100-400 Replacement

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<strong>What’s going to replace it?</strong>

This is rumor and opinion in regards to the 100-400 replacement. I had a chat with a friend today and he gave his 2 cents about the new 70-300 and the 100-400.</p>
<p>What if the new EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS is in fact the new 100-400? Since we’re dealing with crop factors now. The new lens costs $100 more than the 100-400 does at B&H.</p>
<p>We’ve heard about a replacement of the 100-400, but what if it isn’t a direct focal length/f-stop replacement?</p>
<p>The first thing that comes to peoples minds is a 200-400 f/4L IS. While a fabulous lens from Nikon, it’s expensive. How many $6000 lenses are they going to sell?</p>
<p>I can see a 100-500 of some aperture in the $3000-$3500 range. It would require a focal length longer than 400mm to make it a worthwhile “upgrade” over the new 70-300.</p>
<p>It was an interesting conversation and I think there could be something to the concept.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>

 

[mrnwp]

Canon better do something fast. The release dates of prime or zoom lens in the 300 to 400mm are getting pretty old. I know of the new 300/400 2.8's but I don't feel like putting 11k for just one lens. I could buy a d3s and the 200-400m for the same price.

Matthew R.

 

[Johan L]

This all sounds quite interesting but let's hope it is not a fact. To me the 100-400 is a very handy lens in the African bush and I have the privilege to use it there quite often. For animals it copes very well and there are occasions where a bit more reach up to 500 would be excellent, my wish is that the actual replacement would be a 200-500 with internal zoom that does not extend while zooming, similar to the 70-200, and better weather sealing, dust remains a risk and requires great care when using the present 100-400. At 400 the lens is actually not long enough for birds in most cases, even with a high density sensor and some cropping.

Natulally I expect a lens as described to be more expensive and heavier, but I would gladly upgrade to it.

One of our family members has a non Canon zoom going up to 500 and it just makes the difference. Though the IQ of the 100-400 for the same focal length is noticably better.

 

[Sean Nel]

<strong>What’s going to replace it?</strong>

...The first thing that comes to peoples minds is a 200-400 f/4L IS. While a fabulous lens from Nikon, it’s expensive. How many $6000 lenses are they going to sell?...

I think tons!

Obviously, different markets (countries and regions) will respond differently to this lens segment, but in the advanced amateur, and pro range, this is the lens that is costing Canon major market share.

We are currently on backorder for the Nikon 200-400, we can't stock enough of them, and Nikon can't supply enough of them to us. We see about two clients a week switching to Nikon from Canon because one of two factors: 200-400mm and the D3s (best lowlight in class)

The lens is perfect for wildlife because of the zoom range and weight, also perfect for distance moving sports (Rugby/Football/Soccer) and more adventurous sports like rally's and MTB racing. Still giving very good results with the 1.4x converter. Canon has nothing in this range... the old 100-400 just doesn't cut it for image quality or AF speed or Stabilisation. Best you can do is to slap on a 300mm f/2.8L and hope you get the average distance right.

 

[spam]

What if the new EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS is in fact the new 100-400?

What a stupid thing to say. A 70-300 can't replace a 100-400, the difference between 300 and 400 is pretty significant regardless if it's a crop or full frame camera. Canon can of course discontinue the 100-400 without replacing it, but that wont make the 70-300 a 100-400 replacement, just that Canon leaves a hole in the lineup which Sigma can exploit.

A 200-400 F4.0 wouldn't be a repalcement either, it's half the zoom range, double to triple the weight and at least three times as expensive, nmaybe as much as four to five.

Extending the zoomrange somewhat could make sense though, at least form Canon's point of view. Stretching it to 450 or even more would make it more competitive with Sigma's xx(x)-500mm zooms without increasing size and weight too much.

Extending the zoom range somewhat

 

[tzalmagor]

<strong>What’s going to replace it?</strong>
What if the new EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS is in fact the new 100-400? Since we’re dealing with crop factors now.

So your friend thinks that Canon's implicitly tells it's FF customers to not waste money on the 100-400/f4-5.6, but rather buy a 7D with a 55-250/f4-5.6 (the later two actually cheaper than the first lens) ? I would think that's not the way to keep FF camera owners happy.

Also, note that Digital Camera magazine has reviewed several tele lenses, and the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF-S VR II IF-ED got better scores than the Canon EF-S 55-250 & Canon EF 70-300 none-L, so if people are to buy an APS-C body for zoom purposes, they might buy a Nikon body.

Extending the zoomrange somewhat could make sense though, at least form Canon's point of view. Stretching it to 450 or even more would make it more competitive with Sigma's xx(x)-500mm zooms without increasing size and weight too much.

As 5.6 * 77 = ~430mm, stretching the focal length means replacing the 77mm front thread filters with those inserted at the back of the lens, which means extra money and extra items to carry.

