100-400 Replacement

[yoderrm]

If you read their announcement you'll see Canon made much of the ability to use the (70-300 L) lens in the midst of rain forest.

This just proves that Canon is completely out of touch. They make great quality equipment, but have no concept of what photographers need. Unless you plan on taking pictures of tree bark, no one in their right mind would use an f/5.6 lens in a rain forest. You would need ISO 6400 to even approach shutter speeds that would stop action.

Don't get me wrong, 70-300 is a very useful focal range for a lot of people. But people that want small, light lenses, normally don't need L build quality and weather sealing, and certainly aren't in the market for a $1500 lens.

When you put this lens between the original 70-300IS and the 100-400L, I really don't understand why anyone would want it. The 70-300IS is 420g lighter, a half inch smaller in diameter, and 1/3 of the price. The 100-400L gives you the L quality, plus an extra 100mm on the long end, for almost the same price.

If the 70-300L really "replaces" the 100-400L, then I sincerely hope they add a longer zoom to their lineup, like a 200-500 F5.6 (even if it means drop in filters).

I also think they desperately need an answer to the 200-400 f4, but I consider that a completely different market, and it would not be any kind of "replacement" for the 100-400. If they came out with something as good as the Nikon, I would pay $6K for it in a heartbeat.

 

[scalesusa]

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.

Look at the positive side, those monster lenses might create jobs for young people, just like the 1800's. Photographers hired local boys to carry those 12 X 14 view cameras, tripods, and heavy glass plates up a mountain side to photograph the panoramic view. They often camped out for 2 or three days, which required even more help hauling up the camping gear. Often well over 150 lbs of photography equipment, plus camping gear, food, and bedding. A real expedition. Funny thing, many of the boys declined to offer of a permanent job packing well over 100 pounds of gear around, and word spread fast.

 

[kubelik]

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

The 100-40 lens is only a travelling lens if you are travelling by car. There's no way I would hike (for example) carrying that lens or want to catch a train with one in my bags. I'll have to check out a local store that I know carries a full range of Canon stuff to see how it compares in weight to the 70-300 non-L IS USM.

this just goes to show how subjective these things are and why canon is putting such a diverse array of lenses out on the market.

100-400 only a traveling lens if traveling by car? from the specs I've seen, it's only 1380g. I carry my sigma 100-300 at 1480g around for all-day hikes with no problem; it's downright feathery compared to the 150-500 I previously hauled.

people need to understand that everyone's personal comfort zone varies by a huuuge amount when judging whether a product is proper for the market.

 

[epsiloneri]

The only time that I've been in a rain forest, I can't recall having had need of a lens faster than 5.6.

Rain forests are often surprisingly dark, even at noon. Light conditions can also be difficult due to tree crown openings that let through spots of harsh sunlight, resulting in very contrasty conditions. Flash can actually be a good option, unless you're hunting easily disturbed animals.

 

[yoderrm]

The only time that I've been in a rain forest, I can't recall having had need of a lens faster than 5.6. What are your experiences in rain forests like?

I must admit, I've never been in an actual rain forest. But I photograph a lot in a regular hardwoods forest, and the light is very dim if the leaves are still on. I would imagine that it is even darker under a rain forest canopy, but I could be wrong.

I'm sure there are many photographic subjects in a rain forest, but the first thing that comes to my mind (for someone using a telephoto zoom) is wildlife. When I photograph wildlife in a hardwoods forest, I am usually at ISO1600 and f/2.8, and that usually gets me shutter speeds of around 1/80 to 1/125. An f/5.6 lens would either mean you need to crank the ISO to 6400 to get the same shutter speeds, or reduce the shutter speed to 1/20 or 1/30. Although possible, it is very difficult to photograph most wildlife at those shutter speeds.

 

[willhl]

One big issue I see is that canon needs a 'affordable' 400mm lens its lineup with IS. There are two primes, one without and one that most people can't afford. I've been considering purchasing a 400mm lens and would be happy with a prime rather than a zoom (could fill the range with something else) but it would need to be stablised.

That said I really hope they do replace this lens, I got to try it out recently and loved having he 400 length and the IS (my first time using either) but didn't like the zoom mechanism. I found I couldn't hold the camera/lens properly if I wanted to be able to control the zoom, it was too unstable to have my hand on the zoom 'ring' when zoomed in. I know they say practice helps, and I agree, but it's also a fundamental design problem.

So I'm looking forward to a replacement of some kind.

 

[scalesusa]

Count on any new prime or updated 100-400mm L to cost a lot more. If you think $1500 is not affordable, hang on to your wallet when you see a new one come out. If a 70-300mm L goes for $1500, plan on $2500 for a new 100-400mm L

A 400mm f/5.6 prime with IS will only be a very few hundreds less. The existing 400mm f/5.6 L lens is a very simple optical formula and fairly inexpensive to make. Add IS, and a whole bunch of additional elements will be needed. This is likely why we don't see a new one, the price might be higher than I could imagine.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

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.

And sometimes you need to switch all the way back to 50mm, as a famous Walter Iooss photo proved. At least at one time (back in the 1960s) he often had a few SLRs hung around his neck. That'd kill me, personally...

 

[willhl]

Count on any new prime or updated 100-400mm L to cost a lot more. If you think $1500 is not affordable, hang on to your wallet when you see a new one come out. If a 70-300mm L goes for $1500, plan on $2500 for a new 100-400mm L

No no, was more saying that the 100-400 is affordable (painful but affordable), however if they remove it from the line-up then the only 400mm with IS would be the F2.8 which is not (affordable most people that is).

