Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]

[Etienne]

I don't understand why they don't make it a 70-400 or 80-400 to have a less big gap between this lens and their 24-70's. You see at Nikon and Sony that there is no quality loss with these extra 20/30mm, so why? To keep the original? For me, the 70-100 range is important, on FF as well as on crop. They make you buy an 85mm or an 70-200mm. :-X

Does anybody really need every mm covered without gaps? Sure it can be nice, but I find the 16-35 and 70-200 combo extremely versatile. 35-70 not covered ... So what? There is no way that you can always have the right lens on the right camera at the right time. You either have to use a superzoom, and accept lower IQ, or use two or more cameras simultaneously. If you really need instant versatility and high IQ, then use the 24-70 2.8 on one body, and one of the L tele-zooms on another. Of course cost and weight could be problematic.

 

[sagittariansrock]

For me, it's not just about 'habit'. One of the best ways to support a handheld camera is with palm under the body and fingers supporting the lens. That places the fingers near the closest ring, so you can adjust it without moving your palm from supporting the cameras. In my pre-AF film days, it was great for that close ring to be focus, but with AF, I (and likely most people) zoom more frequently.

+1. I wonder why they put the focus ring closer to the camera in the non-L lenses (not the super inexpensive ones, though). Just to make it more uncomfortable? Are people more likely to use manual focus override on a non-L lens?

 

[Lee Jay]

For those that want a 200-500 or xxx-600 or whatever instead, what if the bodies have f/8 AF points and you can use a 1.4x TC with the new 100-400? The Tamron really needs to be stopped down to f/8 at the 600mm end anyway, so this lens would be about the same as that one, just in a smaller size with more flexibility.

100-400/4.5-5.6
140-560/6.3-8

That sounds like a good deal to me.

 

[tayassu]

I don't understand why they don't make it a 70-400 or 80-400 ... They make you buy an 85mm or an 70-200mm. :-X

Sounds to me like you understand perfectly...

In that case, I'm an idealist believing in a world full of good and caring people... room for laughter

 

[tayassu]

I don't understand why they don't make it a 70-400 or 80-400 to have a less big gap between this lens and their 24-70's. You see at Nikon and Sony that there is no quality loss with these extra 20/30mm, so why? To keep the original? For me, the 70-100 range is important, on FF as well as on crop. They make you buy an 85mm or an 70-200mm. :-X

Does anybody really need every mm covered without gaps? Sure it can be nice, but I find the 16-35 and 70-200 combo extremely versatile. 35-70 not covered ... So what? There is no way that you can always have the right lens on the right camera at the right time. You either have to use a superzoom, and accept lower IQ, or use two or more cameras simultaneously. If you really need instant versatility and high IQ, then use the 24-70 2.8 on one body, and one of the L tele-zooms on another. Of course cost and weight could be problematic.

Of course you can live without it, but it is, as you said, nice to have.

 

[IslanderMV]

For those that want a 200-500 or xxx-600 or whatever instead, what if the bodies have f/8 AF points and you can use a 1.4x TC with the new 100-400? The Tamron really needs to be stopped down to f/8 at the 600mm end anyway, so this lens would be about the same as that one, just in a smaller size with more flexibility.

100-400/4.5-5.6
140-560/6.3-8

That sounds like a good deal to me.

At twice the price ?

 

[mycanonphotos]

I too prefer the push/pull...If IQ and IS is THAT much better then I'll drop the coin on it

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Wow....the unicorn rides again....it's gotta be released at SOME point...I just worry I'll be too old by then!

 

[Loswr]

I too prefer the push/pull...If IQ and IS is THAT much better then I'll drop the coin on it

It'll be a tough call for me. When going birding, the 100-400 was my go-to before I got the 600 II. Now, for birding it's the supertele, and for 'opportunistic' tele shooting, the much more compact 70-300L is my lens of choice. I haven't used the 100-400 in months. If I didn't have the 600, I'd preorder this lens...but as it is, I'm not sure I'd use it enough to justify it.

 

[Loswr]

Also, just to point out...there are steep discounts on the 7D as Canon seems to be dumping inventory prior to the imminent release of the 7D II. That does not appear to be the case with the 100-400L. There are several possible reasons for that, and one is that the mystical white unicorn will elude us for longer...

 

[Lee Jay]

For those that want a 200-500 or xxx-600 or whatever instead, what if the bodies have f/8 AF points and you can use a 1.4x TC with the new 100-400? The Tamron really needs to be stopped down to f/8 at the 600mm end anyway, so this lens would be about the same as that one, just in a smaller size with more flexibility.

