Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

[MichaelHodges]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Great news. This and the 16-35 IS make for a great lens year.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

I'm very surprised at the price, particularly since Nikon gets $2700 for their version and it was introduced over a year ago. I hope that it does not indicate that Canon chose to cut corners in order to match Sigma prices.

Given that a $2199 price represents a whopping 47% premium over the street price on the current-generation 100–400L, I think it is probably safe to say that they didn't have to cut corners to hit that price point.

As compared to the Nikon Lens? That was intended as the context of my comment. The old 100-400 has had the design, startup, and tooling long paid for, so its a high profit item. A new lens is always expensive initially because of the $$$$$$ invested in bring it to market, and in production. Price usually drops over time as with any other product.

Canon has not been shy about pricing cameras and lenses well above Nikon's price as of late, so I am wondering why its $400 less? The implication is that they found a way to build it for a lot less, or that it is perhaps not as good. I intend to order one, and I hope that its equal or better to the Nikon lens, which has turned out to be very good.

I'd welcome a return to the days of Canon producing less expensive products that are almost as good as the competition, but cost substantially less.

 

[greger]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

More gear envy for me! Do I want to Upgrade? I might after the reviews are out.

 

[9VIII]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

And the lens gap between Canon and Nikon grows yet again.

What are you saying?? Doesn't this pretty match the New Nikon 80-400mm lens announced a little over a year ago for $2700?

difference in quality, we will need to see.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=915&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

You expect Canon to make a new lens worse than the model they released 16 years ago?
Other reviews put the Nikon ahead of the Canon, but given the discrepancy between reviews I can only assume once variation is accounted for the two will turn out nearly the same

The real competition is with the new third party superzooms.

http://www.lenstip.com/417.4-Lens_review-Sigma_S_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

It will be very interesting to see if the 100-400 Mk2 on the 7D2 will be able to compete with the Sigma 150-600S on full frame.
Of course Canon always has the AF advantage, and the MFD is a big deal for me. As much as I like Sigma, unless the 100-400 Mk2 is screwed up somehow I don't think I'm going to be able to give them my cash this time around.

 

[lion rock]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Lintoni,
I'm leaving next Wednesday from North Carolina, and my days in HK is quite limited, lots of running around visiting relatives, so may not have a whole lot of time to look for a suitable store selling it, if ( a big IF ) it is available while I'm there.
However, the suggestion is excellent, I'll keep an eye opened for it when I walk around there.
I may seek out DigitalRev!
Thanks for putting the idea in my head, appreciate.
-r

If the early adopters give a good review, I'm in for one.
The 200-400 is a bit much to do any significant hand holding and traveling with, this is a good substitution. Just too bad it is not available sooner. I'm taking a 4 weeks travel to HK and NZ. Would just be nice to mount it to my Canon.
Love to hear from the Canoneers who are going to get it soon.
-r

It may be worth taking advantage of Hong Kong pricing, whilst you're there. Just a thought...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

And the lens gap between Canon and Nikon grows yet again.

What are you saying?? Doesn't this pretty match the New Nikon 80-400mm lens announced a little over a year ago for $2700?

difference in quality, we will need to see.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=915&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

You expect Canon to make a new lens worse than the model they released 16 years ago?
Other reviews put the Nikon ahead of the Canon, but given the discrepancy between reviews I can only assume once variation is accounted for the two will turn out nearly the same

The real competition is with the new third party superzooms.

http://www.lenstip.com/417.4-Lens_review-Sigma_S_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

It will be very interesting to see if the 100-400 Mk2 on the 7D2 will be able to compete with the Sigma 150-600S on full frame.
Of course Canon always has the AF advantage, and the MFD is a big deal for me. As much as I like Sigma, unless the 100-400 Mk2 is screwed up somehow I don't think I'm going to be able to give them my cash this time around.

Wow, that image on TDP really seems poor for the Nikon. The reviews I've seen have it much better. The MTF curve also shows it to be very good, so something may be wrong with that lens. My 100-400 produces very good images at 400mm as well, the older units did not seem to do as well.

