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

[KitsVancouver]

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!

I'm confused. If you don't like rumors, why are you visiting a website DEDICATED to rumors?

 

[expatinasia]

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

Priceless!

Best post I have read for ages. Thanks for cheering me up this morning, hbolte.

 

[jdramirez]

Please allow me to quote Douglas Adams:

"Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was ..."

If you will complete the sentence you will have my comment for this rumor ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm sure someone else responded... but I believe it was...

Oh... not again.

or some variation.

 

[jdramirez]

70-300L killer? I'll happily trade that in if the 100-400L II will fit in my travel bag!

Wishfull thinking...

I understood the 70-300 was optically better than the original 100-400... and didn't have as much of a dust issue... so I could see why one would sacrifice the 100mm reach... but if the mkii 100-400 is optically better than the 70-300L, I'm not sure what benefits the 70-300 has... maybe price... and technically a larger zoom ratio.

 

[jdramirez]

I really enjoy holding the camera and lens from the tripod collar. It feels balanced and a solid handle. It might not be necessary, but I use it all the time with my 5d mkiii and 70-200mm f/2.8L is mkii.

 

[jdramirez]

I will be very interested in this lens once my bank account reloads. Wait maybe I should say even more interested. I am already very interested. ;D

I'm feeling pretty good about my gear... so I have a goal of building my camera fund to $10,000 before I make any major purchases.

 

[dufflover]

Smaller/shorter than the current one. Noooiiice.
Though the current version for all purposes was short enough already (the 70-200 that many bags cater for is a touch longer).

Given the track record of Canon's recent zooms, there's no reason to suspect that this new lens' performance will be anything short of excellent.

Definitely agree there. I would be very surprised if it wasn't short of brilliant like the improvement saw in the 70-200 II, even if it isn't exactly as sharp in raw numbers. Unfortunately also in their track record are sky high prices for the new L's that it might be too high I don't bother changing out my current 100-400

 

[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?

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.

Well so I have two friends that like it and you have one that doesn't so I win right? ;D

More seriously I doubt either of us could ever really know either way, I just know it suits me just fine but I can well imagine why you would feel the way you do about it! It's been a good friend to me and I'm glad I bought it.

 

[fragilesi]

70-300L killer? I'll happily trade that in if the 100-400L II will fit in my travel bag!

Wishfull thinking...

I understood the 70-300 was optically better than the original 100-400... and didn't have as much of a dust issue... so I could see why one would sacrifice the 100mm reach... but if the mkii 100-400 is optically better than the 70-300L, I'm not sure what benefits the 70-300 has... maybe price... and technically a larger zoom ratio.

I think price is going to be a given sadly for my wallet. And I hate to mention this to some of the real gearheads but price is very important to how well a lens sells and shouldn't be written off. As for anything else it depends what you want to use it for. That 70-300 range is going to suit some sports shooters for example much better than 100-400 because it improves the amount of "near-side" (for want of a better term) action you can capture.