70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?

[AvTvM]

while Canon is dragging its feet to replace the outdated 100-400/4.5-5.6, Sony goes ahead with a 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II lens announced today.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/02/20/sony-lenses-50mmzeiss-70-400mm

The specs look good http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_70-400_4-5p6_gssmii/specification
Only slightly larger and heavier than the Canon 100-400, but faster at the short end - f/4.0. Same 77mm filter diameter. Rotary zoom design.

Canon ... WAKEUP CALL!

 

[RS2021]

while Canon is dragging its feet to replace the outdated 100-400/4.5-5.6, Sony goes ahead with a 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II lens announced today.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/02/20/sony-lenses-50mmzeiss-70-400mm

The specs look good http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_70-400_4-5p6_gssmii/specification
Only slightly larger and heavier than the Canon 100-400, but faster at the short end - f/4.0. Same 77mm filter diameter. Rotary zoom design.

Canon ... WAKEUP CALL!

Don't know about faster...by 100mm they both could be at f4.5.... Case in point is Canon's own 70-300L ...starts at 70mm instead of 100mm ... But by ~103mm or so is the same f4.5 100-400 aperture. So Sony at ~100mm could be at f4.5.

And one could argue it is Sony who finally woke up as Canon has had that zoom on the market for more than a decade...if anything, Sony is the one catching up here! And whats more, even Sony opting for the white barrel smacks of a Canon imitation....as they say, imitation is the best form of flattery.

What is marginally added is the 30mm on the lower focal length range.

The proof will be in the pudding: image quality, build, etc.

 

[RS2021]

while Canon is dragging its feet to replace the outdated 100-400/4.5-5.6, Sony goes ahead with a 70-400mm F4-5.6 G....

Canon ... WAKEUP CALL!

Yeah, like we are all going to abandon Canon's whole system for Sony because Sony released a similar zoom that Canon released over 10 years ago :

 

[Menace]

Wonder how big is the demand for the Sony offering?

 

[rs]

And I wonder who would prefer to use that Sony lens with an electronic viewfinder over the Canon 100-400 mounted on a DSLR?

 

[zim]

Yip, just what Canon need another 70 to something zoom, they are so poor in that market segment

 

[well_dunno]

And one could argue it is Sony who finally woke up as Canon has had that zoom on the market for more than a decade...if anything, Sony is the one catching up here! And whats more, even Sony opting for the white barrel smacks of a Canon imitation....as they say, imitation is the best form of flattery.

Sony had the version 1 of this lens on the market for a couple of years now though. Flattery remaining all the same regardless

Cheers!

 

[AvTvM]

I do not care for color of the lesnes, or 70mm vs. 100mm at the short end or for any Sony lens, since it won't mount on my Canon camera.

All I want is an improved Canon EF 100-400/4.0-5.6 L IS Mk. II ... rotary zoom design, fully sealed, better IS, better image quality at a similar price to the current 100-400.

I will not buy the old push-pull one version. And if the Sony 70-400 is really good IQ-wise, I may get the Canon lens sooner rather than later.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon ... WAKEUP CALL!

Why don't we wait and see how this lens performs optically before shouting at Canon? After all, Nikon has an 80-400mm lens, and the 'outdated' Canon 100-400L beats it soundly from an IQ standpoint.

All I want is an improved Canon EF 100-400/4.0-5.6 L IS Mk. II ... rotary zoom design, fully sealed, better IS, better image quality at a similar price to the current 100-400.

Up to that last point, I thought you were sincere. If you really think an MkII version of the 100-400 will come out anywhere close to the price of the current version, we all need some of what you're smoking….

 

[Studio1930]

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms. The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens. At some point you just need to change lenses. That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm? :

 

[Dylan777]

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms. The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens. At some point you just need to change lenses. That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm? :

I'll take one ;D ;D ;D

 

[preppyak]

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms. The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens. At some point you just need to change lenses. That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm? :

Actually, the point of a lens like that is that the things you shoot with it (birds, wildlife, outdoor sports) contain subjects that move a lot and might be 10ft from you one minute and 50ft from you the next. Changing lenses doesn't solve the issue, and for some of them (let's say on a Safari or shooting a mother bear and her cubs) getting closer is perhaps not the best idea.

Pretty much all zooms, except those on the very extreme ends (ultra-wides and fast super-tele), make a 3-4x zoom. Your 70-200's, 70-300's, 24-70, etc. Don't see too many people complaining about the tradeoffs of a 3x zoom in their new 24-70 or 70-200. And even the current 100-400 is pretty good optically, it just uses a different style zoom and could probably stand for some weight-saving technology that Canon has updated their other lenses with.

 

[Lurker]

next, a 10-800mm?

Sold!, wait does that come with a built in 1.4x TC?

 

[Menace]

What is next, a 10-800mm? :

Lol. I'll take two

 

[Studio1930]

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms. The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens. At some point you just need to change lenses. That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm? :

Actually, the point of a lens like that is that the things you shoot with it (birds, wildlife, outdoor sports) contain subjects that move a lot and might be 10ft from you one minute and 50ft from you the next. Changing lenses doesn't solve the issue, and for some of them (let's say on a Safari or shooting a mother bear and her cubs) getting closer is perhaps not the best idea.

Pretty much all zooms, except those on the very extreme ends (ultra-wides and fast super-tele), make a 3-4x zoom. Your 70-200's, 70-300's, 24-70, etc. Don't see too many people complaining about the tradeoffs of a 3x zoom in their new 24-70 or 70-200. And even the current 100-400 is pretty good optically, it just uses a different style zoom and could probably stand for some weight-saving technology that Canon has updated their other lenses with.