I agree, besides the image quality, MFD and ability to work with a 1.4 TC is a big factor that would be in favor of the lens, and I plan to pre-order one.

As to the Sigma, I'd like to see more tests from lenses bought from off the shelf in stores rather than one supplied by Sigma for testing.

So far, the images I've seen are good, and beat the Tamron slightly, but they are still just lacking something at 600mm. I really wouldn't expect better at that price, but had hopes. The size of the sport version also puts me off, the new 100-400 looks to be almost as easy to handle as my current 100-400.

 

[DavidD]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II


My lens is quite good and others have noticed the fact. I think it's more about techniques and lighting. This is at f6.3 ISO 200 on a 5D III (click on the photo for a larger size)

F-22 Raptor afterburner turn © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


Great photograph of the F22 !

Sadly, I'm left underwhelmed by this new lens announcement;
after waiting so long I was hoping for more.

I have a 100-400 V1 and it is so versatile and sharp for making
landscape images, it is a major reason I use Canon equipment.

But why would I spend another $1000 (assuming I sell my lens
for a good price) to get a prettier, but even heavier lens ?

The only useful improvement I can see is 2 more stops of IS.

But on that topic I was hoping (eternal optimist) that Canon
would provide the 4 stops IS firmware upgrade for my
existing 100-400 lens. I'd pay a couple hundred for that
even though the IS I have now on my V1 is darn good.

The extra weight gives me pause as I just spent some time
climbing mountains with my "lighter" version and am not
thrilled with that "benefit."

I'm hoping the MTF charts show the new lens is a big
jump forward in resolution.

My guess is that this upgrade is part of a bigger strategy
to increase the size of the sensor circle and its resolution
for the most popular professional lenses -- to get ready
for much higher resolution sensors.

If true that's fine, but how does that help me / us now ?

 

[KeithBreazeal]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

If Canon was smart, they would have built the lens modular and have an optional version with a flip-in 1.4x like the 200-400.

 

[PureClassA]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

If Canon fixed up the 24-105 then owning a 24-105 Mk II and a 100-400 Mk II would be an awesome pairing. Throw in a 1.4x TC and two lenses gives you continuous coverage from 24 - 560mm for ~$3000. Why wouldn't you do that now? The 24-105 currently available isn't that great (especially when compared to the 24-70/f4L).

So now it is 24-70+70-300 to max out the IQ without any drops in focal length. However it is likely to be many more years before the 24-105 is fixed (not even 10 years old yet) - if ever!

Oh wait, they did update the 24-105 - they released it as a STM version. Better or worse IQ is hard to tell.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-STM-Lens.aspx

Eh.... It seems to me that 24-105 sells the number of copies it does because it's packaged as the official "high end" kit lens (paired with 5d3, 6d, etc...) I don't see Canon spending a lot of rebuilding time here. Maybe they bust out a better IS version in the next few years but I don't see a major optical overhaul. This is a comprehensive standard focal range lens I think they want to keep at a low cost (relatively speaking) for a kit with a red ring on it.

I think there are other more critical areas Canon will put it's glass attention on. 16-35 and now the 100-400 are major refreshers. the 24-70 and 70-200 are still new and excellent. So that leaves the primes. Update the 35, 50, and 135mm L with MkII versions. Rebuild the optics and add IS at least on the 135. Love mine. IS would be nice though. Sigma has moved in at the 35 and 50 space extremely well. The 85 is next.

 

[MadHungarian]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Eh.... It seems to me that 24-105 sells the number of copies it does because it's packaged as the official "high end" kit lens (paired with 5d3, 6d, etc...) I don't see Canon spending a lot of rebuilding time here. Maybe they bust out a better IS version in the next few years but I don't see a major optical overhaul. This is a comprehensive standard focal range lens I think they want to keep at a low cost (relatively speaking) for a kit with a red ring on it.
. . .

Yeah, i bought a 24-70 f/4 a couple months ago immediately after the big price drop, to hopefully replace my 24-105. But i ended up returning the 24-70. It was definitely better at 24mm, and a wash at other focal lengths, but it had serious focus shift issues at most focal lengths and distances. Turns out that B&H had shipped me an early production model. Maybe the focus shift bug was fixed in later production runs.

