Another EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Mention

[Lee Jay]

I am wondering if this is going to be too little too late.

The 70-300L is a great lens and 400 is just a slight crop away from 300.

A slight crop of just short of half your pixels.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I see a 100-400L up on our local Craigslist now, so its possible that some are jumping the gun. I really like my 100-400, its a good one. It will take a lot of improvements to get me to replace it. I'm hoping that the improvements are worth it, but I'm a skeptic, I'd expect better IS, smaller size, non telescoping, but only incremental IQ improvement. The rear focus design may mess with TC's like it does on the 70-300L

 

[Maximilian]

• Smaller than the current EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

...

• Obvious optical, AF and IS improvements

This would be nice.
First thing i didn't expect.
Second one was hoped for.
Now please add TC compatibility and a reasonable price and I'm fine

Bad thing about it:
Getting the money and the arguments for my GAS together... :

So bring the unicorn on...

 

[Maximilian]

Okay, enough. I wish everyone will just stop posting anything at all about the (maybe) new 100-400 until Canon announces it. Do these websites do this just to to get hits? Too many years of false rumors, give us a break!

canonrumors.com

*lol*
hbolte, you entirely missed the point of this page and the fun of discussing rumors and not facts.

 

[mikelino]

I have several hopes for such a lens:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Optics near perfection (diffraction limited, little CA)
[*]Designed with 1.4x TC III in mind
[*]Terrific IS with no optical changes as lens elements move
[*]Under $2,000 street within a year.
[*]77mm filter threads
[*]Fully removable tripod collar (preferably the same one as the 70-200/2.8 IS II)
[/list]

Like 70-300L ...

 

[Jane]

I have several hopes for such a lens:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Optics near perfection (diffraction limited, little CA)
[*]Designed with 1.4x TC III in mind
[*]Terrific IS with no optical changes as lens elements move
[*]Under $2,000 street within a year.
[*]77mm filter threads
[*]Fully removable tripod collar (preferably the same one as the 70-200/2.8 IS II)
[/list]

Agree but I hope the tripod collar isn't a separate $170 expense like the one for 70-300L!

 

[Lee Jay]

The 70-300L is stupid in multiple ways - the separate tripod collar and incompatibility with TCs are two of them, and if they are repeated here, I would say that would reduce the attractiveness of the new 100-400L quite substantially. I know that, for me, the lack of TC compatibility is a total and complete non-starter, and one reason I never seriously considered the 70-300L, nor will I ever consider it.

 

[rrcphoto]

I have several hopes for such a lens:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Optics near perfection (diffraction limited, little CA)
[*]Designed with 1.4x TC III in mind
[*]Terrific IS with no optical changes as lens elements move
[*]Under $2,000 street within a year.
[*]77mm filter threads
[*]Fully removable tripod collar (preferably the same one as the 70-200/2.8 IS II)
[/list]

that would be awesome - but unlikely as optical near perfect and a fairly cheap cost really dont' go hand in hand.

i will not be surprised to see this roll in at 2999 and settle around 2700 for the first 2 or so years.

 

[Lee Jay]

I have several hopes for such a lens:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Optics near perfection (diffraction limited, little CA)
[*]Designed with 1.4x TC III in mind
[*]Terrific IS with no optical changes as lens elements move
[*]Under $2,000 street within a year.
[*]77mm filter threads
[*]Fully removable tripod collar (preferably the same one as the 70-200/2.8 IS II)
[/list]

that would be awesome - but unlikely as optical near perfect and a fairly cheap cost really dont' go hand in hand.

My 70-200/2.8L IS II is nearly perfect optically, and I bought it for $1,974. A longer and slower lens should be easier to get right than a fast constant f-stop lens.

 

[JonAustin]

My 70-200/2.8L IS II is nearly perfect optically, and I bought it for $1,974. A longer and slower lens should be easier to get right than a fast constant f-stop lens.

This ▲

Can't speak to how far down street prices will eventually settle, but I'd be "shocked" if the MSRP for the 100-400 II exceeds that of the 70-200 II.

