EF 100-400 Version 2 Coming [CR2]

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<strong>Coming in 2011</strong>

An email showed up this evening confirming a new 100-400 will hit the world sometime in 2011.<strong> </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html">NL</a> also received the same information in person at an event in London.</p>
<p>No word on zoom design.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>

 

[Bob Howland]

Oh goodie! Now we get to fight about whether it should be push-pull or 2-touch. I vote for 2-touch since I have the current version and hate the push-pull action. Also, given the way prices on newly introduced lenses have been going, the new 100-400 will probably cost $2500.

 

[ronderick]

I'm a happy camper as long as it's WEATHER-SEALED and no bigger than the 70-200 f/2.8...

Finally... a nex gen model after all these years...

 

[kubelik]

oh snap! totally excited about this ...

bob, I don't know about $2500 ... probably more like $2000? that would be like a 35% price increase already.

my vote is for 2 touch as well.

as each year goes by, the likelihood of the eternal 100-400 rumor turning into fact becomes more and more likely ... but that being said, canon could easily make us sweat it out for 2 more years. but you gotta admit, when the other rumor about canon upgrading popular L glass in 2011 came out, you all were thinking the same things too: 24-70 and 100-400 (and maybe a few thinking 35 prime also).

 

[RichFisher]

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

I sure hope so. IQ of the current lens is simply not good enough for the high res dSLR.

I expect the price of a 200-400 F4 lens to be $6,000 - $7,000

 

[spam]

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.

 

[Grummbeerbauer]

Whether or not this year-long rumor turns into reality, I simply refuse to buy the current 100-400 with its dated IS, strange handling (which I might get used to, though...) and its renown for considerable sample variation. So an updated one with improved IQ, IS, and handling and if the Canon brass can keep their greed under control and leave it with say, a 20% price increase, and I will definitely get one. Otherwise, someone else might get the money (and that could even be something other than a lens manufacturer )

 

[tzalmagor]

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.

 

[Waleed Essam]

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 ?)

 

[Flake]

Which Sigma though? There are loads around this focal length with various apertures, the 100 - 300mm f/4 is reckoned a great performer there's the Bigma 150 - 500mm now with OS although the aperture is a bit slow, or perhaps the 120 - 300mm f/2.8 (also now with OS) which is 170 - 420mm at F/4 or 240 - 600mm f5.6 with teleconverters, also a very good performer and the cheapest way to get to 600mm and still maintain autofocus.

Then there's the 120 - 400mm OS the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 will take a TC, and also lets not forget the 200 - 500mm f/2.8 if you have bottomless pockets and huge muscles!

Choices choices!

 

[tzalmagor]

Which Sigma though? There are loads around this focal length with various apertures

The 150-500mm, which is indeed a bit slow. It's a compromise I would apparently have to do because my pockets are not bottomless pits of cash.

 

[docsmith]

Even though I just bought the current 100-400L, an update would be great. I'm happy with the current version, but better IQ, faster autofocus, weathersealing, and a 4 stop IS would get me to trade up. But I hope they stay away from the Nikon and it's price range.

As mentioned by others above, I am hoping that the rumors that Canon is going toward big megapixel camera is necessitating the update of their "flagship" lenses to improve IQ. But, we'll see.

 

[traveller]

A 70-400mm, like the Sony equivalen, would be good.

Given the suggested retail price of the new 70-300mm lens, I can't see a 100-400mm selling for less than £2000 (sorry, can't be bothered to convert to US$!).

 

[kubelik]

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.

the sigma 100-300 is a totally different story; light, fast, good range, crisp optics ... too bad there's no OS in it but perhaps sigma will fix that soon

 

[Justin]

I don't get why we need this lens. I'd rather have a proper 400 f/4 and carry around the 70-200 2.8 for the rest of the range. I admit I've never really used the 100-400, because it is such a mixed bag, but I question how useful it really is. I guess as part of a light kit when combined with the 24-105 it is a pretty neat 2 lens getup. I just know that I can't afford much redundancy. Each lens has to count. I have to find a good way to rationalize the focal length redundancy. Maybe if the new optic is really superb, it will make sense. 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.

 

[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.