 

[Catastrophile]

You ought to stop this kind of conversations about downgraded specs & products with your friends! One time you say there will not be a 1DsIV, another time there won't be a 100-400 II, the 24-70 won't get IS ...etc. Next time you'll tell us no 5DIII. You are giving the crippling division at the Canon marketing department ideas that they might have not thought of on their own.

 

[lol]

I can quickly think of one example where Canon have replaced a lens with "shorter" specs: The 35-350L was replaced with the 28-300L. Ok, the latter has more zoom ratio, but shorter is still shorter.

Having said that, I don't think it makes sense to kill the 400 zoom. It doesn't matter if you're crop or FF, 400 is still more than 300! Sony has a nice 70-400, and Nikon... well, they still have a 80-400. So I think it possible Canon might extend the range on the wide end keeping the long end at 400. My guess is we'll sadly lose push-pull zoom too but that is the trend.

Personally I wouldn't mind if they did a longer end zoom, say 1xx-500mm f/x.x-5.6 even if it means bigger front filter. I wouldn't count the Sigma -500 zooms in the same class as they have a rather sad f/6.3 at that point.

 

[IllegalFun]

I can't believe that the 70-300 would be the replacement.
like a few others have said... a 100-400 IS Mk2 or a 200-500 IS would be more likely, and useful

Canon have obviously put a lot of effort into the 70-200 series, so something to 'tag' on at the long end is most sensible. the 70-200 F/2.8 Mk2 is a great lens (I am saving the pennies!) but after that it is really just primes, which makes no sense!

I hope they just update the 100-400 or make something similar
either that or make a 400 5.6 L IS mk2

 

[max]

I would have liked a 100-300 f/4 IS... seemed like the way to go, it still takes teleconverters... I had a Sigma version and liked it a lot, lacked IS, if not I would have kept it.

The 70-300 just seems pointless in the lineup, i think it needed to go to the 400mm range or have wider aperture... but most people will just buy a 70-200 2.8 for less money or a 70-300 of the IS USM ones non L.

 

[Stone]

I would have liked a 100-300 f/4 IS... seemed like the way to go, it still takes teleconverters... I had a Sigma version and liked it a lot, lacked IS, if not I would have kept it.

The 70-300 just seems pointless in the lineup, i think it needed to go to the 400mm range or have wider aperture... but most people will just buy a 70-200 2.8 for less money or a 70-300 of the IS USM ones non L.

I agree that a 100-300 f2.8 or f4 would have been much better, I'm now waiting to look at the new Sigma 120-300 2.8 IS for my long range fix.

I don't think anyone was asking for the new 70-300L, especially one this slow, it can't take a TC so I really don't see the point. A 100-400 or 100-500 f4 would be interesting, but I doubt Canon would build it.....

 

[neuroanatomist]

I can't believe that the 70-300 would be the replacement.

I can. No, technically it's not a 'replacement' but it very well might be one from a marketing standpoint. I've proposed this idea before, in the thread on the new 70-300 L.

We all know that 300mm is not 400mm, and if you need 400mm, you need it. But for me, a new 400mm f/5.6L IS would be just the ticket. I could see replacing my current 100-400mm with a 70-300mm L for portability and a 400/5.6 prime for when I need the extra reach.

 

[unfocused]

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion and, as CR Guy admitted, this post was based on a speculative conversation, not on any rumor, CR1 or otherwise, but, I just don't see Canon abandoning the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 zoom.

I agree with those who don't see the 70-300mm as a replacement for the 100-400mm. The extra 100mm is just too important for wildlife and other uses. (Especially since, on a 7D it's an effective 160mm difference, not 100mm).

These are two very different lenses and are not mutually exclusive. While an updated 400mm f5.6 prime could possibly substitute, it would be a poor substitute. The ability to zoom is just too important for wildlife and other uses. In addition, the combined cost of the two lenses would approach or exceed $3,000. Personally, I see the 100-400 zoom and the 300 f4 as a better combination for the money – gaining speed and sharpness in exchange for a shorter focal length when needed, and then having the extra reach in the zoom when conditions permit.

The 100-400 mm fills a different niche than a 300mm zoom, because of its weight and size. Right now, the third-party lens makers aren't really competing in terms of quality, but if Canon leaves this niche unfilled, they will step up.

I've certainly questioned the whole strategy behind the 70-300mm. I now think Canon produced the lens planning for a very long life cycle, not expecting to recover their investment for several years, but feeling the need to have a high end, super sharp, heavy-duty, but relatively compact zoom in their lineup over the next decade that can handle new improvements in sensors. If you read their announcement you'll see Canon made much of the ability to use the lens in the midst of rain forest. Nobody is going to want to lug a 100-400 through a rain forest.