But the experience showed me that my current 24-105 isn't really too bad after all. Other than just a little weak at 24mm. Its major failing was lens creep. But i've fixed that for now with a rubber band strategically placed and painted black. Works pretty well for now and is invisible.

 

[AlanF]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

If Canon was smart, they would have built the lens modular and have an optional version with a flip-in 1.4x like the 200-400.

It will be difficult to use the same lens system in a "modular system" as in the stand-alone 100-400 since the 100-400mm glass will be further away from the sensor when the empty flip out housing is between it and the camera. A flip in housing will be bigger and heavier than having a separate external TC.

So, perhaps Canon has been smart after all and have realised the technical problems and also know that a flip in 1.4xTC will significantly increase the length and weight of the 100-400 so that it will lose its portability advantage, and such a version will appeal only to a few.

Canon 100-400 II
94x193 mm
1570 g

Canon 100-400 II + 1.4xTC
94x220 mm
1795 g

Canon 100-400 II + flip in 1.4xTC
94x >220 mm
> 1795 g

For comparison,
Tamron 150-600
105.6 x 257.8 mm
1951 g

 

[expatinasia]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

If Canon was smart, they would have built the lens modular and have an optional version with a flip-in 1.4x like the 200-400.

Seriously. Considering how much the 200-400 costs. Would you be willing to pay the extra it would cost?

I doubt this lens is aimed at that type of market.

 

[blindcat]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Bought when out

 

[rrcphoto]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Sadly, I'm left underwhelmed by this new lens announcement;
after waiting so long I was hoping for more.

I'm confused. it looks like it has a brand new never seen before IS - and brand new never seen before coatings. what would you expect out of a 100-400 Mark II?

I have a 100-400 V1 and it is so versatile and sharp for making
landscape images, it is a major reason I use Canon equipment.

IS, optical, coating improvements are all welcomed and many didn't like the push pull zoom.

But why would I spend another $1000 (assuming I sell my lens
for a good price) to get a prettier, but even heavier lens ?

The only useful improvement I can see is 2 more stops of IS.

coatings as well and quite possibly optical. the original was okay at 400mm but really got handed it's collective ass compared to the nikkor 80-400 at every other focal length.

But on that topic I was hoping (eternal optimist) that Canon
would provide the 4 stops IS firmware upgrade for my
existing 100-400 lens. I'd pay a couple hundred for that
even though the IS I have now on my V1 is darn good.

it's hardware. not sure why you'd think this - it's NEVER been offered.

The extra weight gives me pause as I just spent some time
climbing mountains with my "lighter" version and am not
thrilled with that "benefit."

it's .36lbs heavier really?

I'm hoping the MTF charts show the new lens is a big
jump forward in resolution.

would not be that hard to do.

 

[rrcphoto]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

If Canon fixed up the 24-105 then owning a 24-105 Mk II and a 100-400 Mk II would be an awesome pairing. Throw in a 1.4x TC and two lenses gives you continuous coverage from 24 - 560mm for ~$3000. Why wouldn't you do that now? The 24-105 currently available isn't that great (especially when compared to the 24-70/f4L).

So now it is 24-70+70-300 to max out the IQ without any drops in focal length. However it is likely to be many more years before the 24-105 is fixed (not even 10 years old yet) - if ever!

Oh wait, they did update the 24-105 - they released it as a STM version. Better or worse IQ is hard to tell.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-STM-Lens.aspx

canon seriously needed a consumer FF kit lens - what did they have the old 28-135mm IS USM from the stone age as the only option?

 

[mrsfotografie]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

I'm also keen to hear whether the performance at 400mm will be as good as every other millimeter on the lens.

I often wonder if some people actually skip the 100-399mm focal lengths on the lens and just use the 100-400 as a collapsible 400 prime.

