Buy now or wait?

[mercdv]

First, I'd like to say I just found this site and love it. Looks like I'm way behind on information so I figured I better ask a few questions. I'm looking to buy a couple of lenses and another Speedlite. Seeing as you guys know the release history and rumors better than me, should I go ahead and buy or wait. I don't have a pressing need but I'd hate to purchase only to find out in 3 months the lens I bought was getting an upgrade.

That being said, I'm looking at buying the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM (not pressing because I already own a 70-200mm f/4L USM). I'm also looking at the 100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS USM (already have a fixed 300mm f/4L that I use with the 1.4x if I have to). I heard there was a rumor that a new 200-400mm might be on the horizon or an upgrade to the 100-400mm. I'm also looking at adding another Speedlite 580EX II. I mainly shoot college sports (i.e. soccer, volleyball, track, baseball) and action shots. I haven't been asked to shoot football yet but that might change.

Should I go ahead and buy or wait until after January to see if anything is announced? I might get moved to football as early as this weekend so I'll be renting if that happens. I want to go ahead and upgrade the lens range I use the most unless it's a bad time to do it.

Thanks for the advice...

 

[iaind]

The 200-400 is still in development so won't appear in the near future. What body are you using?

 

[mercdv]

The 200-400 is still in development so won't appear in the near future. What body are you using?

Just the 7D...can't afford a 1D yet. Well, I guess I could if I didn't buy the lenses but I got to put what little money I have into the things I need.

 

[niccyboy]

100-400 on your 7d would be great for shooting Track... You could get some cracking shots with the 7d on that....

You could stand at the end of the straight and get them from the blocks to the finish line...

I'd get that!

I'm not a sports shooter though (although was an international track runner haha).... There are more qualified people on here.

BUT i've played the waiting game and it's not a fun one... it could be 2-3 years before the 200-400 is released... who knows?

I personally would LOVE an L series 20-200 lens like the Nikon one, not holding my breath though!

There may be something released pre olympics sports lens wise though? Would be a smart move by Canon?

 

[Loswr]

If you need/want now, buy now. At the point on the quality spectrum you're talking about, lenses hold their value well - in a year or two, you could sell the item for minimal loss and put the proceeds toward a replacement.

The 100-400mm is excellent on the 7D. If a 1-series is out of budget, the 200-400mm will be even moreso. Unlike the variable aperture 100-400, which is f/5.6 at the long end, the 200-400 is a constant f/4 and has a built-in TC. It will sit firmly inbthe supertele line, likely costing between $7.5-10K.

 

[mercdv]

If a 1-series is out of budget, the 200-400mm will be even moreso. Unlike the variable aperture 100-400, which is f/5.6 at the long end, the 200-400 is a constant f/4 and has a built-in TC. It will sit firmly inbthe supertele line, likely costing between $7.5-10K.

Ah...didn't realize it was going to be constant f/4...that will definitely push it into the rent category for me. Thanks for the info.

I guess the main one I'm worried about is that an upgrade will hit the 100-400mm not too long after I buy it. Does it seem that could be happening within the next few months or does this one sound like it's still in planning stages too? Like you said though, the current lenses are great but I don't ever sell my old gear. I still have the first SLR I learned on from 30 years ago.

 

[Loswr]

Does it seem that could be happening within the next few months or does this one sound like it's still in planning stages too?

People have been discussing a 100-400mm MkII for years. IMO, Canon is not going to release a new version any time soon. I think the new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS zoom is the replacement for the 100-400mm. Canon took a somewhat unusual step of publishing what they called a 'lens positioning article' for the 70-300mm L. From what I can tell, it's the only time they've done that, and they state it's targeted at APS-C users where it's effectively a 112-480mm lens (i.e. 'better' than the 100-400mm, plus lighter, tougher, etc.).

 

[mercdv]

Thanks neuroanatomist, that's the kind of info I needed. I feel much more informed now. That article even made me reconsider purchasing the 100-400mm f4-5.6L. Seems to make more sense to go with the 70-200mm f/2.8 as planned then use the money I was going to spend on the 100-400mm to buy a second camera body to keep a second longer or larger aperture lens mounted.

