September 20, 2014, 10:27:52 PM

Author Topic: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]  (Read 15314 times)

SecundumArtemRx

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #45 on: April 30, 2013, 12:01:27 AM »
Don't mean to sound cynical, but this is one lens I'll believe it when I see it. It's approaching Duke Nukem-like rumor status, only to be believed when released. I hope it's sub $3K though when released, as I agree it doesn't make sense why it would cost more out of the gate for something with a similar aperture and focal length?
Canon 60D: 16-35 f/2.8L, 35 f/1.4L, 135 f/2L, 70-300 f4-5.6

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #45 on: April 30, 2013, 12:01:27 AM »

Mick

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
  • Wildlife, Landscape and above all sport.
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #46 on: April 30, 2013, 02:58:48 AM »
On a slightly different tack, I was wondering what the old lens is like? I need a zoom of this range for animals and sport moving toward and away and I've missed a few shots with the 300 prime. The prices seem ok, used top quality ones are a decent price. Best buy one before the price changes. New one will be a bit sharper, better I.s and lighter but way more expensive and for what I need the old one seems good enough. So is it any good? If not any alternative zoom? It's the wide range and a zoom I need.
1DX, 1DMK4, 1DS3, 7D, 16-35 F2.8 mk2, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f2.8 is L mk2, 500 f4 mk2, 300 f2.8 mk2 1x4 and 2x mk3 extenders.

polarhannes

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #47 on: April 30, 2013, 04:38:51 AM »
...could be a marketing nightmare selling expensive zooms coming out at the same time (approx) with overlapping focal lengths..

Yeah, that makes sense.  I'm sure VW and Chrysler are just as worried about the marketing nightmare of internal competition from their Porsche and Mercedes subsidiaries.  Just like the 100-400 vs. 200-400, there's bound to be a lot of overlap in the customer base.

Off topic, but Mercedes never was a subsidiary of Chrysler. Daimler bought 92% of Chrysler's shares (I believe in 2003?) and then the company was named DaimlerChrysler, but they split in 2007. Daimler (and Mercedes as well as it is only a brand of Daimler) are now completely separated from Chrysler, just as they used to be before 2003.

Besides of that, I completely agree with your opinion.
"The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera." - Dorothea Lange

Canon-F1

  • Guest
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #48 on: April 30, 2013, 05:03:49 AM »
On a slightly different tack, I was wondering what the old lens is like?

really... well there are already a dozend threads here and a zillion reviews on the web.

rpt

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2179
  • Could not wait for 7D2 so I got the 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #49 on: April 30, 2013, 05:26:18 AM »
On a slightly different tack, I was wondering what the old lens is like? I need a zoom of this range for animals and sport moving toward and away and I've missed a few shots with the 300 prime. The prices seem ok, used top quality ones are a decent price. Best buy one before the price changes. New one will be a bit sharper, better I.s and lighter but way more expensive and for what I need the old one seems good enough. So is it any good? If not any alternative zoom? It's the wide range and a zoom I need.
Take a look at some of my pics. I probably need to verify the AFMA one more time...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4624.msg236755#msg236755
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4624.msg208519#msg208519
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4624.msg237405#msg237405
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4624.msg239577#msg239577
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4624.msg259830#msg259830
http://imageshack.us/f/228/tailedjay.jpg/

Hope this helps...

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1394
  • www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #50 on: April 30, 2013, 05:27:03 AM »
I was personally surprised how good the image quality of the NEX-7 in combination with an 18-55mm is. Maybe this would be an lightweight alternative for mountain hiking. Half of the weight of my Canon gear. 24MP and an very ggod image quality. And I can use filters too

It gets even better when you consider the new 16-50, it's better and a lot more compact even :) I never thought I'd own a Sony camera but now I do. Mind, it's a different field of application - not a 1:1 substitute for my DSLR's of course. The NEX's performance and convenience is however very impressive and I'm considering expanding my NEX system a little further with a 55-210 (I currently have only the 16-50 and the Sigma 30 f/2.8 ).

