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

[Lawliet]

But if there's a 100-400L mk2, where is the 70-300L going to sit? For the small group of people who absolutely *must* have both 70-100 and 200-300 in one L lens?

Don't think in focal length, but in volume and weight. In your average non wildlife/sports situation convenience might be the more important factor. You don't have to look for a bag that can hold a 70-300L, but the 70-200/2,8 is about the largest lens I'd put into a general purpose bag/pack.
The 70-300L fits nicely as an everyday solution, whereas the 70-200s(+TCs) and/or x00-400s require more effort.

As for the sports season - perhaps seeing lots of 200-400/4s would be more likely, that's if Canon can supply them.

[wtlloyd]

Will it take the 1.4x or 2x extenders?

Not on the 1DX.....

[KyleSTL]

A few folks want an EF 400 f/5.6L IS, I’d think this sort of product would fill the void. I’d expect it to be optically awesome.

At a rumored cost of nearly 3 times the amount, how exactly does this 'fill the void' of an IS 400mm f/5.6 replacement.  The whole point of the 400 5.6 is affordable super tele.  In most amateurs minds I would venture to say $2800 is not 'affordable'.

[kirispupis]

The big question I have about this lens is if it starts at F4 instead of F4.5, does that mean AF will still work with a 1.4 extender on the 5D2, 1D-X, etc. - even at 400mm?

I owned the current 100-400 and sold it awhile back.  It wasn't a bad lens.  It was of decent sharpness, though the AF was on the slow side.  The main reason I sold it is I didn't see the sense in carrying it around any longer once I bought the 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III.  That combination is much more versatile so I sold the 100-400.

However if the newer lens has the following I would certainly consider picking it up given that the 200-400 and other bigger primes will be out of my price range.
- Not only can have AF will a 1.4 extender, but still has decent image quality and AF.
- Improved image quality from current model
- Significantly improved AF

If it does have these things, then IMHO it is worth a look.  Otherwise I will not bother with it.

[aldvan]

The present 100-400 is my favorite lens, something I have permanently screwed on my 1Ds. I am one of the few ones that like the push-pull and I carry without any problem 1Ds+100-400 hanging at my neck all the day long during 20 miles mountain hiking. The 100-400 is also a sturdy gear. I had it rocket launched from my backpack in Beijing last year and it needed just a new YA2-3629 zooming ring and barrel. No glass was minimally damaged, although the cinetic energy due to the heavy weight was huge.
Do I think to trade it for a new 100-400? Sincerely I don't know, for the same reason I'm not thinking to trade my Land Rover Defender for the next DC-100. There are some features that don't appraise a new customer that will disappear in the third millennium design but difficult to leave for people used to them, like the controversial push-pull zoom. You can accept to leave them for a relevant step ahead. I'm not sure to be willing to pay a gap bigger than 1500$ for a 4/5.6 instead of a 4.5/5.6. If I should be a new customer for this focal lenght, I would be more than happy for the news, but this is not my situation...

[Heidrun]

If it is with Internal Focus and don`t get bigger when im zooming. Then this is a one i want very much

[Doodah]

I am still waiting for some wide to normal (prime and zoom) lenses from Canon.

[J. McCabe]

Why would the front element's size be increased to 82mm ?

77mm would be more than enough (400mm / 5.6 = 71.4mm), and bigger element increases both the price of the lens and of the required filters.

[briansquibb]

The 70-300L is a great lens. Hopefully the new 100-400 will follow along that path. It will be interesting to see if it will take an extender.

[Heidrun]

The 70-300L is a great lens. Hopefully the new 100-400 will follow along that path. It will be interesting to see if it will take an extender.

Agree. 100-400 on a 7 D mk II eventually. That will with a 1,4 converter give me a in reality 224 - 896 mm zoom. Could i ask for more in landscape photos

[lol]

Change from push-pull to twist zoom is not unexpected but still a disappointment to me. Latest IS and sealing are no surprise.

