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

[preppyak]

The other serious alternatives are way too expensive. Unfortunately 

Well, the 400mm f/5.6 is well regarded, but, obviously doesnt have IS. Maybe the 300 f/4L with a teleconverter? Or you could stick with the original 100-400. All are around the same price and have sufficed for many a wildlife shooter.

I'd be interested in your thoughts accounting for (presumed) the weight increase..

A couple of guesses, based on the rumors and patents. For one, it'd be 19 elements in 14 groups instead of the 17/14 of the previous lens, so extra glass means more weight. The different body style and weather sealing could add weight. And if it truly is 82mm instead of 77mm, then the glass itself is larger, which would be more weight. It doesn't say how much more weight...so, even like 3.25lbs would be considered "heavier", even if its truly not "heavy"

[Daniel Flather]

Why not make it a 200-400 f4/5.6L?  I doubt most of its users will use it below 200mm.  It's seen as an alternative to the 400/5.6L as it's reportedly(1) sharper at 400mm versus the prime lens.


(1)  As per many forum threads.  Actual use and experience does not apply on my behalf.

[lol]

I don't know about others, but I definitely use mine at 100mm. I wouldn't say no to even more wide angle, like the Sony 70-400mm for example. Or perhaps that belongs in a new lens above it, to go one up on Sigma's 50-500.

[sovietdoc]

I don't get the hype about this lens.  There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.

For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless. 

First, you're blowing away 100mm worth of f/2.8 super high IQ goodness
Then, if you need the reach, just add a TC and you got it with probably similar IQ.

What any 70-200 II owner needs is a 200-400 f/4 and not this rubbish.

If you dont have a tele lens at all, 100-400mm gets you covered nicely in once package, but if you have a 70-200, it's kinda useless.

[alan_k]

I don't get the hype about this lens.  There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.

For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless. 

First, you're blowing away 100mm worth of f/2.8 super high IQ goodness
Then, if you need the reach, just add a TC and you got it with probably similar IQ.

What any 70-200 II owner needs is a 200-400 f/4 and not this rubbish.

If you dont have a tele lens at all, 100-400mm gets you covered nicely in once package, but if you have a 70-200, it's kinda useless.

I have the 70-300L + Kenko 1.4x TC (one of the only ones that will fit). I've done a couple of tests and didn't see much point to the TC. Slows down af, and you can crop @300mm and get something that looked as good as if it were shot with the tc. At least in my experience.

That said, not everyone wants to drag the 70-200 2.8 around due to the weight. If I were hiking around for a few hours, I'd much rather have the 70-300L or 100-400L.

[neuroanatomist]

I don't get the hype about this lens. 

Wow, that's a lot of misconception there, to be charitable...or trolling, to be uncharitable. 

There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.

Do the Canon TC's work with the 70-300L?  In case you didn't know, they don't.  3rd party TCs do, but the newer ones will not AF, and regardless, that option is pretty inferior, optically.

Or maybe you're suggesting no one needs that extra 100mm?  If you don't fine - say so.  Personally, I do...

For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless. 

Ok, I own both, and a 2x TC.  Does that make me an idiot?  Do you own both?  If so, maybe that makes you an idiot.  If not, then how do you know the 100-400mm is useless?  Maybe having both would give you the opportunity to test the 70-200mm + 2x against the 100-400mm, in which case you'd find out that the 100-400mm @ 400mm f/5.6 is optically better... 

First, you're blowing away 100mm worth of f/2.8 super high IQ goodness
Then, if you need the reach, just add a TC and you got it with probably similar IQ.

This makes no sense at all.  They are different lenses, and no, adding a TC doesn not give simliar IQ.  Decent IQ, yes.  IQ that will do if you don't have the 100-400mm with you, or if you're shooting in the rain and need a weather sealed combo.  But not similar.

What any 70-200 II owner needs is a 200-400 f/4 and not this rubbish.

So...you're going to give everyone the $8,000 (estimated) to make up the difference in cost?  Apparently, you're very generous, and you're independently wealthy, or being a doc in the former Soviet union pays a lot more than I've been led to believe.

If you dont have a tele lens at all, 100-400mm gets you covered nicely in once package, but if you have a 70-200, it's kinda useless.

I think you said that, already. A 200mm lens is no different than a 400mm lens?  Or a TC is a magic tube that doesn't degrade the optics at all?  Consider...if the current 100-400mm beats the 70-200 II + 2x TC at the long ends, how would a 100-400mm designed to the current Canon trend (24-70 II, 70-200 II), with the newest coatings, etc., compare?  Answer: it would blow the 70-200 II + 2x out of the water.