 

[Loswr]

Thanks neuroanatomist, that's the kind of info I needed. I feel much more informed now. That article even made me reconsider purchasing the 100-400mm f4-5.6L. Seems to make more sense to go with the 70-200mm f/2.8 as planned then use the money I was going to spend on the 100-400mm to buy a second camera body to keep a second longer or larger aperture lens mounted.

For sports shooting, a pair of 7D's hung on a BlackRapid double strap, one with a 70-200/2.8 and one with a 300/4 (without or with TC, depending on sport and how close you are to the action) would be a nice combination. Depending on field lighting, f/5.6 might be sub-optimal.

 

[Cropper]

I find myself in the very same situation.

I too use a 7D and currently my longest lens is also the 70-200 f4 IS.

I have been waiting for what seems like ages for a new 100-400. Everytime I thik it's around the corner, Canon just manages to announce something else that is close but not quite the same (70-300L, 200-400).

However I am in no hurry and am still waiting for all the pieces to unfold. I am also considering the 300 f2.8 II or the 200-400, but I'll wait and see what else might come up next year.

In retrospect I now think I should have gotten the 70-200 f2.8 II instead of the f4 version. Not only for the larger aperture advantage but also for the ability to use the 1.4x and 2x teleconverter more eficiently especially at 400mm.

I have to disagree with neuro. I don't think the 70-300L qualifies as a replacement for the 100-400.
The main reason most people buy the 100-400 is precisely to be able to get to 400mm ! The strenght of this lens is the long range.

It's a lens that is even more useful on a FF, that doesn't benefit from the 1.6 crop factor. So the 70-300 would never be enough to replace it.

Besides if Canon can have three different 70-300 lenses (EF - L - DO) and four 70-200 lenses why couldn't they replace a very old 100-400, particularly since it's the only one available with that important focal leght ?

The recently revealed patent for a new design (100-400 f4-5.6) and the frequent rumors of several versions of this new lens being tested gives me some hope that sooner, rather than later, we'll be seeing it announced.


Regarding your situation, I also share the opinion that if you really NEED it, you should get it. You can always sell or trade it for the new model without loosing too much money.

However if you, like I, can aford to wait a little longer, maybe next year could bring some surprises as well as some confirmations (like the price of the 200-400), and we'll be in a better position to make a decision.

 

[Loswr]

I have to disagree with neuro. I don't think the 70-300L qualifies as a replacement for the 100-400.
The main reason most people buy the 100-400 is precisely to be able to get to 400mm ! The strenght of this lens is the long range.

Just to clarify, I don't think it's a replacement. My point was that I think that Canon thinks it's a replacement.

 

[Loswr]

Additionally, you might find yourself in a position that a used 100-400mm is worth the same or even more than your original purchase price once a MKII is released and the stock levels of the existing model are all dried up.

That would be nice (from a seller's perspective, at least). I'm not sure that will happen with the 100-400mm, though. For some reason, I frequently see them come up on CL at what I would consider reasonable prices (~70% of new price) - there's one on my local CL for $1100 right now. That sort of reduction is not unusual for this lens, but was very unusual for other white zooms.

Well, I think replacement is the wrong word, rather the 70-300L is the "100-500L EF-S" lens that also happens to work on FF.

Fair enough. At least this one is a zoom lens...

 

[Loswr]

Like this one?
http://atlanta.craigslist.org/nat/pho/2659957148.html

Given the description, it's seen a bit of use...

I can easily imagine people buying it sight unseen over the internet and then discovering that it isn't what they really wanted...

This one is supposedly in excellent condition...and still $1100.

http://capecod.craigslist.org/pho/2679378811.html

That's the beauty of CL - a local meet up ensures you can see - and more importantly test - the item you're buying.

 

[AprilForever]

Buy now and pay later! ;D And love the images you would have been missing otherwise!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

In the case of the 100-400mm L, there seems to be a lot of older ones floating around that do not produce images that are up to par.

This is one of just a few lenses that I'd recommend buying where you can very thouroughly test it or have return rights. Its worth paying a little more IMHO.

I had a 2005 model that was good, but not super and sold it. I bought a new one about 1-1/2 years back and it was much better.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_282320_-1

 

[briansquibb]

For sports shooting, a pair of 7D's hung on a BlackRapid double strap, one with a 70-200/2.8 and one with a 300/4 (without or with TC, depending on sport and how close you are to the action) would be a nice combination. Depending on field lighting, f/5.6 might be sub-optimal.