I wonder where Sony will take things in the future - it's good competition for Canon who will need to push their R&D to become competitive in the mirrorless department. The reverse it also true however, I still don't see Sony being a serious threat to Canon in the 'DSLR' market, even with a FF mirrorless 'A-mount' - yet.

And now back on topic: I welcome the release of a new 100-400. It's always good to have another option on the market. I also expect the re-sale value of the 100-400 to go up when the new one comes out at a (much) higher price. That may be a (dis)advantage depending how you look at it.

In any case, if things go the way of the 24-70, I'll probably not be tempted to get the new model unless the performance increase is comparable to that of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkI -> Mk II. If the price is sky-high however, that'll surely put me off at least until it drops to a more reasonable level.

5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000, S90 | SY14 f/2.8, Ʃ20 f/1.8, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, Ʃ35 f/1.4A, 50 f/1.8 I, Ʃ50 f/1.4 EX, 100L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12 f/2, Ʃ19 & 30 f/2.8 EX DN, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, Metabones SB | FT-QL, AE-1P | FD(n) & FL lenses

Albi86

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #51 on: April 30, 2013, 06:23:26 AM »
Good for Canon to upgrade the lens, but as for everyone else, I wonder about the price.

Nikon is charging a ridiculous amount of money for their 80-400G (though prices are going down quickly). However, they could do it because the new lens is much better than the old 80-400.

Canon 100-400 is quite good. Can they do a so-much-better lens optically? I don't know, and if they do the price will be exorbitant. Certainly it will feature better IS, and I think they're going to smoothen the bokeh too - the biggest problem of the current version. So while I'm sure it will be a better lens overall, the margin could be slight to justify the difference in price. I think the MK1 will look like a much more attractive package to the most.

Talking about alternatives... never heard of Sigma 50-500? I'm holding on for my purchase of an expensive telezoom until Sigma and Tamron announce something in this range. In the meanwhile I enjoy the cheapolicius Tamron 70-300.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #51 on: April 30, 2013, 06:23:26 AM »

psolberg

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #52 on: April 30, 2013, 07:05:25 AM »
hard to tell if this is the obligatory Nikon echo (where every time Nikon releases a lens, there is a rumor of canon doing the same thing, but rarely happens) or the real thing.

Then again, the infamous push puller from canon has been in need of a refresh just as badly as the Nikon one.

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1346
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #53 on: April 30, 2013, 07:44:15 AM »
Good for Canon to upgrade the lens, but as for everyone else, I wonder about the price.

Nikon is charging a ridiculous amount of money for their 80-400G (though prices are going down quickly). However, they could do it because the new lens is much better than the old 80-400.

Canon 100-400 is quite good. Can they do a so-much-better lens optically? I don't know, and if they do the price will be exorbitant. Certainly it will feature better IS, and I think they're going to smoothen the bokeh too - the biggest problem of the current version. So while I'm sure it will be a better lens overall, the margin could be slight to justify the difference in price. I think the MK1 will look like a much more attractive package to the most.

Talking about alternatives... never heard of Sigma 50-500? I'm holding on for my purchase of an expensive telezoom until Sigma and Tamron announce something in this range. In the meanwhile I enjoy the cheapolicius Tamron 70-300.

It's interesting.  Before the 6D came out, many people claimed they'd get a 5DII over the 6D, but it seems like the 6D has done just fine and people are happy with its advantages over the 5DII.  When the 24 IS, 28 IS and 35 IS came out, people complained about price gouging and said they'd never get those lenses, but some of those prices have fallen into the 400 range already.  When the 24-70 II came out, people complained that it lacked IS and was priced through the roof, but people are still buying it even though the Tamron 24-70 has VC and is significantly less costly.

The problem with the 100-400 is that it does some things well, and that other lenses have eroded many of the advantages it had when it was released.  The 70-200L II + 2x is said to come close in IQ at 400mm and is longer when stored and is slightly heavier with the 2x.  The 70-300L is more compact and lighter and has very good IQ.  I'd expect the new 100-400 to soundly beat the current 70-200L II, 70-300L and 400L f/5.6 IQ-wise, especially at the long end.  It might come out closer to 3k initialy but give it a year or two.  Early adopters pay a premium.

