EF 100-400 Version 2 Coming [CR2]

[spam]

I don't get why we need this lens.

I agree that the 70-300 L was a bit of a surprise since the non-L 70-300 IS is pretty good. Personally I don't get why we'd need another fixed 400mm or a 70-200 F2.8 for that matter, while the 100-400 is one of my most used lenses and a upgrade would be great.

[docsmith]

I don't get why we need this lens.  I guess as part of a light kit when combined with the 24-105 it is a pretty neat 2 lens getup. But I have to say a 100-400 makes the August announcement of a 70-300 look even stranger. I mean how many zoom lenses does Canon need between 70 and 400? There must be at least 10 now.

Yep....I have two main lenses that I travel with and it is, now, one of them.  Read "Roger's Take" at http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/supertelephoto/canon-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6l-is.  I also suspect that most normal people only have 1-2 lenses in their kits.  Say a general purpose zoom and a single telephoto zoom.

As for the 70-300L lens, I still don't know what all the fuss is about.  Having offerings from 70-200, 70-300, and 100-400  with different variable/fixed apertures, weights and prices seems like a nice range of offerings for all the potential Canon users to choose. Of course, I am assuming the 70-300L is really the replacement for the 70-300 DO.  What seems somewhat extravagant is the 4 different 70-200 mm lenses, but as each represents a distinct price point, so I get it from a business perspective. 

[AJ]

No, the 70-300L is not a replacement of the 70-300 DO.  The DO caters to people looking for minimal size and weight.  The L does not do the job there.

Personally I can't get my head wrapped around the 70-300L.  I'm sure the IQ will be top-notch.  I have no doubt about that.  But in the end it's just a 300/5.6, just like a million consumer zooms.  Kinda like a wood-paneled station wagon made by Jaguar?  I honestly can't figure out who in their right mind would buy this lens.

Now, being able to go out to 400 mm takes things to the next level.  100-400 has always been very popular.  Birders, safari, and so on.  I'm sure a 100-400 mk2 will sell really well.

FWIW the 100-400 goes head-to-head with Nikkor 80-400, not 200-400/4 which is a completely different beast.

[tzalmagor]

as a sigma owner, I have to say I'd be surprised if the 150-500 comes anywhere close to the performance of the 100-400, not in terms of AF, but image quality.  it's got the harshest bokeh out of any of my lenses and is fairly soft across the board, even when stopped down to f/8.

Which is why I'd prefer to split over twice as much for an upgraded Canon lens. Beyond that, the depth of my pocket would force me to fix the bokeh as best I can in software.

[docsmith]

No, the 70-300L is not a replacement of the 70-300 DO.  The DO caters to people looking for minimal size and weight. 

Ok...I see your point, it is smaller and lighter..... but as the 70-300 non-L IS is even lighter, really the primary advantage of the DO is that it is small.  But hey, if it has a market...we'll see.

Personally I can't get my head wrapped around the 70-300L.

If you want and "L" quality general telephoto zoom lens that at least goes to 300 mm and you are only going to buy 1 telephoto lens, what are you going to buy?  To me it comes down to 100-400L, 70-200 f/2.8 plus extender (expensive), and now the 70-300L.  But say your general purpose lens only goes to 55 mm....perfect compliment would be the 70-300L for a 2 lens kit.  Plus, there is a long history with the ~70-300 range and now there is a "flagship" L lens at the top.

At least, that was part of my logic, but I went with the 100-400L (mk I) and am now excited by the potential Mk II.

[neuroanatomist]

But I have to say a 100-400 makes the August announcement of a 70-300 look even stranger.

That's why I think this rumor is bogus.  I just don't see Canon spending the R&D money on the 70-300mm L, a variable-aperture zoom lens with L-build and optical quality, and simultaneously developing an update to another variable-aperture zoom lens.  The new 70-300mm L is the replacement for the 100-400mm.  People who need more focal length should get a prime lens (and I certainly hope they update the 400/5.6 with IS!!). 

I do think the 100-400mm is a useful focal range, and certainly I want the extra 100mm on the long en more than the 30mm on the wide end.  But, the main advantage that the 100-400mm offers is that it's the only way to get a native 400mm with IS for under $2K (and delivers better IQ than the 300/4+1.4x).  If they offered a 400mm f/5.6L IS prime, I'd take that over the 100-400mm in a heartbeat.

[AJ]

70-300 DO - lightest
70-300 - medium weight
70-300 L - heaviest.

Th 70-300 DO has been one of these obscure lenses.  People that I know who have them are minimalist travelers or people with injuries who are unable to hoist heavier gear.  i.e. those who will pay the extra $$ to shave off a few ounces.

I had not thought about 70-300L being the replacement for the 100-400L.  If this is truly the case, then that's very disappointing.  Birders won't be happy.

[neuroanatomist]

I had not thought about 70-300L being the replacement for the 100-400L.  If this is truly the case, then that's very disappointing.  Birders won't be happy.

I'm not a birder but I shoot a lot of birds.  I'd be happier with a 400mm f/5.6L IS than with a 100-400mm II - the former would combine the BIF utility and IQ of the 400mm prime with the static shot utility of IS in a package that would be lighter and shorter (vs. extended) than the 100-400mm.  Weather sealing could be added with less cost (no zoom mechanism to seal). 

[Son of Daguerre]

Could this be a lens that goes head to head with the Nikon 200-400F4???

