Buy now or wait?

[neuroanatomist]

Like this one?
http://atlanta.craigslist.org/nat/pho/2659957148.html

Given the description, it's seen a bit of use...

I can easily imagine people buying it sight unseen over the internet and then discovering that it isn't what they really wanted...

This one is supposedly in excellent condition...and still $1100.

http://capecod.craigslist.org/pho/2679378811.html

That's the beauty of CL - a local meet up ensures you can see - and more importantly test - the item you're buying.

[AprilForever]

Buy now and pay later! And love the images you would have been missing otherwise!

[Mt Spokane Photography]

In the case of the 100-400mm L, there seems to be a lot of older ones floating around that do not produce images that are up to par.

This is one of just a few lenses that I'd recommend buying where you can very thouroughly test it or have return rights.  Its worth paying a little more IMHO.

I had a 2005 model that was good, but not super and sold it.  I bought a new one about 1-1/2 years back and it was much better.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_282320_-1

[briansquibb]

For sports shooting, a pair of 7D's hung on a BlackRapid double strap, one with a 70-200/2.8 and one with a 300/4 (without or with TC, depending on sport and how close you are to the action) would be a nice combination.  Depending on field lighting, f/5.6 might be sub-optimal.

I hang a pair of 7D's on a RS2, one with the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the other with the 400F2.8 IS. I would go with f/2.8 lens to help the AF using the sensitive points.

Brian

[Edwin Herdman]

The Sigma 120-300mm isn't a bad option - if you need 400mm, you can get 560mm, too (close, anyway) with a teleconverter and not lose too much IQ.  f/stop will be a constant f/5.6 even zooming to the wide end with the teleconverter on, which isn't great compared to the 100-400mm, but that's probably about it.  Taking the TC off it should be just about perfect for the segment of a track closer to you (from memory, I'd expect a normal track is too wide to fit into the zoom range of many lenses comfortably while keeping the same framing, including the 100-400mm probably).  It's a bit more expensive than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, and less than half the price of the probable bottom end of the 200-400mm EF Extender 1.4X introductory price range.

[The Bad Duck]

I would also say Sigma 120-300 /2.8 OS HSM. It seems to be a very nice lens not only on paper but also from what I´ve read about it. Some don´t like the AF, others find it great. If I was to shoot more showjumping than just a few shows a year, that is what I would get. Oh and do stay away from the non-OS version, it is not nearly as good.

Biggest pro for this lens is the f/2.8, biggest con is that it´s "only" 300mm at its longest. However with a 7D cropping might do if you don´t need to print big and of course the body acts as a 1,6 extender.

Funny thing to recommend a sigma lens on a canon forum

Good luck.

[smirkypants]

Does it seem that could be happening within the next few months or does this one sound like it's still in planning stages too?

People have been discussing a 100-400mm MkII for years.  IMO, Canon is not going to release a new version any time soon.  I think the new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS zoom is the replacement for the 100-400mm.  Canon took a somewhat unusual step of publishing what they called a 'lens positioning article' for the 70-300mm L.  From what I can tell, it's the only time they've done that, and they state it's targeted at APS-C users where it's effectively a 112-480mm lens (i.e. 'better' than the 100-400mm, plus lighter, tougher, etc.).

I heard this said many times, and every time I hear that the 70-300 replaces the 100-400 because of the crop factor, my ass twitches. It might effectively reach 480mm on an AP-C but the 100-400 has an effective reach of 640mm. How 480mm replaces 640mm is beyond me.

By the way, I have a 100-400mm and I've taken just some astonishingly good photos with it—sharp with beautiful blurring. Pretty much the only downside is when the light is bad (gray skies/rain), the picture quality really suffers in sports where you need to reach 4 digit shutter speeds. I shoot polo and like to get to a shutter speed of 2000, and the 100-400mm is almost useless on a 7d. On a gray day on the long end, you need an ISO of 3200+ to reach those shutter speeds. You can tone down the noise quite a lot in Adobe Camera Raw, but the pictures can start to look a little soft.

I've been waiting patiently for a 200-400mm to get down to f4 and have seriously thought many times of switching to Nikon to get the Nikkor 200-400. The 400/2.8 is just too damned big and inflexible. I miss too many shots using one. It's like a fixed artillery cannon and I need to be mobile. If the Nikon D800 comes out any time soon, I just may buy one just to have that 200-400mm lens.