Albi86

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #54 on: April 30, 2013, 08:11:18 AM »
Good for Canon to upgrade the lens, but as for everyone else, I wonder about the price.

Nikon is charging a ridiculous amount of money for their 80-400G (though prices are going down quickly). However, they could do it because the new lens is much better than the old 80-400.

Canon 100-400 is quite good. Can they do a so-much-better lens optically? I don't know, and if they do the price will be exorbitant. Certainly it will feature better IS, and I think they're going to smoothen the bokeh too - the biggest problem of the current version. So while I'm sure it will be a better lens overall, the margin could be slight to justify the difference in price. I think the MK1 will look like a much more attractive package to the most.

Talking about alternatives... never heard of Sigma 50-500? I'm holding on for my purchase of an expensive telezoom until Sigma and Tamron announce something in this range. In the meanwhile I enjoy the cheapolicius Tamron 70-300.

It's interesting.  Before the 6D came out, many people claimed they'd get a 5DII over the 6D, but it seems like the 6D has done just fine and people are happy with its advantages over the 5DII.  When the 24 IS, 28 IS and 35 IS came out, people complained about price gouging and said they'd never get those lenses, but some of those prices have fallen into the 400 range already.  When the 24-70 II came out, people complained that it lacked IS and was priced through the roof, but people are still buying it even though the Tamron 24-70 has VC and is significantly less costly.

The problem with the 100-400 is that it does some things well, and that other lenses have eroded many of the advantages it had when it was released.  The 70-200L II + 2x is said to come close in IQ at 400mm and is longer when stored and is slightly heavier with the 2x.  The 70-300L is more compact and lighter and has very good IQ.  I'd expect the new 100-400 to soundly beat the current 70-200L II, 70-300L and 400L f/5.6 IQ-wise, especially at the long end.  It might come out closer to 3k initialy but give it a year or two.  Early adopters pay a premium.


The 24-70 MK2 is optically better than the Tamron. If you can afford it and you don't mind IS, the Tamron is not a strong competitor.

As far as the rest is concerned, it's Canon offer at a certain price point. If you want a 35mm prime and you can't afford anything better than that (e.g. 35L) and/or you don't want to buy products from other brands (e.g. Sigma), there's not much of a choice. Afterwards you can only try to get the best out of what you bought.

None of those product is "bad". There's just a discrepancy between their price point vs performance ratio when you compare them to other offerings on the market.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14440
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #55 on: April 30, 2013, 08:47:51 AM »
hard to tell if this is the obligatory Nikon echo (where every time Nikon releases a lens, there is a rumor of canon doing the same thing, but rarely happens) or the real thing.

Then again, the infamous push puller from canon has been in need of a refresh just as badly as the Nikon one.

Hard to tell if this is the obligatory Nikon troll echo (where people who feel compelled to bash Canon must do so in every thread they can find) or you're honestly dissatisfied with your previously or currently owned 100-400L.

Because while an update would be nice, with the latest coatings, newest IS, and weight-saving advancements, the 'infamous push puller' remains an excellent lens.  BTW, as others have pointed out, the old Nikon 80-400 was optically inferior to the Canon, by a wide margin...it certainly 'needed' an update, badly.  Nikon has finally responded (and they're certainly charging a premium, they've learned well from Canon on that front).
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1516
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #56 on: April 30, 2013, 09:46:26 AM »
...could be a marketing nightmare selling expensive zooms coming out at the same time (approx) with overlapping focal lengths..

Yeah, that makes sense.  I'm sure VW and Chrysler are just as worried about the marketing nightmare of internal competition from their Porsche and Mercedes subsidiaries.  Just like the 100-400 vs. 200-400, there's bound to be a lot of overlap in the customer base.

Off topic, but Mercedes never was a subsidiary of Chrysler. Daimler bought 92% of Chrysler's shares (I believe in 2003?) and then the company was named DaimlerChrysler, but they split in 2007. Daimler (and Mercedes as well as it is only a brand of Daimler) are now completely separated from Chrysler, just as they used to be before 2003.

Besides of that, I completely agree with your opinion.