Increased weight? That's more interesting because in the other big white updates of recent past, haven't they been reducing weight? What are Canon putting into the lens to need this weight? More elements for further optical correction perhaps? Possibly related to that the filter size update...

Price again isn't too surprising to me. Since when has a significantly updated replacement lens not cost a lot more than the previous model?

The only question for me is do I get it, should it happen? I have the 100-400L already and its two weaknesses I'd like to fix are IS and weather sealing, which is where I got the 70-300L to fill in. It would be nice to get 400 back on the new one, but is the cost of the zoom handling downgrade worth it? Anyway, no point worrying about it until it officially exists and we can buy it.

[GMCPhotographics]

I've tried a number of 100-400 IS L's over the years and i've had mixed observations. There are soft copies and there are copies with mis focussing AF. Wide open, i've found it a little soft at the short end but very sharp at the long end. So i used stop down to f5.6 across the whole focal range and then i found that it was excellent and very sharp. It vignetted a bit and the out of focus areas were a little harsh. Very strong contrast and vibrant colours too. I did feel that it was a little shorter than the claimed 400mm, which seemed to get shorter as the focus point got closer (no suprises really....most zooms do this).
A good copy is a delight and amazingly versatile. But with every copy i've tried, I've been rather underwelmed by the AF speed. It's pretty redestrian and I'm pretty sure I could manually focus better than most copies i've tried.
Where can Canon improve this lens? Pretty much in every aspect to some degree. Yes it's handling can be improved, vignetting can be reduced (the reason for the 82mm filter threads I'm guessing), there's always room for a sharpness tweek, AF speed improvement is a must as is AF accuracy. The IS system was a revolution in it's day....but things have really moved on...just play with a 70-200\2.8 L IS II to see that. So a newer and fresher IS system would be fantastic...4 stops...very nice. I hope Canon put the tripod mount in a more sensible place. Racked out to 400mm and the tripod mount is so far from the objective lens, it can't be doing much to reduce camera vibration. The 400mm f5.6 L prime has it's tripod mount nice and central and it really works well there. I'd hope that the focal length really would be 400mm and that it wouldn't reduce significantly as the focus point get closer (the achillies heel of the new 70-300L).
Is it a lens that I'd purchase? Most probably, I'd sell my 400mm f5.6 L in a flash as long as it's results are comparible. Great IQ, fast AF speed, versatility and IS are the key points. Lets hope it ticks all these boxes...then again, Canon aren't going to make any mistakes with such a key lens in their range.

Gareth Cooper

[Cropper]

Finally ! It´s about time, I´ve been waiting for this one for soooooooooo long.

This is great news, even if that "Soonish" probably translates to end of 2012 at best.

[dstppy]

The 70-300L is a great lens. Hopefully the new 100-400 will follow along that path. It will be interesting to see if it will take an extender.

Agree. 100-400 on a 7 D mk II eventually. That will with a 1,4 converter give me a in reality 224 - 896 mm zoom. Could i ask for more in landscape photos

You could ask that they don't hamstring the AF with an "upgrade"

[richy]

Just when you thought they couldn't make it any heavier. I have a 100-400 and it's really annoying to carry it for longer than 30 minutes. (I'm a high school student.)

And I hate the pulling zoom thing. WITH A PASSION.

PASSION. :|

The more you carry it the easier it gets. Handholding mf gear got me used to it (alongside rugby and american football at college) but the 100-400 is a midweight lens. You may be lucky enough to get your hands on a 300 or 400 2.8, they are heavy :-) Just get plenty of practice and maybe do a bit of training and you'll not notice the weight and will be able to focus totally on the pictures.

Re the 100-400 II, I agree with most of the comments, price would require stellar optics, weather sealing, 4 stop is, and even then its close to the siggy in price. As much as I like siggy is canon can come in around 2400 street (after the 9 month ish price drop) I'll have one. There have been so many rumors about this lens though!

The 70-300L is great, but if its going to be 5.6 I want at least 400mm out of it. A 150-450 5.6 would be awesome, maybe even 500 at the long end. That would be worth 3-4k anyday!