unfocused said:Join the club. A huge percentage of people on this forum have the same issue.
Logic would dictate that a 12-year-old push-pull zoom lens would need to be replaced soon (probably at a substantial increase in cost, unfortunately). But Canon isn't talking.
My recommendation would be, if you need the lens for a specific event/trip/assignment, I would rent it and see how you like it before buying. I've rented it and liked the lens, but not well enough to buy it.
While it's certainly not a direct replacement, I think the two are close enough that Canon is unlikely to update the 100-400mm any time soon.
unfocused said:While it's certainly not a direct replacement, I think the two are close enough that Canon is unlikely to update the 100-400mm any time soon.
Unfortunately, I agree. A new 100-400 zoom, even if it is $500 more than the current model would probably undercut sales of the 70-300mm and unless a third party produces a quality competitor (are you listening Tokina!) Canon is under no pressure to upgrade the lens. The reviews I've read of the Sigma 400mm zoom are not too promising and the "Bigma" apparently has some serious autofocus issues.
Edwin Herdman said:I think a 100-400mm fixed aperture lens would be both large and expensive, even at f/4.
Edwin Herdman said:I'm inclined to agree on the difference in the focal length ranges...100mm always makes a huge difference.
I wouldn't buy the current 100-400mm if I could help it, though good quality at 400mm seems to be expensive no matter what. I'm sure the 400mm setting would be helpful even on a crop sensor though.
Edwin Herdman said:I had been focused on the 70-200mm f/2.8 II earlier, but now I think I'd be better served by a better body and the 70-300mm - I can buy both for roughly the same price.
martijn said:I don't see myself paying 4000 euros or more for a 300/2.8 or other super-zoom unless I win the lottery but I would be prepared to pay well into the 2000's (Euro) for a new 100-400 4.5-5.6, with twist zoom, updated coatings and IS...Come on Canon, my money is waiting for you!
dilbert said:The 100-400L is also significantly bigger than what the 70-300L is:
100-400L 70-300L Weight 3.1lbs/~1.4kg 2.31lbs/1.1kg Length 3.6x7.4" 3.5x5.6" Extended 10.75" 7.4" Filter 77mm 67mm
gratomlin said:i'm in a position to purchase this lens but reluctant just now as a replacement could be just around the corner, has anyone heard any gossip about a replacement?
many thanks in advance
AJ said:I say how about 100-500/4-6.3 L IS. This would require an 82 mm front element - A little bigger than present but not over the top.
neuroanatomist said:AJ said:I say how about 100-500/4-6.3 L IS. This would require an 82 mm front element - A little bigger than present but not over the top.
I don't think Canon will release a lens with an f/6.3 max aperture, since all of their bodies require an f/5.6 aperture for autofocus to function. Sigma and other 3rd party lenses get away with that by chipping the lenses to 'fool' the camera.
ronderick said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading somewhere that the autofocus works up to f/8 for their 1D bodies.
Didn't realize this, thanks for the information. Not a real big difference but I'll have to look at the prices.Canon 14-24 said:
Edwin Herdman said:Didn't realize this, thanks for the information. Not a real big difference but I'll have to look at the prices.Canon 14-24 said: