Is there a chance the 100-400 would be compatible with the extender?
As previously reported, this will not be an "L" lens, so it won't be compatible.
Upvote
0
Is there a chance the 100-400 would be compatible with the extender?
How does a full-frame lens replace a crop-sensor lens, especially when the wide ends are so disparate? I'd imagine that the new 100-400 is probably more of a replacement for a full-frame 70-300 than the EF-s lens. And even then, I'm not sure that I'd be completely happy with losing 30mm on the wide end in exchange for an additional 100mm on the long end.The non L 100-400 seems to replace EF-s 55-250mm for RP and the new cheap FF model.
ohhh, have you used the lens much? What kind of dog do you have btw? Is he photogenic?That’s unfortunate. I ordered mine on 8/15 and it was delivered 8/25. Lucky timing on Amazon (they show In Stock Soon when Canon notifies them to expect a shipment). Next time you see a stock notice pop up here or on CPW, check Amazon and Best Buy. For the last 100-500 bolus in mid-August, B&H didn’t get enough to fill their preorders, but Best Buy had them in stock for a few days.
It would be nice if Canon began shipping some of these RF lenses. Most of them are on back order and I've been waiting for weeks to receive my RF 100 f2.8 Macro
EF-S lens: 55-250mm = 88-400mm equivalent after 1.6x cropHow does a full-frame lens replace a crop-sensor lens, especially when the wide ends are so disparate? I'd imagine that the new 100-400 is probably more of a replacement for a full-frame 70-300 than the EF-s lens. And even then, I'm not sure that I'd be completely happy with losing 30mm on the wide end in exchange for an additional 100mm on the long end.
f/8@400 on FF would be still better than (70-)300 mm f/5.6 on APSC. I'm in! Just hope it's not as huge as the patents show :/I'm pretty excited about the 16mm f/2.8. I'm not holding my breath on the 100-400mm as I'm afraid it may be something silly like f/8 at 400mm.
I've never felt the need for a 16 mm pancake for a FF body. UWA is something I still have to learn to use well.... I’m not sure at this time if the 16mm f/2.8 will be a pancake lens, as I continue to receive that question a lot.
The non L 100-400 seems to replace EF-s 55-250mm for RP and the new cheap FF model
Well, there's been a few things going on in the worldThey can't deliver the stuff they promised last year.
It replaces when there is no RF APSC camera.How does a full-frame lens replace a crop-sensor lens, especially when the wide ends are so disparate? I'd imagine that the new 100-400 is probably more of a replacement for a full-frame 70-300 than the EF-s lens. And even then, I'm not sure that I'd be completely happy with losing 30mm on the wide end in exchange for an additional 100mm on the long end.
Agree that this 100-400 is likely the RF ‘replacement’ for the EF 70-300 IS non-L.How does a full-frame lens replace a crop-sensor lens, especially when the wide ends are so disparate? I'd imagine that the new 100-400 is probably more of a replacement for a full-frame 70-300 than the EF-s lens. And even then, I'm not sure that I'd be completely happy with losing 30mm on the wide end in exchange for an additional 100mm on the long end.
That make sense. I use my 100-500 mostly at 500 until a bird flies directly at me, or I get very close to a perched bird. Unfortunately, the 600mm lens is just a touch out of reach (pun intended) for me. When I can, I much prefer the 70-200 (a 2.8 lens is hard to beat), so the new 100-400 is not for me. However, if the 70-200 is too dear for someone looking for a compact telezoom, I definitely see the RF 100-400 substituting for both the old 70-300 and 100-400 lenses. Canon will sell bucketloads of the lens (my opinion).Agree that this 100-400 is likely the RF ‘replacement’ for the EF 70-300 IS non-L.
I have the EF 70-300L, and I like it for the convenience of its compact length. Still, 100-400mm is a good range. From a marketing standpoint, this will sit nicely in between the 70-200 and 100-500 L-series offerings, and thus could be seen as an ‘affordable’ version of those aimed at EOS RP owners or those who want a telezoom for infrequent use.
Although I use my 70-200/2.8 throughout its range, with longer telezooms like the 70-300L or 100-400L, I usually find myself at the long end of the range (which is why I replaced the latter with a 600/4 II).
That’s unfortunate. I ordered mine on 8/15 and it was delivered 8/25. Lucky timing on Amazon (they show In Stock Soon when Canon notifies them to expect a shipment). Next time you see a stock notice pop up here or on CPW, check Amazon and Best Buy. For the last 100-500 bolus in mid-August, B&H didn’t get enough to fill their preorders, but Best Buy had them in stock for a few days.
The 100-500 is a $2700 L-series lens. The RF 100-400 will be a non-L lens – that's the point. The analogy is the RF 600/4L at $13K vs. the RF 600/11 non-L at $700. The differential between the 100-500L and the 100-400 won't be that large, but the idea holds – possibly a slower aperture, definitely lower build quality, optically good instead of great, and much cheaper.The 100-500 pretty much has a 100-400 bulit in
Could it be a 100-400/4 or what's the point?
It took 108 days to get my 100-500mm.Weeks? I am waiting for months for my 100-500... )-;