EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS Done?

Well since this lens is one my Favorite outside-sports lenses, hopefully, this news signals a replacement/update for this popular work hoarse lens. Jw.

Good riddance, this lens deserved to be gone a while ago (just for its antiquated push-pull zoom), hopefully it will get updated to a more normal twisting zoom.

I don’t think so, Canon usually does not discontinue a lens before announcing a new one and currently they don’t have one that would fit this range. So, I’d say it is an input/user error at the Koch web site ;)

Yeah, that’s right! This always happens – take a 1,300 USD lens out of the lineup and replace it with a 6,000 USD lens. I think Canon is gonna replace the 50D as well, with the 1DsIV

And this is relevant to the discussion because …?!?

Funny, as this was not one of the lenses removed recently from the Canon USA website.

I own this lens, and its a great piece of equipment. It is the only push-pull lens currently in production, maybe they are revising it rid the product of the nickname “dust pump”.

are you to dumb to read?

the info is from canon germany!

the koch website is only a proof that the info is correct.

Even if this time the rumors about the 100-400 being discontinued are (finally!) actually true, Canon would never leave such a gaping hole in their line up. In particular since this lens (together with the two 70-200 f4 and maybe the 24-105) are actually “system seller” lenses, as there are little (any?) equivalent lenses in the line ups of other manufacturers that strike the balance between price and quality like these lenses do.

So if the current version is discontinued, we will definitely see a successor, maybe there will be a minor gap where the “old” one will be no longer available in quantity and the new one is not yet available. But that would be all about it.

So say hello to 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS II. And don’t forget to add 25% to the current model’s MSRP.
I too have been holding back on buying the current model as I had always hoped for an update with improved IS. Lets just hope that it is announced early this year so that we have a reasonable price level near christmas.

No, not really. Limited by what common sense will allow them to purchase more likely. I don’t make money from my photos, so really, 6000 USD is, at this point in time, a tad much. Furthermore, imagine carrying that beast.

Well, I’ve always wanted one but always been postponing it coz I had other lenses as a priority… I just hope it’s being updated with a fixed Aperture version, something like 100-400 F4.5 or something… I love the lens, but always hated the changing aperture… Just hope it’s not discontinued for good.

Reports about the sharpness of the 100-400 on the long end vary widely… from “very soft unless stopped down considerably” to “tack sharp wide open”. I guess the truth is somewhere in between. Or Canon QC is really as sloppy as many people say.

Do you have the current 100-400 and can comment on its sharpness (or the lack thereof) based on personal experience?

I agree, perhaps a significant number of people could actually afford lenses beyond 2000€, but most of these people are reasonable enough to not actually buy them, as they have different priorities. There are many more places to put that amount of money.

I had a similar experience last year May. A dutch retailer told me that the 100-400 had been discontinued. I stood beside a salesman as he called up Canon and was told that the 100-400 was no longer being made. Added to the fact that at that time the lens was out of stock at almost all retailers throughout the country, I was convinced a replacement was inbound.
A month later it was back in stock everywhere..
So I ended up buying it then, and am extremely happy with it. I happen to have a sharp copy, which helps. The push-pull design took some getting used to, but now i really like it (can keep your hand underneath the barrel at all times, even when zooming) and hope that any replacement also has this design.
Still, wouldn’t mind an update, specifically to the IS as I have very shaky hands.

Please learn to read… and perhaps learn a little respect while you’re at it, posts such as these really are unnecessary.

It’s at least as relevant as 99.99% of the comments here…

Sorry, my bad. I missed the II. That way it makes sense.

Truce?

I have this lens and I do enjoy the push/pull design. Aesthetically its not as pretty as a lens that twists. Sometimes when getting a new twist lens I twist it the opposite way of what I want. With the push pull you always know.

A new version of this lens will probably also mean its going to cost 200-300 more, minimum. :(

Maybe the new version of this lens can be a 100-400mm f/3.5 IS II. That’d be kinda nice, I’d pay an extra $600 for that.

Or a 400mm f/4 prime (I would have bought this instead of the 300mm f/4)

EF 400mm ff/4 DO IS USM

“Sometimes when getting a new twist lens I twist it the opposite way of what I want.”

You are not buying Canon lenses.

“Maybe the new version of this lens can be a 100-400mm f/3.5 IS II. That’d be kinda nice, I’d pay an extra $600 for that.”

