. get to work. It's time to deliver. :-)

I thought Neuro explained this nicely already for you...even using crayons and stuffed toys...still not there? 

[Omar H]

Well...good for Sony users...but I wouldn't change ship because the other brands came out with something newer, different, etc. And I don't even have a lot of equipment yet, but still the grass will always seem greener on the other side.

There's a lot of threads out there of photographers yelling for an updated 100-400mm L. From what we've seen, it's unlikely that we'll see something. The day will come, but speculating about it is not taking us anywhere (Canon doesn't seem to take the hint, and they won't as this one continues to sell).

As for the push-pull, I used to hate the idea just as anybody, until I got to really use one. I don't mind it one bit. But that has been my experience, others can attest differently.

[Hobby Shooter]

Yip, just what Canon need another 70 to something zoom, they are so poor in that market segment 

Yep, totally agree. I've been so frustrated for so long about their lack of good lenses in this range that I have considered selling all my stuff and move to any other brand as long it's not Canon.

This could be the pickiest post I have ever seen on CR. Not you, the OP I mean of course.

[Hillsilly]

While one lens won't encourage anyone to change, it is interesting to see Sony covering all of the key focal lengths that are of interest to most enthusiasts.  Sony already has a couple of interesting longer lenses - 300 and 500mm.  By having a quality range of lenses, they're removing a major impediment to changing systems.  Plus, from the Minolta days, they've also got a few more designs up their sleeve.  Overall, I'm surprised they don't do better in the enthusiast sports and wildlife photography market.  At least they are (hopefully) keeping Nikon and Canon on their toes.

[viggen61]

Don't know about faster...by 100mm they both could be at f4.5.... Case in point is Canon's own 70-300L ...starts at 70mm instead of 100mm ... But by ~103mm or so is the same f4.5 100-400 aperture. So Sony at ~100mm could be at f4.5.

I looked at a bunch of xx-300s with variable apertures that start wider than f/4.5, and all of them were at or below f/4.5 by 105mm or (usually) less, including Canon's "L" zooms (28-300 f/3.5-5.6L & 70-300 f/4-5.6L). The lens spec list at The-Digital-Picture will show you what f/stop the lens reports at what focal lengths.

So, the Sony offering is very likely to be no different in that regard.

[hoodlum]

Canon will need to respond soon with Nikon announcing their new 80-400 on Thursday and releasing it in Japan the following week.

[RS2021]

Canon will need to respond soon with Nikon announcing their new 80-400 on Thursday and releasing it in Japan the following week.

We have covered this in the forum many times....Canon, especially being the top dog, will not feel obligated to match "focal length for focal length" what Nikon offers given the market structure. People capable of buying mid to higher end lenses or zooms will not ditch their whole canon systems because nikon introduces this or that lens or an excellent zoom...

Such tit for tat happens at the entry level product lines even in the canon world where the consumer is not yet committed to a system and can be swayed to chose one over the other.

[Don Haines]

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms.  The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens.  At some point you just need to change lenses.  That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses.  What is next, a 10-800mm? 

At F1.4 through the whole range....... heck, I'd even settle for f2.8

how about 24-1200mm, f3.4 to f6.5, ... and a tilt-swivel screen? Look at the powershot SX50..... it's not a full frame sensor so let the bashing begin

[Daniel Flather]

New-generation 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II telephoto zoom – with 4x faster autofocus and improved optical performance


Marketers love the numbers.

[Radiating]

The MTF data on this lens indicates it has worst in class performance, along with being the most expensive. It is worse than the 15 year old 100-400mm from Canon, continuing the long tradition of mediocre Sony lenses.

If you want a really good lens get the brand new Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-f/5.6

It's MTF data indicates it is way way way better than the current Canon 100-400mm

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/03/04/nikkor-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6g-ed-vr-lens-announcement.aspx/

In fact the MTF data indicates the new Nikon lens is actually as good as the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II wide open at f/4.5-f/5.6