 

[scalesusa]

Count on any new prime or updated 100-400mm L to cost a lot more. If you think $1500 is not affordable, hang on to your wallet when you see a new one come out. If a 70-300mm L goes for $1500, plan on $2500 for a new 100-400mm L

No no, was more saying that the 100-400 is affordable (painful but affordable), however if they remove it from the line-up then the only 400mm with IS would be the F2.8 which is not (affordable most people that is).

It is extremely unlikely that a popular and fast selling lens like the 100-400mm L would be removed from the lineup, however, a upgrade is possible but probably not soon.

 

[IllegalFun]

I think the way canon is going, I may switch to landscapes only, and ignore anything over 200mm!

the only decent lenses for wildlife that canon make for enthusiasts with very good IQ are the 300 f4 and 400 f5.6
The 100-400 has IQ problems at 400mm (not surprising considering it is a zoom from pre 2000)

I really hope they update the lens, keeping it 400mm or longer, and improve IQ and quality control, as there are so few DSLR's with Micro-Focus Adjustment...
for me I would rather buy a 400 5.6L and wait to buy a 70-200 2.8L IS Mk2 for the zoom. there are some reports of the 70-200 Mk2 + 2x extender working better than the 100-400L

 

[neuroanatomist]

there are some reports of the 70-200 Mk2 + 2x extender working better than the 100-400L

"Some reports?" Personally, I don't believe it. I have to say, I don't have any problems with my 100-400mm at 400mm (sure, it's a zoom and it's not going to be as sharp as a prime). But my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II with a 1.4x II extender isn't as sharp as my 100-400mm at matched focal lengths, and I can't see the situation being better with a 2x extender, even the MkIII version.

 

[KyleSTL]

To add to the rainforest discussion:

My experience was very humid (probably around 80-90%) and everyday it rained briefly. Weather sealing is definitely important. And the shutter speeds were hardly hand-holdable with my XT and 18-55mm non-IS at 800 and 1600 ISO. Most of the time I stayed in the wide range of the lens an aperture of 3.5 or 4. In a rainforest only about 2-5% of the available sunlight reaches the floor.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

For what it's worth, I jumped for the 120-400mm Sigma. I hope to pass along some impressions when I get it.

The thinking was like this: It doesn't lose any light over the Canon offerings, and while the 400mm setting is considered less sharp than the Canon 100-400, it seems to be just as sharp at settings from 100-300mm. No push-pull mechanism, and a more up-to-date IS than Canon's 100-400 round it out.

Other serious considerations were the Sigma 150-500 OS - seems to be good functionally but doesn't sound sharp enough for my liking. The extra 100mm (or extra 200mm, by my way of thinking) would have been good, however.

Sigma also makes an incredible-sounding 100-300mm f/4 that only lacks IS, and obviously some focal length as well. I would have loved to get a 100-400mm version, but at that range you're talking about the front light-gathering element being 100mm instead of 75mm so it obviously gets even heavier. An IS version would have been pretty tempting, especially if it came in under the price of the 70-300mm.

 

[illuminator5555]

Ah...really?

 

[neuroanatomist]

The thinking was like this: It doesn't lose any light over the Canon offerings, and while the 400mm setting is considered less sharp than the Canon 100-400, it seems to be just as sharp at settings from 100-300mm. No push-pull mechanism, and a more up-to-date IS than Canon's 100-400 round it out.

Interesting choice. The only issue I'd have (other than the reported Sigma AF issues that occur on some lenses) is that I tend to use my 100-400mm most frequently at 400mm, so sacrificing sharpness at that end would not work for me. But, an updated IS would be nice...

 

[Edwin Herdman]

I'm not intending to try to do any rigorous study (ha, with what equipment) of the lens but I will at least try to offer up my opinions about it (which, owing to my having to order this stuff long-distance, will be with the caveat that it's just me comparing what I see to random other peoples' samples on the Internet of this and other lenses).

I'll first have to get a handle on framing with the lens - if it turns out I'm not using the IS, or the 400mm setting (which I doubt), I have the option of going to the 100-300mm. All other things being equal, which they aren't, longer is always better, so I won't trade any lenses before I get an idea how well I can shoot wildlife in the middle of the year or at least get some experience with longer range subjects. If I find that I'm exclusively shooting 400mm or longer I can just about trade this lens for the (aging but still sharper) Canon OEM option, the 400mm f/5.6L IS, and not lose any speed.

I could even more readily trade for the Sigma 150-500mm but I'm a bit skeptical of that one - it's $100 more (than the 120-400), instead of somewhere around $300 more for the Canon 400mm prime, but this guy opines that it's not as sharp at 400mm - close, but the Sigma is also at f/6.3 instead of f/5.6, so stopping down isn't really an option anymore. f/5.6 already feels like a compromise, and f/6-ish is where I'd rather not have to stop down to for sharpness but probably will.

I were selling pictures (maybe one of these days) I'd opt for primes and maybe one 100-300mm zoom like the Sigma f/4. Or maybe pack a Nikon body for the 200-400mm...

 

[kubelik]

edwin, I'm a big fan of sigma lenses, having owned and shot over half a dozen of them, but I have to say that the 150-500's are my least favorite out of all of them. by a lot. the quality of the bokeh, the image quality in general, and the time it takes for the IS to kick in are all sub-par. I wish they'd put IS into the 100-300 f/4 and fix the lens hood on it because that would be a great performer. haven't used the 120-400.

personally, I'm saving up for Canon's telephoto primes at this point, unless Canon drops a new 100-400 in the meantime.