EF 100-400 Version 2 Coming [CR2]

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,976
1,177
Justin said:
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

EOS 7D MK II
Sep 11, 2010
605
10
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 post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,976
1,177
AJ said:
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).
 
S

Son of Daguerre

Guest
Waleed Essam said:
tzalmagor said:
spam said:
RichFisher said:
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

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 17, 2010
835
182
AJ said:
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.
AJ said:
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.
 
W

weilin

Guest
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...
 
J

Justin

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

AJ said:
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

EOS 7D MK II
Sep 11, 2010
605
10
Docsmith, you are correct! Seems like the only thing DO buys you is smaller size.
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
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

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,976
1,177
unfocused said:
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.
 

AJ

EOS 7D MK II
Sep 11, 2010
605
10
unfocused said:
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.
Yup. Like you say, there must be a niche market for it. Kinda like the 28-300 L
 
E

Edwin Herdman

Guest
The sheer number of 70-300mm lenses in Canon's lens history is a testament to the range's popularity, not to mention I've seen plenty of evidence that the length is widely used and carried.

Personally, I also would be more interested by a 100-400mm, and I'm glad I've held off on the 70-300mm since the 100-400 might hold a wide aperture longer than the 70-300mm did (certainly it's the case that the current one does). It only needs to have a zoom ring.
 
L

Lee Jay

Guest
Canon Rumors said:
<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>
This lens has been so badly in need of an update for so long that it's now too late. The 70-200/2.8L IS II is so good with TCs while having far superior handling and IS that a new 100-400L isn't really needed anymore.

If they are really going to do this, it needs to be designed from the beginning to use the 1.4xTC well with the highest pixel density 1.6-crop sensors they expect to produce in the next 10 years, and it needs to be a coordinated release with a 7D replacement having high-performance f/8 AF sensors.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,976
1,177
Lee Jay said:
a 7D replacement having high-performance f/8 AF sensors.
I believe someone here previously used the phrase, "pigs will fly over snowbanks in hell first." I'm inclined to think that statement applies here. If they do that, why even have a 1D-series?
 
S

spam

Guest
Lee Jay said:
This lens has been so badly in need of an update for so long that it's now too late. The 70-200/2.8L IS II is so good with TCs while having far superior handling and IS that a new 100-400L isn't really needed anymore.
So you expect a 2.85x zoom lens and a TC to "replace" a 4x zoom lens? The 70-200 F2.8 alone costs quite a bit more, then add the price of a TC and you're around 50% higher than the current 100-400 for a combo that's not even close to the convenience of a single lens. It's also slower through the whole zoom range, except at 400mm unless you remove the TC.
 

kubelik

EOS 6D MK II
Aug 11, 2010
824
0
spam said:
Lee Jay said:
This lens has been so badly in need of an update for so long that it's now too late. The 70-200/2.8L IS II is so good with TCs while having far superior handling and IS that a new 100-400L isn't really needed anymore.
So you expect a 2.85x zoom lens and a TC to "replace" a 4x zoom lens? The 70-200 F2.8 alone costs quite a bit more, then add the price of a TC and you're around 50% higher than the current 100-400 for a combo that's not even close to the convenience of a single lens. It's also slower through the whole zoom range, except at 400mm unless you remove the TC.
totally with spam on this one. I would be in total disbelief if the latest 70-200 with new 2x TC were to match a new 100-400 ... just use the existing models as a basis for comparison. if canon can improve the 70-200 that much, there's no reason they won't do the same for the 100-400
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
neuroanatomist said:
Lee Jay said:
a 7D replacement having high-performance f/8 AF sensors.
I believe someone here previously used the phrase, "pigs will fly over snowbanks in hell first." I'm inclined to think that statement applies here. If they do that, why even have a 1D-series?
I don't know, this doesn't seem that implausible. The next generation of the 7D will need some new features and this seems like a reasonable one to me. I don't see this hurting the 1D-series as I doubt many people buying either the 1Ds or the 1D are going to switch to the 7D because of the ability to auto-focus in low light.

There might be technical reasons that I'm unaware of, but assuming that this is a feature that could be added to the 7D for a reasonable cost, I wouldn't be all that surprised.

Gotta give 7D owners some reasons to upgrade. I don't think a few more megapixels alone will do it. But, improved low-light autofocus, autofocus in movie mode and a few other goodies might help.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II is so good with TCs while having far superior handling and IS that a new 100-400L isn't really needed anymore.
On the other had, as others have pointed out, this doesn't make any sense.
 

docsmith

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 17, 2010
835
182
Having just bought the current 100-400L recently, I considered the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II with extenders as an option. But honestly, while it would be way better from (70)100-200, and pretty darn good out to 280, ultimately everything I saw said that the 100-400L had it beat for IQ from 280-400. Plus you could then add a 1.4 extender (loosing AF) onto the 100-400L and get out to 560 mm, if needed. Then throw in the fact that AF slows way down with extenders, I bought the current 100-400L.

Finally, I'd expect the "new" model to perform even better than the current model. If they bring up the 100-400L to the current level (4 stop IS, weather sealing, IQ, etc), it is going to be one great lens.
 
L

Lee Jay

Guest
neuroanatomist said:
Lee Jay said:
a 7D replacement having high-performance f/8 AF sensors.
I believe someone here previously used the phrase, "pigs will fly over snowbanks in hell first." I'm inclined to think that statement applies here. If they do that, why even have a 1D-series?
Let me see, weather sealing, dual card slots, faster frame rate, larger sensor, better viewfinder, built-in portrait grip, ergonomics designed for use with gloves, more/faster AF processors, more AF points, longer shutter life, etc.

If it doesn't happen, I just won't buy it. No big deal.
 
L

Lee Jay

Guest
kubelik said:
spam said:
Lee Jay said:
This lens has been so badly in need of an update for so long that it's now too late. The 70-200/2.8L IS II is so good with TCs while having far superior handling and IS that a new 100-400L isn't really needed anymore.
So you expect a 2.85x zoom lens and a TC to "replace" a 4x zoom lens? The 70-200 F2.8 alone costs quite a bit more, then add the price of a TC and you're around 50% higher than the current 100-400 for a combo that's not even close to the convenience of a single lens. It's also slower through the whole zoom range, except at 400mm unless you remove the TC.
totally with spam on this one. I would be in total disbelief if the latest 70-200 with new 2x TC were to match a new 100-400 ... just use the existing models as a basis for comparison. if canon can improve the 70-200 that much, there's no reason they won't do the same for the 100-400
I bought the 70-200/2.8L IS I and TCs because I couldn't find a decent 100-400L. It worked. Now I have a 100-400L too and prefer the 70-200 with TCs.

The new 70-200 seems to work well even with stacked 2x and 1.4x TCs on the high-density 18MP sensors:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=36223399