Lovely joke. Do you know what f-numbers actually mean?

This lens at the long end has maximum aperture of f/5.6, you would like it to be f/3.5, that’s more than one stop of difference which means that the area of the front element of the lens would have to more than DOUBLE in size. Doubling in size means tripling (if not more) in volume and not just for the front element but for most other elements of the lens. That would add much more than $800 to its price. $800 could possibly pay for making it constant aperture at f/4.5.

Well, there are strong rumors that Nikon is coming out with a 100-500mm lens. Maybe Canon is replacing the 100-400 with an 200-500/f5.6L IS II?. I like that idea!.

OMG I nearly died, LOL what a cool porno name for a photo shop.

Isn’t the 28-300mm L push pull in production too?

This lens is due for an upgrade soon. It’s already fantastic optically in terms of color, contrast, and sharpness. However, the bokeh could be improved and the IS is outdated. The lens also does suck in a bit of dust with the design, but I never noticed any difference with image quality.

I have a hard time finding use for it with my wedding and portrait photography work – but it’s a great travel and wildlife lens, and a lot of fun. Everyone (especially me!) needs a good fun lens. I sort of put this kind of purchase in with a macro lens. It won’t make me any more money as a professional, but it sure is enjoyable.

Any of these:
100-400L II IS
200-400L IS
200-500L IS

with constant f4 would be sweet, but heavy & expensive….
so not likely going to happen.
Constant f5.6 is doable, maybe split the difference, f4-5.6

A 200-500L f4-5.6 IS would make me happy, and would fit in with the 70-200’s nicely.

A number of people have voiced their desires for the Nikkor 200-400 f/4 lens. But such a lens is extremely heavy and expensive. Surely, only a small group of people will want such a lens. Wondering if all these comments come from the same few people who complain like a broken record player.

First of all I wrote “the area of the front element of the lens would have to more than DOUBLE in size”. AREA.

Secondly – let’s refresh some high school match. For the radius of 35.7mm the area (pi*r^2) is approximately 4007mm, for the radius of 57.1mm it is over 10258mm so it is more than 2.5 times bigger. This is really very simple math.

Another way of looking at it – each stop halves or doubles the amount of available light so the corresponding lens area must either half or double. It’s the lens AREA (or the area of the front element anyway) that we are talking about.

The concept of f-stop is one of the cornerstone of picture taking, please read something about it, just try Wikipedia as the first step.

It’s an excellent field sports lens.

The push/pull design allows the lens to be very compact when in your bag…therefore I which Canon to keep the push/pull design.

But that doesn’t mean Canon can’t also come out with a 200-400 f/4 zoom that doesn’t push/pull.

The Nikon 200-400 f/4 is $6100 at BH with USA warranty, also it weights 7.2 lbs and is 14.1″ long.

Canon 100-400 is $1610 USD at BH, weights 3 lbs, and 7.4″ long when it’s smallest length.

I agree with you. A fun lens to use tho rarely get a great shot with it unless it’s landscape.

The bokeh is awful when there’s distracting structure (like twigs or grass) in the zone just outside of the DoF, as is often the case shooting a resting bird.

for fun, I put a 1.4x in between it and my 40D and managed to get some candids of a family of foxes playing a LONG way off. The focus was more miss than hit in the late evening light and the critters were still too far away to make a good crop but it was interesting to see how much reach (almost 900mm!) it had. Mine’s pretty decently sharp, at least on the 10MP crop body. It also makes taking a candid portrait from great distances possible.
I’d be happy if it was renewed with better, quieter IS and please-please! better bokeh! out of focus twigs and grass look like coarse sandpaper!
—

well mine is far from done.

You guys should probably finish this argument over a nice game of Dungeons & Dragons.

There’s nothing like pwning someone’s Fire Elf with your +5 Goblin when they tell you you don’t know what an F stop is.

Awesome.

4 stops are 4 stops, independent of focal length, at least in terms of displacement. Assume one pixel deviation would be nominally tolerable, now an IS unit always has to shift the image by up to 16 pixel to get 4 stops, tele lens or a retrofocus wide angle doesn’t matter once you are close enough to the rear end.