I also tend to believe (OK, want to believe) that a 100-400 II will follow the lead of its predecessor, with respect to TC compatibility and tripod collar included in the box.

 

[fotoray]

I like this and think most are possible. Not sure about the 77mm thread. And no way on the collar, no money to be had by having a collar that goes on another popular lens model. ;D

I don't mind a different collar .. .but Canon should finally make the collar-foot with Arca grooves cut in at the factrroy. So we don't have to get RRS replacement foots ... which is a hassle and significant expense if you don't live in the US:

+1

 

[fotoray]

The way it sounds, I'm guessing they will have a slot in the hood to be able to use your fingers to rotate a ND or Polarizer. That would be nice. I thought about using a dremel and make slots in in my 70-200 hood to allow me to rotate a ND filter, but I thought it might ruin the use of the hood and maybe let light in the slots and cause a reflection.

Hmmm..

It drives me nuts trying to use a polarizer and hood at the same time. :-\ Why not have a threaded hood to match the (77mm?) filter size? Just rotate the hood and the polarizer rotates with it? The solution might work with long telephoto lenses (like 100-400) that have a relatively narrow FOV and a fully circular hood. Obviously not a good solution for wide angle lenses because of vignetting due to wider FOV and irregular hood shape.

 

[fragilesi]

The 70-300L is stupid in multiple ways - the separate tripod collar and incompatibility with TCs are two of them, and if they are repeated here, I would say that would reduce the attractiveness of the new 100-400L quite substantially. I know that, for me, the lack of TC compatibility is a total and complete non-starter, and one reason I never seriously considered the 70-300L, nor will I ever consider it.

It's odd how some people seem to think that anything that doesn't suit exactly what they want is "stupid".

I have the 70-300L, it's my most used lens. I've never needed or wanted to use a tripod collar, the two other people I know with them are the same in that regard. For us it's great that the collar is not included, it would just be a piece of junk around the house and the lens would have been more expensive. So for us, it's good news.

TC compatibility would be good but I suspect again it would increase the cost or they would have done it.

So, in summary, my favourite lens is in no way stupid, it's my favourite lens because it suits exactly what I want at a price I could accept. It doesn't suit others and that's fine but I bet Canon market research know more about the user demographics than all of us combined.

 

[DJL329]

"... stating the lens would be coming in November."

Yeah, but did they mention which year?!?

 

[hbolte]

Okay, enough. I wish everyone will just stop posting anything at all about the (maybe) new 100-400 until Canon announces it. Do these websites do this just to to get hits? Too many years of false rumors, give us a break!

canonrumors.com

*lol*
hbolte, you entirely missed the point of this page and the fun of discussing rumors and not facts.

The only thing I'm missing is a new 100-400 in my bag. I'm just tired of the false stories. If I had a dollar for every story about the New 100-400 I could buy several...

 

[Lee Jay]

The 70-300L is stupid in multiple ways - the separate tripod collar and incompatibility with TCs are two of them, and if they are repeated here, I would say that would reduce the attractiveness of the new 100-400L quite substantially. I know that, for me, the lack of TC compatibility is a total and complete non-starter, and one reason I never seriously considered the 70-300L, nor will I ever consider it.

It's odd how some people seem to think that anything that doesn't suit exactly what they want is "stupid".

I have the 70-300L, it's my most used lens. I've never needed or wanted to use a tripod collar, the two other people I know with them are the same in that regard. For us it's great that the collar is not included, it would just be a piece of junk around the house and the lens would have been more expensive. So for us, it's good news.

TC compatibility would be good but I suspect again it would increase the cost or they would have done it.

So, in summary, my favourite lens is in no way stupid, it's my favourite lens because it suits exactly what I want at a price I could accept. It doesn't suit others and that's fine but I bet Canon market research know more about the user demographics than all of us combined.

Fine...stupid from Canon's point of view. I would guess that those two decisions, along with a few others, cost them at least a third of sales. Maybe as much as half.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Okay, enough. I wish everyone will just stop posting anything at all about the (maybe) new 100-400 until Canon announces it. Do these websites do this just to to get hits? Too many years of false rumors, give us a break!