 

[scalesusa]

I would not have a problum lugging my 100-400mm L thru a rain forest, when telescoped to 100mm, its pretty short and easy to carry, however, I don't think there is enough light to use it. I'd be wondering the same about the 70-300 L, just not fast enough in a dark area if you have a quickly moving subject and need shutter speed.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

The new 70-300mm remains an attractive option, but not only do you (with a two-lens option) lose any focal length between 300mm and 400mm, and add to your carrying load (if you bring along even the lightest 400mm lens), but I think most significantly the performance (just judging from how fast the MTF curve falls off in the corners) doesn't look optimal for full-frame cameras. Of course, Canon doesn't have a full-frame camera for sports or birds in flight, so maybe it's meant to be good enough on a 1.3x crop body. Or perhaps the eventual replacement for the 5D will be announced along with a new lens (assuming the autofocus performance is as good as would warrant a new sports / birding lens, though I wonder if they won't keep the 1.3x factor alive for that segment).

And I imagine some people on crop bodies are enjoying the extra reach of the 100-400 - it's nice that the new 70-300mm is light and compact, but I don't see it replacing that option, at least not yet.

 

[Sean Nel]

according to our local Canon reps (South Africa) the 100-400 is a consistently good seller, but doesn't make much sense in Europe, which is a much bigger market. The 70-200 is king there, but the old 70-300 was just not good enough for anything much. the 100-400 was a very heavy "travel" lens. you save 300g on the 70-300L and another 100g or so on a 60D vs 7D.


half a kilo is pretty decent saving on weight if you are traveling

 

[Bob Howland]

<p>The first thing that comes to peoples minds is a 200-400 f/4L IS. While a fabulous lens from Nikon, it’s expensive. How many $6000 lenses are they going to sell?</p>

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I would spend $10,000 for a 200-500 f/2.8-4 with optical quality close to my current 300 f/2.8 L IS. Why?? Because I often use the 300 with its TCs, effectively giving me a 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4 and 600 f/5.6. However, it's a pain to keep adding and removing the TCs, plus being dangerous in a dusty environment like a motocross track. Judging from the pro photographers at Watkins Glen, the preferred effective focal length is about 650mm (crop factor plus lens focal length) but they all have a 70-200 with a 1.4x TC as well. Why not one lens to cover most of the same range?

 

[kubelik]

I don't know much about lens design, but going from intuition and looking at existing lenses, a 200-500 f/2.8-4 would be absolutely massive. I'm not sure the extra weight and difficulty maneuvering it would actually make it more convenient in real usage than a 400 f/2.8 with TCs

 

[spam]

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I would spend $10,000 for a 200-500 f/2.8-4 with optical quality close to my current 300 f/2.8 L IS.

You can already get a 200-500 F2.8 from Sigma, it's more than 15 kg/ 34 lbs and cost $30,000 at B&H, but that includes carrying case and a dedicated TC. They could of course cut the weight and size by making it only F4.0 at 500mm, but coming from Canon in stead of Sigma it wouldn't get much cheaper.

 

[Bob Howland]

I don't know much about lens design, but going from intuition and looking at existing lenses, a 200-500 f/2.8-4 would be absolutely massive. I'm not sure the extra weight and difficulty maneuvering it would actually make it more convenient in real usage than a 400 f/2.8 with TCs

One of the pro's at Watkins Glen uses a 400 f/2.8 and has used a 40D, 50D and 7D. However, he uses only the center focusing spot. The problem with TCs is that it is impossible to change focal lengths rapidly, for example, if you are tracking a relatively close race car at 200mm and there is a collision between two other cars, 300 yards further away, that is best captured at 500mm.

And what happens when you're shooting from the end zone at a (American) football game and a running back breaks loose for a long gainer. At the start of the run, 500mm might be appropriate while at the its end, you might need to be at 200mm? Sports Illustrated photographers typically solve this problem by using a 400 f/2.8 with a TC on one body and having their assistant either holding or shooting with a 300 f/2.8 on another body.

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I would spend $10,000 for a 200-500 f/2.8-4 with optical quality close to my current 300 f/2.8 L IS.

You can already get a 200-500 F2.8 from Sigma, it's more than 15 kg/ 34 lbs and cost $30,000 at B&H, but that includes carrying case and a dedicated TC. They could of course cut the weight and size by making it only F4.0 at 500mm, but coming from Canon in stead of Sigma it wouldn't get much cheaper.

The front element of the 200-500 f/2.8 Sigma has to be at least 178mm in diameter. A 200-500 f/2.8-4 could have a front element as small as 125mm, the same as the 500 f/4 and at least 17mm smaller than both the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4. I would expect a 200-500 f/2.8-4 to be perhaps 2 pounds heavier than the 500 f/4, less than 1/3 the weight of the Sigma.