Or just think of the 70-200/4IS, in conjunction with a TC2 you’ll get a 400mm with 4stop-IS! :)

Yes, and at the same time you also get that lovely f8 maximum aperture, leaving you without AF on all but the 1 series bodies. Great suggestion really. And I haven’t even started about what 2x teleconverters tend to do to image quality. I am sometimes using the 70-200 f4 IS with an 1.4x converter, which visibly reduces contrast and even worse, it kills the bokeh.

they remove the lens to update it with new pics but not this, all the others new updated pics.

+1000

you seem to have used a myriad of lens there buddy..

I do agree on you about the 2x and it’s effect on IQ..

however, even I wouldn’t dare to use 1.4x on a 70-200 4.. that lens is performing sub par enough that adding converter would only add insult to injury..

just my $0.02

On the other hand, you can use the mental gymnastics that I use:

1. Keep an eye out for the lens you covet and only buy it when you can get it at a deep discount and, if possible, with a rebate. In particular, when a foreign currency tanks against your own currency, there is a window of opportunity for ordering from that country before they adjust their prices. I’m in the Euro zone, so the USA in late 2007 and the UK in early 2008 had real bargains (not any more, though).

2. Convince yourself that because you got it at a bargain price, that its second-hand value will be a significant proportion of its original cost.

3. Repeat point 2 as necessary.

4. Try to forget how much money you sank into a lens and just enjoy it.

5. Every time your wife reminds you of point 4, refer her to points 2 and 3.

I reckon that my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS has cost me about €300-400 for the past two years. There is considerably more money tied up in it, but I can get that back if I really need it.

Please, do not try to tell me that it cost me more than that! I will just block my ears and refer myself to point 3.

Nikon 80-400 VR is twist zoom and is shorter than canon 100-400. Sony 70-400 is just 5mm longer than Canon 100-400. Tokina 80-400 is 5cm shorter and 300g lighter than Canon.

Sounds like you talk more about gear than you actually use it. “Sub-Par?” It’s one of the sharpest telephoto zooms out there..talk about adding insult to injury

Have you ever used a 70-200 F/4L IS?? really?? Mine is sharper than my 85mm 1.8 PRIME even at F/4. It’s sharper than anything I’ve seen really even the 70-200 F/2.8L IS @ F/4… claiming it’s sub-par means you either had a bad copy which is not possible since this particular lens dont have a history of bad copies, or you really really need your eye sight checked…

You wouldn’t know a sharp copy if it spiked you in the arse. They are all pretty much on a par with each otehr you cretin.

Gag.

He should have said “pretentious” tool instead.

The prime is a fair bit sharper and lighter, plus it vignettes less and has better contrast. It’s AF is a lot faster too

Hm… I was under the impression that this lens sold quite well. Why would Canon discontinue an elderly design that still sells? Must net them a lot of money.
Of course, things might have changed during the last year…

I’d even settle for a 150-300 f/2.8. Better yet would be an f/2-2.8, since Canon camera bodies handle variable aperture lenses quite well. Even better would be a 200-500 or 250-500 f/2.8-4. Of course, all these lenses would have to handle 1.4x and 2x TCs extremely well.

Hehe thanks for the help. Much appreciated. :)

you spelled hoarse incorrectly…i think you meant “work whores”

I have stopped buying lenses from B&H owing to them not including a warranty card with often v expensive glass. It really annoys me, ps I am in the UK so postage back is a hit.

“I’m not a lens designer, but I don’t think it’s as simple as doubling the area of the front element in order to increase one f-stop performance (doubling the amount of light).”

Well of course, the internal construction of the lens and its elements changes as well, but it starts with how much light can actually enter it.

The first amendment only applies to government actions regarding the censorship of speech, not the act of private individuals on a private forum. Neither you, nor anyone else here, has a first amendment right to post your opinions on this private forum. This is fundamentally a good thing, unless you want the government to come in and tell the owners of private forums what they can and cannot do.

Also, he censored posts, not sensored them. Unless he took a picture of them with a digital camera or in some other way used a sensor to capture an image of the post. But if he did, then the post would still be here.

You might not be aware that such a product actually exists. Well almost, its not made by Canon (but available in Canon mount) and lacks an IS, but still.

Have a look:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_200-500_2_8_ex_dg_review_test_hands_on.htm

Bring on the 200-400 f4L IS

Workhorse… sheesh

it’s not just filter threads.