Since Chuck Westfall, Canon Technical Director, announced at Photokina 2014 that it was coming, the situation is a bit different. Multiple sources are leaking (Or fabricating) information.

"The 100-400mm zoom is a good example. Canon introduced it in 1998 with its first-generation image stablization technology, which counteracts some camera shake, and still sells it for $1,700. But a new model is in the works, said Canon technical advisor Chuck Westfall in an interview here at the Photokina show Monday. "It's definitely on the boards for replacement," he said, though declining to say when."

Yes, its still a rumor, and I won't sell my old one yet, but when Canon says its coming, then the Rumors are going to come more rapidly as well.

http://www.cnet.com/news/canon-reveals-details-for-future-telephoto-lens-line/

 

[fragilesi]

Fine...stupid from Canon's point of view. I would guess that those two decisions, along with a few others, cost them at least a third of sales. Maybe as much as half.

I guess neither of us will ever be able to prove it either way of course but I'd bet the cost of one that you're wrong. I know it goes against the grain in terms of how L-series lenses are thought of but I think that Canon called it spot on with these decisions. It's an L-series leisure lens in many ways. Portable, wonderfully balanced due to its short length and compared to many very luggable. I suspect (obviously I can't know) that Canon saw how popular similarly specified lenses in terms of aperture and zoom range were. They then thought, we could give these people a premium option.

With my 70-300L I can wander round, unrestricted, get a decent focal length, very good image quality, great IS on the very odd occasion I need it and I am unrestricted in my movement. Lots of people use it as a travel lens, a lens to take on hikes and for me I like to stay mobile. It's just perfect for what I want and the image quality for a lens of its zoom range, price and aperture is very, very good.

It's perhaps just a slightly different type of photographer they are after?

 

[dadgummit]

The 70-300L is stupid in multiple ways - the separate tripod collar and incompatibility with TCs are two of them, and if they are repeated here, I would say that would reduce the attractiveness of the new 100-400L quite substantially. I know that, for me, the lack of TC compatibility is a total and complete non-starter, and one reason I never seriously considered the 70-300L, nor will I ever consider it.

It's odd how some people seem to think that anything that doesn't suit exactly what they want is "stupid".

I have the 70-300L, it's my most used lens. I've never needed or wanted to use a tripod collar, the two other people I know with them are the same in that regard. For us it's great that the collar is not included, it would just be a piece of junk around the house and the lens would have been more expensive. So for us, it's good news.

TC compatibility would be good but I suspect again it would increase the cost or they would have done it.

So, in summary, my favourite lens is in no way stupid, it's my favourite lens because it suits exactly what I want at a price I could accept. It doesn't suit others and that's fine but I bet Canon market research know more about the user demographics than all of us combined.

Agreed^

Also the Tokina 1.4 TC works great on this lens.

 

[Lee Jay]

Fine...stupid from Canon's point of view. I would guess that those two decisions, along with a few others, cost them at least a third of sales. Maybe as much as half.

I guess neither of us will ever be able to prove it either way of course but I'd bet the cost of one that you're wrong. I know it goes against the grain in terms of how L-series lenses are thought of but I think that Canon called it spot on with these decisions. It's an L-series leisure lens in many ways. Portable, wonderfully balanced due to its short length and compared to many very luggable. I suspect (obviously I can't know) that Canon saw how popular similarly specified lenses in terms of aperture and zoom range were. They then thought, we could give these people a premium option.

With my 70-300L I can wander round, unrestricted, get a decent focal length, very good image quality, great IS on the very odd occasion I need it and I am unrestricted in my movement. Lots of people use it as a travel lens, a lens to take on hikes and for me I like to stay mobile. It's just perfect for what I want and the image quality for a lens of its zoom range, price and aperture is very, very good.

It's perhaps just a slightly different type of photographer they are after?

Maybe you're right. I know that I saw those things, and never gave the lens another look. I know one person that bought the lens, found these out after opening the box, packed it back up and sent it back.