I worked there in 1998 and it was DaimlerChrysler. Jurgen Shcrempp was the Head boy form the EU.... They might have been bought a year or two earlier.
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

RGF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1274
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #57 on: April 30, 2013, 09:52:56 AM »
<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><g:plusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/04/ef-100-400-replacement-in-2013-cr2/\"></g:plusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/04/ef-100-400-replacement-in-2013-cr2/\">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Speculation has started again<br />

</strong>We’ve received a few reports that an announcement for a replacement to the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS is “very possible for the end of August”. A few prototypes of the lens are currently in use in Asia.</p>
<p>This has been a lens that has been set for replacement as far back as I can remember. I think it’s more probable for release now that Nikon has put their new 80-400 out, which was an area of weakness for them.</p>
<p>We’ve heard from a few people that Canon is having manufacturing issues and that there’s a backlog of new lenses slated for production.</p>
<p><em><a href=\"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162616-USA/Canon_2577A002AA_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296\" target=\"_blank\">EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS at B&H Photo</a></em></p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>


Not surprised about the comment regarding backlog.  Seems to be their Achilles heel recently

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #57 on: April 30, 2013, 09:52:56 AM »

brett b

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #58 on: April 30, 2013, 01:22:13 PM »
On a slightly different tack, I was wondering what the old lens is like? I need a zoom of this range for animals and sport moving toward and away and I've missed a few shots with the 300 prime. The prices seem ok, used top quality ones are a decent price. Best buy one before the price changes. New one will be a bit sharper, better I.s and lighter but way more expensive and for what I need the old one seems good enough. So is it any good? If not any alternative zoom? It's the wide range and a zoom I need.

I suggest you rent one first.

I bought one and returned it two days later. Not because of IQ or focus speed. Optically, I liked the lens and the images it produced. I just could not get used to the push/pull zoom.

I shoot production photos for theaters in my area. Generally these shoots take place during the final dress rehearsal when they run the entire show without stopping as if an audience is present. I get the run of the empty house...can go anywhere I need to within the seating area. I have the 70-200II on my 1DX and the 24-70II on my 1DIV...using the 70-200II for 85%+ of the shots.

On two recent occasions I've been asked to shoot the same show again to get shots of new cast members. The most recent was because the male lead in "Singin' in the Rain" ruptured his ACL during previews and they had to bring in a new lead. The media hadn't reviewed the show yet, so the producers wanted the newspaper & web review sites to have shots of the new guy.

They never did another dress rehearsal, so I had to shoot during a show from behind the audience...behind the back row. I needed more reach and the 70-200 wasn't enough.

I'd shot like this before using the 1.4 converter on the 70-200 and that setup was ok, but I decided I had to have the 100-400. You wouldn't think it, but shooting a musical with a lot of movement and dancing is a lot like shooting sports, except the lighting is constantly changing.

The push/pull zoom of the 100-400 slowed me down. When zooming in, you are literally pulling your camera away from you and when zooming out you are pushing your camera into your face. Plus, I had to change the way I hold my camera. I usually zoom using a finger on my left hand while cradling the lens in my palm...this wasn't possible with the 100-400. I shoot in manual mode and I'm constantly changing aperture and shutter speed along with continually moving my focus point around the viewfinder. This technique is second nature to me, but the push/pull zoom was very distracting and I know I missed shots that I wouldn't have missed. I just wasn't as fast with that lens.

In the end, I wasn't willing to change the way I shoot to accommodate one lens. I hope version II of the 100-400 will have the traditional zoom. I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Mick

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
  • Wildlife, Landscape and above all sport.
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #59 on: April 30, 2013, 01:38:37 PM »
Thanks for the advice everyone.Fantastic idea to rent one. Never thought of that. Actually, think I know someone who has one. I was pretty impressed by the comparisons in the digital picture, for what i want, seems to be a good lens. Holding its value used aswell.
1DX, 1DMK4, 1DS3, 7D, 16-35 F2.8 mk2, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f2.8 is L mk2, 500 f4 mk2, 300 f2.8 mk2 1x4 and 2x mk3 extenders.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #59 on: April 30, 2013, 01:38:37 PM »