For example, the front element of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is almost twice the area of the Canon 50mm 1.4

There are likely design reasons for making the front element larger than necessary. The area of the front element may just dictate the maximum possible aperture at a given focal length.

Zooms seem to be more complicated. The 70-200 2.8 has a larger front element than the 200mm 2.8 prime (filter sizes 77mm and 67mm respectively). Michal’s calculation above would yield an aperture of 71.4 mm for both of these lenses. Clearly the 200mm 2.8 cannot have a 67 mm filter thread and a front element of 71.4mm.

Unless you’re J?hn Sw?n. In which case you completely deserved it. Cretin!

^.^

“sorry you almost had an aneurysm reading it.”

Didn’t even come close to having one, I have seen much worse online but thanks for your concern, if I had not have my nasolacrimal ducts surgically removed some time ago I’m sure there would be a tear rolling down my cheek right now.

“Could i see your online portfolio sometime Michal?”

Feel free, other than being obnoxious and pretentious (and strangely not mentioned “anal”) in situations when people voice loudly their ignorance I’m actually a nice person (as my 10 ex-wives can attest) – http://www.flickr.com/photos/michalrosa/

Who cares about this. I’m still waiting for the 17-500mm f/2.0 IS L. I heard it’s not going to be white.

Hey,

Thanks for the link, I saw Juza with 200-500 a few months ago. I also knew that Sigma had one, that’s why I said Canon should make one too.

Thanks anyways ;).

Good gallery of images, I like the photo journalism stuff you’ve got going on.

Its not so much ignorance, as much as I like to mess with people :), my intentions are to make people laugh, not get angry though. You should have seen the post I put on Fred Miranda. Lets just say that one made this lens at f/3.5 much more probable.

On the 200 f/2.8, I’ve looked it up and it is 72mm filter which is just enough.

I haven’t managed to find good scale pictures of the Canon and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lenses yet but I really can’t imagine the latter being double the front glass area. Remember only the visible glass area counts. It doesn’t matter how much plastic there is or where the filter threads are.

Cretin lulz

I think that’s pretty optimistic. It’ll more likely cost at least $3000.

If it would be only 1400$, I’d sell everything right now in order to get it. If it could only be possible..Maybe in 100 years.

That’s would be the 14-800mm f/1.2 DO IS L lens I’d say.

But why wouldn’t it be f/1.0 or f/0.8 ?

It would need a new rock-solid tripod and a very advanced and accurate AF.

||“Sometimes when getting a new twist lens
||I twist it the opposite way of what I want.”
|You are not buying Canon lenses.

Canon lenses zoom counter-intuitively for me too – that’s one thing that Nikon got right. By convention most things that turn in our culture do so clockwise from lower to higher.

“Canon lenses zoom counter-intuitively for me too – that’s one thing that Nikon got right. By convention most things that turn in our culture do so clockwise from lower to higher.”

Hogwash. Such “convention” applies to clocks and clock-like indicators but not to other apparatuses. When a screw is turned clockwise it actually gets smaller…

In case of zoom lens it’s an arbitrary decision which way it should work and there is no right or wrong way about it.

It would cost around as much as the 200/2 or 300/2.8

push-pull can be quick

it’s awesome!

“4 stops are 4 stops, independent of focal length, at least in terms of displacement”.

Not sure if you are correct, if a physically longer lens needs to be corrected for vibration the correcting optical elements (depending on their placement in the lens) have to shift more to correct for the vibration. I’m sure there is some latitude built into the system but it does not extend into infinity.

“Or just think of the 70-200/4IS, in conjunction with a TC2 you’ll get a 400mm with 4stop-IS! :)”

I only have 1.4x extender that I rarely use with my 70-200 2.8 but I really doubt you would get four stop-IS with your set up. Such system would be physically longer with the additional length of the TC and that surely would have to be taken into account when correcting for IS. As I said I have no personal experiences with such set up but I don’t think it would work as well as you think so.

That focal range is/was available for quite some time, but it only got more or less popular with cropped sensors where it works like a tele to supertele.
If it takes the TCs without quality loss it would be a sensible choice, but I’m afraid they learned from the past.

500/5.6 L IS…. don’t care if its a zoom or a prime as long as its razor sharp at 500…. 600/5.6 would be even better but that would be getting to expensive… I think they can do a top notch 500/5.6 L IS for around 2k