[papa-razzi]

I have to disagree with neuro. I don't think the 70-300L qualifies as a replacement for the 100-400.
The main reason most people buy the 100-400 is precisely to be able to get to 400mm ! The strenght of this lens is the long range.

Just to clarify, I don't think it's a replacement.  My point was that I think that Canon thinks it's a replacement.

I think there is also a fair amount of marketing spin on that as well.  Just like the 1Dx being a replacement for both the 1D and 1Ds lines, I don't buy it.  I would say - Canon is saying its a replacement - for now, but that is not their long-term position.  We will see a high MP 1Dx at some point.  I'm not so sure with the 100-400 vs. the 70-300L.  Canon's argument is a little stronger on that one.

Having said that, the 70-300L vs 100-400L is a difficult choice.  The 70-300 has all the improvements in IS and AF, but you lose the long end.  I want to get one or the other at some point for sports (cross country, track).  Anyone have experience with both and have suggestions?

[neuroanatomist]

Having said that, the 70-300L vs 100-400L is a difficult choice.  The 70-300 has all the improvements in IS and AF, but you lose the long end.  I want to get one or the other at some point for sports (cross country, track).  Anyone have experience with both and have suggestions?

Fundamentally, I think it's not as difficult as it seems - it comes down to whether or not you need that extra 100mm (and secondarily if you want to be able to attach a Canon TC).  If you do, the 100-400mm is the better choice.  Else, the 70-300mm is a nicer lens.  I used a borrowed 70-300 L for a little while, and it handles very well - the compact size is nice, the IQ is excellent.  I've considered getting one to use for in inclement weather (vs. the 70-200/2.8 IS II + 1.4x/2x TCs), and possibly for travel use as a compromise between the two larger/heavier white zooms. But since I swapped my 300/4 IS for the 100-400mm specifically to get the extra 100mm, I can't see the 70-300mm as a replacement for me.

As for sports use, both lenses are f/5.6 at the long end.  Probably for running events, which tend to be daytime where you can hope for good light, it's ok. 

[wickidwombat]

Thanks neuroanatomist, that's the kind of info I needed. I feel much more informed now. That article even made me reconsider purchasing the 100-400mm f4-5.6L. Seems to make more sense to go with the 70-200mm f/2.8 as planned then use the money I was going to spend on the 100-400mm to buy a second camera body to keep a second longer or larger aperture lens mounted.

This is my philosophy I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS II on my 5Dmk2 and keep the 300 f4 IS on my 1D mk3 awesome combo IMO and i keep the 1.4 teleconverter in my pocket incase i need a little more reach on the 300.
the things i love about the 300 f4L IS are its light, its skinny (I take off the tripod mount dont need it and it takes up space. the built in hood is great its fast both in aperture and focus speed. definately consider this lense with a TC in place of the 100-400 if you are considering having a 2 body aproach.

I have been considering getting a 7D to keep attached to the 300 for the extra reach and the fact they ar eso cheap now but all the reports of bad high ISO performance has me thinking i might wait and just deal with the extra weight of the 1d 3 and the different batterys for a while longer because i like being able to shoot at 1600 iso and even 3200 at a push and it sounds like the 7D really struggles in this department

[tron]

I guess it depends also on how light you want to travel. I have just bought a 100-400 (yes I know perfect timing, just before the next
version was announced!) and although it will overlap with my some of my lenses (70-200 f/4L IS, 300mm f/4L non-IS, EF1.4X II)
I do not regret it. I will be easy on some occasions to just grab my 24-105 and 100-400 and go...

[tron]

I guess it depends also on how light you want to travel. I have just bought a 100-400 (yes I know perfect timing, just before the next
version was announced!) and although it will overlap with my some of my lenses (70-200 f/4L IS, 300mm f/4L non-IS, EF1.4X II)
I do not regret it. I will be easy on some occasions to just grab my 24-105 and 100-400 and go...

Let me correct myself: Just before the next version was rummored not announced! It is different! Plus the price of the new lens (if indeed 2800$) would be way off.