I've been shooting subjects like that (close and then far) for years. The solution is to use two bodies with two different lenses on them. Photographers have been using this standard setup for ages for close and then far subject matters such as field sports. I would rather shoot with a great prime and then a great zoom on two bodies rather than use a mega zoom with lower quality.

Again, that is my personal preference and the quality of the mega zooms is getting better all of the time (just not enough to entice me right now).

 

[RMC33]

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms. The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens. At some point you just need to change lenses. That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm? :

Actually, the point of a lens like that is that the things you shoot with it (birds, wildlife, outdoor sports) contain subjects that move a lot and might be 10ft from you one minute and 50ft from you the next. Changing lenses doesn't solve the issue, and for some of them (let's say on a Safari or shooting a mother bear and her cubs) getting closer is perhaps not the best idea.

Pretty much all zooms, except those on the very extreme ends (ultra-wides and fast super-tele), make a 3-4x zoom. Your 70-200's, 70-300's, 24-70, etc. Don't see too many people complaining about the tradeoffs of a 3x zoom in their new 24-70 or 70-200. And even the current 100-400 is pretty good optically, it just uses a different style zoom and could probably stand for some weight-saving technology that Canon has updated their other lenses with.

I've been shooting subjects like that (close and then far) for years. The solution is to use two bodies with two different lenses on them. Photographers have been using this standard setup for ages for close and then far subject matters such as field sports. I would rather shoot with a great prime and then a great zoom on two bodies rather than use a mega zoom with lower quality.

Again, that is my personal preference and the quality of the mega zooms is getting better all of the time (just not enough to entice me right now).

Couldn't agree more. Depending on the situation I sometimes will carry 3 bodies if my location permits and I want to get a large variety of shots. I routinely keep my 200 f/2 or 400 f/2.8 on one 24-70 or 70-200 on a 2nd and an 8-15 fish on a third. This is location dependent, Edge of a 600m Half-pipe (long) I use 3 so when my subject is at the top I can get the images I want and as they advance towards me I can swap down to shorter lengths while maintaing the high (640+ Prefer 1/1000) shutter speeds I want. If I shoot DH or Super G I keep my 400 and 200 as the action is BLAZING fast and focus pre-sets are a must (and Canon does not make a 200-400... yet!).

 

[AvTvM]

I've been shooting subjects like that (close and then far) for years. The solution is to use two bodies with two different lenses on them. Photographers have been using this standard setup for ages for close and then far subject matters such as field sports. I would rather shoot with a great prime and then a great zoom on two bodies rather than use a mega zoom with lower quality.

My personal preference is having to buy and carry only ONE camera at a time.
A 100-400 Tele-Zoom bears no resemblance to a 28-300 "super zoom", bridging WW to tele range.
The current 100-400 L is optically quite decent already if you manage to get a good copy.
It could certainly be improved optically by about the same margin as the old 24-70 L compared to the new 24-70 II. Actually it should be easier, since it is a pure tele-zoom.

 

[RS2021]

That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm? :

You are behind times...Sony already made it and I think I saw one in the assorted mixed-bin, right next to the Extended Version of Matrix Trilogy at Walmart.

 

[Studio1930]

I've been shooting subjects like that (close and then far) for years. The solution is to use two bodies with two different lenses on them. Photographers have been using this standard setup for ages for close and then far subject matters such as field sports. I would rather shoot with a great prime and then a great zoom on two bodies rather than use a mega zoom with lower quality.

My personal preference is having to buy and carry only ONE camera at a time.

This won't apply to everyone, but professionals such as myself would rather shoot with two bodies and two lenses so that a backup body is already with you. No time to run back to the car for that spare body when the action is happening right there in front of you at that moment. Shooting with one body is just not an option for some situations so using two lenses on two bodies just makes sense.

Just providing a view of a professional and why mega zooms are often not practical since you might already need two bodies anyways. Many wedding photographers do this as well since having that second body on you allows you to not miss that important, non-repeatable, moment in the event that a body breaks (easy enough to swaps lenses from each body at that point). One body with one mega zoom won't work for you in that case.

(Again, depending on what you are shooting this may not apply to you.)

 

[AvTvM]

This won't apply to everyone, but professionals such as myself would rather shoot with two bodies and two lenses so that a backup body is already with you.

I realize that for many professionals 2 bodies is standard / "best practice".
It does not apply to me personally. Especially when I want to have reach up to 400mm.
Never brought a 100-400 to a wedding.

I do not consider a 100-400 a "mega-zoom". To me a 4x telezoom is a quite benign, even conservative zoom-lens class that has been around for 20+ years.

My usage of a 100-400 would primarily be for all sorts of "outdoor sports/activities" and for all sorts of "wildlife" - from zoo to National Parks/Safari.

In additon to a few prime lenses I currently use 3 zooms (on 7D): 10-22, 17-55, 70-200/2.8. I do not consider purchase of a 400 prime lens. I want one additional, handholdable longer Tele-Zoom ... and 100-400 would be perfect. But I will stay clear of the current dinosaur Canon 100-400, which is outdated in every way - from its push-pull design to its image quality which is ok, but not great by today's standards and its 2-stops-at-best-IS whcih is substantially inadequate in 2013.

Basically I want a 100-400 II that matches my 70-200/2.8 L IS II in every respect. Build, sealing, IS, IQ - all the way to 400mm. At 400/5.6 it should be every bit as good as the current 400/5.6 ... and no, I do not believe this to be possible only in a 200-400/4.0 @ 12,000 Euro.

So, Canon .. get to work. It's time to deliver.