I hang a pair of 7D's on a RS2, one with the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the other with the 400F2.8 IS. I would go with f/2.8 lens to help the AF using the sensitive points.

Brian

 

[Edwin Herdman]

The Sigma 120-300mm isn't a bad option - if you need 400mm, you can get 560mm, too (close, anyway) with a teleconverter and not lose too much IQ. f/stop will be a constant f/5.6 even zooming to the wide end with the teleconverter on, which isn't great compared to the 100-400mm, but that's probably about it. Taking the TC off it should be just about perfect for the segment of a track closer to you (from memory, I'd expect a normal track is too wide to fit into the zoom range of many lenses comfortably while keeping the same framing, including the 100-400mm probably). It's a bit more expensive than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, and less than half the price of the probable bottom end of the 200-400mm EF Extender 1.4X introductory price range.

 

[The Bad Duck]

I would also say Sigma 120-300 /2.8 OS HSM. It seems to be a very nice lens not only on paper but also from what I´ve read about it. Some don´t like the AF, others find it great. If I was to shoot more showjumping than just a few shows a year, that is what I would get. Oh and do stay away from the non-OS version, it is not nearly as good.

Biggest pro for this lens is the f/2.8, biggest con is that it´s "only" 300mm at its longest. However with a 7D cropping might do if you don´t need to print big and of course the body acts as a 1,6 extender.

Funny thing to recommend a sigma lens on a canon forum

Good luck.

 

[smirkypants]

Does it seem that could be happening within the next few months or does this one sound like it's still in planning stages too?

People have been discussing a 100-400mm MkII for years. IMO, Canon is not going to release a new version any time soon. I think the new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS zoom is the replacement for the 100-400mm. Canon took a somewhat unusual step of publishing what they called a 'lens positioning article' for the 70-300mm L. From what I can tell, it's the only time they've done that, and they state it's targeted at APS-C users where it's effectively a 112-480mm lens (i.e. 'better' than the 100-400mm, plus lighter, tougher, etc.).

I heard this said many times, and every time I hear that the 70-300 replaces the 100-400 because of the crop factor, my ass twitches. It might effectively reach 480mm on an AP-C but the 100-400 has an effective reach of 640mm. How 480mm replaces 640mm is beyond me.

By the way, I have a 100-400mm and I've taken just some astonishingly good photos with it—sharp with beautiful blurring. Pretty much the only downside is when the light is bad (gray skies/rain), the picture quality really suffers in sports where you need to reach 4 digit shutter speeds. I shoot polo and like to get to a shutter speed of 2000, and the 100-400mm is almost useless on a 7d. On a gray day on the long end, you need an ISO of 3200+ to reach those shutter speeds. You can tone down the noise quite a lot in Adobe Camera Raw, but the pictures can start to look a little soft.

I've been waiting patiently for a 200-400mm to get down to f4 and have seriously thought many times of switching to Nikon to get the Nikkor 200-400. The 400/2.8 is just too damned big and inflexible. I miss too many shots using one. It's like a fixed artillery cannon and I need to be mobile. If the Nikon D800 comes out any time soon, I just may buy one just to have that 200-400mm lens.

 

[papa-razzi]

I have to disagree with neuro. I don't think the 70-300L qualifies as a replacement for the 100-400.
The main reason most people buy the 100-400 is precisely to be able to get to 400mm ! The strenght of this lens is the long range.

Just to clarify, I don't think it's a replacement. My point was that I think that Canon thinks it's a replacement.

I think there is also a fair amount of marketing spin on that as well. Just like the 1Dx being a replacement for both the 1D and 1Ds lines, I don't buy it. I would say - Canon is saying its a replacement - for now, but that is not their long-term position. We will see a high MP 1Dx at some point. I'm not so sure with the 100-400 vs. the 70-300L. Canon's argument is a little stronger on that one.

Having said that, the 70-300L vs 100-400L is a difficult choice. The 70-300 has all the improvements in IS and AF, but you lose the long end. I want to get one or the other at some point for sports (cross country, track). Anyone have experience with both and have suggestions?