But you must be right.  A new 100-400mm lens is useless.  Canon is stupid for spending R&D funds on one, and they'll never bring one to market because no one will ever buy one.

[FunPhotons]

I don't get the hype about this lens.  There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.

For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless. 

First, you're blowing away 100mm worth of f/2.8 super high IQ goodness
Then, if you need the reach, just add a TC and you got it with probably similar IQ.

What any 70-200 II owner needs is a 200-400 f/4 and not this rubbish.

If you dont have a tele lens at all, 100-400mm gets you covered nicely in once package, but if you have a 70-200, it's kinda useless.

Uh, no. My 70-200 2.8 II is way too short for wildlife, and the 2.8 is unnecessary the majority of the time outside. The 1.2 TC doesn't add much, and the 2X has other issues as mentioned (there is no free lunch). I keep the 2.8 for indoor events and people photography mostly which is where it shines.

A 100-400 would be the lens I grab as a complement to my nature hikes and photography. A 1.2 will give me 480 - almost 500 which is very usable for birds (especially on a crop body). Plus I can zoom out for some usable landscape photos.

Each has a best application I find the 70-200 doesn't work well as a wildlife lens but a 100-400 would be a perfect complement to my 16-35.

[unfocused]

I don't get the hype about this lens.  There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.

The 70-300, while a great lens, does not take Canon teleconverters.

[bdunbar79]

I don't get the hype about this lens.  There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.

For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless. 

First, you're blowing away 100mm worth of f/2.8 super high IQ goodness
Then, if you need the reach, just add a TC and you got it with probably similar IQ.

What any 70-200 II owner needs is a 200-400 f/4 and not this rubbish.

If you dont have a tele lens at all, 100-400mm gets you covered nicely in once package, but if you have a 70-200, it's kinda useless.

I own both the 70-200L and the 100-400L.  Of course I'm not worried what you think because I know what I'm doing and you clearly do NOT.

[bdunbar79]

I don't get the hype about this lens.  There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.

For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless. 

First, you're blowing away 100mm worth of f/2.8 super high IQ goodness
Then, if you need the reach, just add a TC and you got it with probably similar IQ.

What any 70-200 II owner needs is a 200-400 f/4 and not this rubbish.

If you dont have a tele lens at all, 100-400mm gets you covered nicely in once package, but if you have a 70-200, it's kinda useless.

Uh, no. My 70-200 2.8 II is way too short for wildlife, and the 2.8 is unnecessary the majority of the time outside. The 1.2 TC doesn't add much, and the 2X has other issues as mentioned (there is no free lunch). I keep the 2.8 for indoor events and people photography mostly which is where it shines.

A 100-400 would be the lens I grab as a complement to my nature hikes and photography. A 1.2 will give me 480 - almost 500 which is very usable for birds (especially on a crop body). Plus I can zoom out for some usable landscape photos.

Each has a best application I find the 70-200 doesn't work well as a wildlife lens but a 100-400 would be a perfect complement to my 16-35.

I was hiking around Mohican State Park with my 100-400L lens all day, then had to swing back into Mansfield for a basketball game, where I used the 70-200L lens.  So yes, I agree with your usages too, there is simultaneous value.

[TeenTog]

still though, it would be nice to see a replacement.

[bdunbar79]

still though, it would be nice to see a replacement.

Not push/pull?  I could go for that feature.

[wickidwombat]

they will need to keep cost to a decent clip uner $2000 if it goes over 2k then it's going to be competing with the sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS which looks like a real winner

[drjlo]

The 1.2 TC doesn't add much, and the 2X has other issues as mentioned (there is no free lunch).

I used to think Canon 2x TC III was overpriced, but I just got one, and this thing is a beauty.  It's even more impressive stopped down a bit On my 70-200 f/2.8 II, at 400 mm.  Looking at the recent Canon telephoto prices, the 2x TC III is looking more like a bargain..

http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/2011/01/the-new-canon-teleconverters-image-quality-comparison/

[rpt]

This had nothing to do with AF, it had to do with IS being pretty darned worthless on this lens, at least compared to more modern lenses.

Hmmm... Again not my experience. My daughter who is 5'3 hand shot the moon a couple of times on my 300D at 400mm and 1/60th. And the shots were sharp. Sorry you are not happy with yours.

I got about 50% at 1/60th and 300mm.  I get 90+% at 1/30th and 300mm on my 70-200 (with TCs).

That is a great rate. I have not shot any at 1/30th. May be I should try that. I am sure the IS II is better though. When I bought it, I did not have the option to get a 70-200 + 2x TC.