Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Update [CR2]

[tron]

Well, there is a CR2 that next year we will make the same discussion about a CR2 for a new 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS 

[brad-man]

Well, there is a CR2 that next year we will make the same discussion about a CR2 for a new 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS 

Que in "I got you, babe".

[Nawaf]

Sell it already! 

[tnargs]

$2,200? What do you reckon?

[Irishpanther]

I've got the old 100-400 and love it but my IS recently went buggy.  It'd gone out in January but came back to life and then died again about a month ago.

Does anyone know about or have experience with getting a lens repaired near end of life?  I'd send it in now if I had the cash available, but just finishing grad school and so it hasn't been a priority.  I figure they'll have some spare parts around still once the new lens is released.  But for the sake of hassle and cost, should I save up and send my copy in as soon as I can?

[Mt Spokane Photography]

This is cool!!!

If its at least as sharp as the 400 f/5.6 from 100mm all the way to AND INCLUDING 400mm, this may become another iconic Canon lens!

I would be prepared to sell my excellent copy of the 400 f/5.6 I have for this

There is very little to chose between the 100-400mm L and the 400mm f/5.6 L in the centres - see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14296.msg259688#msg259688

If the new zoom lens is only as good as the 20 year old 400mm f/5.6, then I'll give it a miss as it won't be much better than the current - we want something better.

+1

[Mt Spokane Photography]

This is cool!!!

If its at least as sharp as the 400 f/5.6 from 100mm all the way to AND INCLUDING 400mm, this may become another iconic Canon lens!

I would be prepared to sell my excellent copy of the 400 f/5.6 I have for this

There is very little to chose between the 100-400mm L and the 400mm f/5.6 L in the centres - see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14296.msg259688#msg259688

If the new zoom lens is only as good as the 20 year old 400mm f/5.6, then I'll give it a miss as it won't be much better than the current - we want something better.

Hi Alan. Some fair comment there. I can tell from personal experience that the 400 f/5.6 handily outperforms the current 100-400.
Read the review at Luminous Landscapes. Pretty much echoes what I've seen.

Not for me.  They are very similar, and the actual lens tests show it.  Luminous Landscapes is a good site, but they do not have lens testing facilities, its merely the perception of the evaluator.
There is no way I'd pay $3000 for a 100-400L that just matched the old 400mm f/5.6.

[mycanonphotos]

Be cool if it was a straight f4...

Such a lens would cost at least $6,000. A straight f/5.6 would be much more affordable.

Actually, since the 200-400 f/4 from Canon costs $12k, I'd venture a guess that a 100-400 f/4L would probably cost even more

I know I know....Not asking for a teleconverter to be built in..just a straight 4. Is that too much to ask for..? LOL!!

[MichaelHodges]

Between the 300 F4 L IS, 400 5.6 L, and 100-400, I'd take the primes. Even the 300 with Canon TC is sharper than the 100-400 in my experience (as well as WCastleman and Photozone's).

The 100-400 has nice versatility, but so does a Canon S3.

[dslrdummy]

I'll wait for the 400 5.6 IS.

[neuroanatomist]

But isn't perception what everyone here argues in favour of because measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment on websites like DxO don't favour Canon?

I don't see many people arguing that here.  DxOMark's 'measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment' are just fine (usually, although they have gotten bad copies of lenses, refused to admit it, and then later quietly re-done the measurements on another lens).  They don't seem to favor any one brand.   

But when they take those 'measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment', put them in a bias blender and whirl them around at several thousand rpm, then take the goo that pours out and feed it to scum-digesting bacteria, then take the bacteria excrement and bake it in an oversimplifying oven at several thousand degrees, then take the steaming pile of baked crap and call it a Score...that's the problem, right there.

[Sabaki]

This is cool!!!

If its at least as sharp as the 400 f/5.6 from 100mm all the way to AND INCLUDING 400mm, this may become another iconic Canon lens!

I would be prepared to sell my excellent copy of the 400 f/5.6 I have for this

There is very little to chose between the 100-400mm L and the 400mm f/5.6 L in the centres - see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14296.msg259688#msg259688

If the new zoom lens is only as good as the 20 year old 400mm f/5.6, then I'll give it a miss as it won't be much better than the current - we want something better.

Hi Alan. Some fair comment there. I can tell from personal experience that the 400 f/5.6 handily outperforms the current 100-400.
Read the review at Luminous Landscapes. Pretty much echoes what I've seen.

Not for me.  They are very similar, and the actual lens tests show it.  Luminous Landscapes is a good site, but they do not have lens testing facilities, its merely the perception of the evaluator.

But isn't perception what everyone here argues in favour of because measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment on websites like DxO don't favour Canon?

+1

[mrsfotografie]

I've got the old 100-400 and love it but my IS recently went buggy.  It'd gone out in January but came back to life and then died again about a month ago.

Does anyone know about or have experience with getting a lens repaired near end of life?  I'd send it in now if I had the cash available, but just finishing grad school and so it hasn't been a priority.  I figure they'll have some spare parts around still once the new lens is released.  But for the sake of hassle and cost, should I save up and send my copy in as soon as I can?

I would suggest you to contact your Canon service center and get a quote. 

[mycanonphotos]

But isn't perception what everyone here argues in favour of because measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment on websites like DxO don't favour Canon?

I don't see many people arguing that here.  DxOMark's 'measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment' are just fine (usually, although they have gotten bad copies of lenses, refused to admit it, and then later quietly re-done the measurements on another lens).  They don't seem to favor any one brand.   

But when they take those 'measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment', put them in a bias blender and whirl them around at several thousand rpm, then take the goo that pours out and feed it to scum-digesting bacteria, then take the bacteria excrement and bake it in an oversimplifying oven at several thousand degrees, then take the steaming pile of baked crap and call it a Score...that's the problem, right there.

Hey...Wait....I don't think DXO has even TESTED the 100-400... What the Heck!!?? all the other lenses, why not this one..!!

[AlanF]

Between the 300 F4 L IS, 400 5.6 L, and 100-400, I'd take the primes. Even the 300 with Canon TC is sharper than the 100-400 in my experience (as well as WCastleman and Photozone's).

The 100-400 has nice versatility, but so does a Canon S3.

I did choose a prime - the 300mm f/2.8mm II to get a huge stonking increase in performance not a tiny quantum, if any, with the antique ones. And I travel with an SX50 because it is versatile and fits in my briefcase.  But, I want a really sharp 100-400 zoom with modern AF and IS to go with my Canon body for those occasions when zooming is needed and when I don't want to lug the big white primes.