It could, but then the rumor would be completely wrong. A lens with half the zoom range, larger aperture, much higher weight and 2-3 times the price would hardly be a 100-400 replacement.

I agree.

The current EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 cost $1,500. A 30% raise is reasonable. A 60% is borderline. Anything more and I go for the Sigma, which is $500 cheaper than the current model to begin with.

The funny thing is that the Current 100-400/4.5-5.6 is 1500 USD, the Nikon's 200-400/4 is 7000$

So anything in between can be anything in between...

It's a bit disturbing to think about it... If canon made it fixed f/4 aperture, it will for sure be at least 4000-5000$, if not more given that it has a wider range.

If they made it the same apertures as the current one, they will for sure increase the price quiet much, they see what Nikon lenses are being charged for, and this encourages them to increase the prices (70-200 2.8 II ?)

As AJ said, the Nikon equivalent of the 100-400 is the AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED, not the 200-400mm f/4.

[docsmith]

70-300 DO - lightest
70-300 - medium weight
70-300 L - heaviest.

At least according to canon's website:
70-300 non-L IS= 630 g
70-300 DO = 720 g
70-300L = 1050 g
But I totally see your point, the DO is much smaller and both the non-L IS and the DO are much lighter then the L. 

I had not thought about 70-300L being the replacement for the 100-400L.  If this is truly the case, then that's very disappointing. 

Agreed. 
But, just to point out, canon did annouce the 70-200 f/2.8 IS MK II and the 70-300L in the same year.  Yes, the 70-200 is constant aperture (and f/2.8 at that!), so they are different.  But Canon seems willing to annouce two telephoto lenses in close proximity to each other.

[weilin]

This is indeed interesting, this just further makes me feel like Canon should have made the 70-300 L a fixed F/4.0. This could then replace the 70-200 F/4.0 line giving the photographer the choice of 70-200 F/2.8 or 70-300 F/4.0 like 24-70 F/2.8 vs 24-105 F/4.0...

That being said... I would absolutely welcome an update to the 100-400. Give me 2-touch, 4 stop IS and a constant F/4.0 and my wallet will be that much lighter the day after...

[Justin]

Well then I'd like to see Canon get a little wider and make 5x a 80-400.

No, the 70-300L is not a replacement of the 70-300 DO.  The DO caters to people looking for minimal size and weight.  The L does not do the job there.

Personally I can't get my head wrapped around the 70-300L.  I'm sure the IQ will be top-notch.  I have no doubt about that.  But in the end it's just a 300/5.6, just like a million consumer zooms.  Kinda like a wood-paneled station wagon made by Jaguar?  I honestly can't figure out who in their right mind would buy this lens.

Now, being able to go out to 400 mm takes things to the next level.  100-400 has always been very popular.  Birders, safari, and so on.  I'm sure a 100-400 mk2 will sell really well.

FWIW the 100-400 goes head-to-head with Nikkor 80-400, not 200-400/4 which is a completely different beast.

[AJ]

Docsmith, you are correct!  Seems like the only thing DO buys you is smaller size.

[unfocused]

The new 70-300mm L is the replacement for the 100-400mm.

I don't agree. As others have pointed out elsewhere on this forum, the extra 100mm makes a huge difference in many ways. Generally, I think these two focal lengths get used in quite different ways.

The current 100-400 is one big lens and not something most people will be taking with them for a hike in the woods. On the other hand, if you want to do any wildlife photography, the extra 100mm can be critical. You can pack a 300mm zoom in your bag, carry it with you and hand hold it under most circumstances. Even with IS, I'd need to spend a lot more time at the gym if I were going to routinely hand hold a 100-400mm and I'm not about to be carrying it on a long hike.

Yes, I would consider a 400mm IS prime, but I've used both primes and zooms and I'd say that even though the prime might be sharper, the ability to zoom can outweigh the sharpness. (And, I am assuming that a new 100-400mm will be sharper than the current model).

I've scratched by head over the 70-300mm L for months. I still don't fully understand it, but I am now willing to concede there may be a niche for it. It seems to have been designed for persons needing an all-purpose zoom that can be carried in the bag or backpack and used under extreme conditions.

I can only speak for myself, but I would say that I would be willing to pay over $2,000 for a new 100-400mm L, but I cringe at the thought of spending $1,500 for the 300mm L zoom.

[neuroanatomist]

The new 70-300mm L is the replacement for the 100-400mm.

I don't agree.

Just to be clear, I don't think it's a replacement, personally.  I was suggesting that Canon's marketing department might view it as a replacement.  The seem to have gone to reasonable lengths to point out in their positioning paper that the 70-300mm is great for APS-C, stating, "With these cameras, the effective 1.6x multiplier means its field of view is like a 112mm– 480mm lens on a full-frame camera."  I think they're saying it's better than a 100-400mm from an APS-C perspective (again, I don't agree - I need 400mm or more on my 7D!). 

The 100-400mm is a very popular lens, and whether or not they consider the 70-300mm a replacement, it's certainly a rather similar lens.  I'd be surprised if they release a new 100-400mm any time soon.  I'm sure they've done design work on a 100-400 II, but I bet they'll wait to see what the sales of the new lens look like, and if they cut into the 100-400mm sales, that will confirm that the customer base thinks it's a replacement, and they will have no desire to release a 100-400 II anytime soon.