(Thankfully, I am not afflicted with the reach addiction many CR forum dwellers have. I have little desire to buy this thing, slap a 2x on it and then put it on a crop body. But I do like Canon putting out better options for us.)

- A

Maybe being stuck at 400mm all the time is an indication you're lacking the reach you would like to have, or were used to having. On my 5D MkIII I do zoom but mostly use this lens at 400mm, on the 7D I owned previously I would use much more of the zoom range. I have never used a TC on this lens though and do not intend to slap one on a lens with an aperture slower than f/4. As for 'reach', the 7D would solve that, but then I've vowed not to go back to APS-C for my EF mount system. The new 100-400 will not solve this issue for me either. Mind, I prefer having a little less range - the full frame results are worth it

 

[Grummbeerbauer]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

After Sigma announced their 150-600 siblings, I had almost lost interest in Canon's unicorn lens - after all, with their Global Vision line, Sigma has shown that they can deliver quality at reasonable prices, and at least the Sports variant simply has to be better than the Tamron for APS-C bodies on the long end (first reviews tend to confirm that, e.g. http://www.lenstip.com/417.1-Lens_review-Sigma_S_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM.html).

But then came today:
100-400LII @2199$ (with probably the usual "rip-off the old worlders" $=€ conversion rate :, but cheaper than feared for nonetheless)
+ roughly same price as the Sigma 150-600 S, but for a Canon, not for 3rd party lens
+ red ring
+ less chances of AF gamble (my 18-35 is optically stellar, but AF could still be a tad more reliable on my 7D)
+ fantastically short MFD (<1m versus Sigma's 2,6m, the latter of which could really be annoyingly limiting in practice)
+ roughly half the weight
+ much more compact (94mm x 193mm vs. 121mm x 290mm)
+ (assumedly) better AF speed
- only 400mm

So even if the 150-600S seems to be good as the lenstip review suggests, the question is now, if the 100-400II is good enough to have little practical resolution disadvantage against the Siggy when both are at their long end (I don't think I will be getting a 7DII, so I am not that interested in using a teleconverter)

 

[Stu_bert]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

If Canon allow extenders on this and not on the 70-300 L that will be interesting. I think, but hope I am wrong, that Canon may limit teleconverters to avoid encroaching too much on the 200-400. But as others have said, I also will think about a "trade in" against my 70-300 if it matches it optically, unless the Sigma provides comparable in the same range, leaving the 400-600 as a "bonus"

Good that Canon have finally announced it - but a little bizarre they didn't announce it with the 7d mk ii - agree it looks like a great pairing...

 

[Khalai]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

If Canon allow extenders on this and not on the 70-300 L that will be interesting. I think, but hope I am wrong, that Canon may limit teleconverters to avoid encroaching too much on the 200-400. But as others have said, I also will think about a "trade in" against my 70-300 if it matches it optically, unless the Sigma provides comparable in the same range, leaving the 400-600 as a "bonus"

Good that Canon have finally announced it - but a little bizarre they didn't announce it with the 7d mk ii - agree it looks like a great pairing...

Not allowing to use TCs on this beauty would cripple it substantialy. Since 200-400 is a totally different league of lens (monetary, weight, speed...) I really doubt that Canon would cripple 100-400 II out of the fear or cannibalizing 200-400 sales. Those, who want/need 200-400 already have it, those who want to upgrade their 100-400 or want/need budget friendly wildlife telephoto lens are 100-400 II market target customers.

And since the original version is compatible with TCs, there is little to fear that this one will be not IMHO.

 

[dufflover]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

What are current satisfied 100-400 owners thinking?
I don't really see any faults with mine (not to be confused with knowing there's room to improve) so I'm in two minds lol. I was actually more tempted to get the Siggy 150-600, because my main big gun Sigma 120-300 is a little average on the 2x TC side, but the 100-400 is my trusty workhorse.

Ofcourse the gearhead in me wants it cos I love super sharp lenses (yet to be proven but I have no doubts given recent releases) but I concede I don't think it would really change my gear capability at all, compared to getting say a native 600mm in the Sigma. Again I don't mean to imply the two are really comparable at all, except on price.