100-400/4.5-5.6
140-560/6.3-8

That sounds like a good deal to me.

At twice the price ?

Yes, if it's better optically, has better IS, has better handling, has better AF, and is smaller and lighter.

 

[lescrane]

As an aging, broken down baby-boomer, lol, I'm heartened that Canon is paying attention to weight and no longer operating under the premise that heavier connotes better. They made the 70D lighter than the 7D with most of the features, and the weight on this series peaked w/the 40D. Now, an "improved" and lighter 100-400 L might be worth the 2K

I have the Tammy/Tamzooka and am happy with it. Can I ever go back to a mere 400mm? Well, I'm using it for birds and if I just intend to do "big birds" as in waders, waterfowl, sure, a sharp, lighter 100-400 would be in my kit that day. But that 600 is great for the little songbirds, even the plovers and other shorebirds.

I guess my calculus for a buy decision would be a)is the new Canon much sharper than Tammy at 400?
b) is it much lighter (that should be a yes)
c) will it have a multiple mode IS..eg, Panning mode, tripod mode, which the Tamron sorely lacks

So if I get 3 yes's, there goes another 2K from my "retirement" fund


addendum: there's been a lot of speculation and surprise at price. I suspect the existence of decent cheap 3rd party competitors eg, Tamzooka might at least keep Canon from going off the rails as far as price

 

[candyman]

.....
addendum: there's been a lot of speculation and surprise at price. I suspect the existence of decent cheap 3rd party competitors eg, Tamzooka might at least keep Canon from going off the rails as far as price

You think so..would you not? I think Canon is counting on those loyal red ring fanboys/girls...

 

[Etienne]

I wish it would be 200-500, and lighter

x2

I wish Canon would release 500/600mm for the common mortals

My bag can get pretty heavy. I think I'd even prefer a 200-400 and keep it as light as possible, 800g maybe?

 

[Plainsman]

Also, just to point out...there are steep discounts on the 7D as Canon seems to be dumping inventory prior to the imminent release of the 7D II. That does not appear to be the case with the 100-400L. There are several possible reasons for that, and one is that the mystical white unicorn will elude us for longer...

That's a very good point - rather than rumours we should be looking for stock levels indicators when older lenses are getting difficult to get hold of.

Accepting what you say then the current 100-400L rumour might be just another myth to tease the faithful - at least for the time being.

 

[Hannes]

100-300 f4 1.4x would be ideal, probably more than $2.5k though but one can always dream

 

[mrsfotografie]

If the focus ring was at the other end of the push/pull barrel so it didn't get turned accidentally, and if the IS was worth anything, it would be a far more pleasant lens to use.

Have you used the 70-300L? The design places the focus ring next to the body, the zoom ring further out. That's reversed from other L lenses, and means your hand (well, mine at any rate) reflexively grabs the focus ring when intending to zoom. A real PITA, and if the new 100-400 has a similar design, it would be unfortunate.

+1 The focus ring should be further out. This is really useful for MF (AF override) adjustments such as when shooting through foliage for instance.

 

[JPAZ]

I used and liked my 100-400 but it frustrated me. Maybe I don't have one of the "good" copies but there have been many times when the image is fabulous. But, there seem to be many more times when the image is not that good. My frustration peaked during my trip to Denali last year. I just could not get the IQ I was searching for and now would like to repeat that trip someday since I got the 300ii. Here's one of the "better" images I got using the 100-400 at 400 with the 1.4x. In fairness, these critters were way far away but I think I can do better.

So, do I go for the 100-400ii or not? We will see how it fares if and when it arrives and at what price.

 

[IslanderMV]

For those that want a 200-500 or xxx-600 or whatever instead, what if the bodies have f/8 AF points and you can use a 1.4x TC with the new 100-400? The Tamron really needs to be stopped down to f/8 at the 600mm end anyway, so this lens would be about the same as that one, just in a smaller size with more flexibility.

100-400/4.5-5.6
140-560/6.3-8

That sounds like a good deal to me.

At twice the price ?

Yes, if it's better optically, has better IS, has better handling, has better AF, and is smaller and lighter.

If I count correctly, that is six ifs.
I do hope it is released and is a big step up optically. For my uses, when my 100-400mm dies I will probably go with the big Tammy. I can use the extra reach, I often need to just identify distant birds.

I don't make much money from avian photography. So I guess investing 2x in a lens with only a small IQ improvement would be an example of the law of diminishing returns.

One other point I would make in Canons favor is that my 100-400 has been through hell and back and yet still works great. Hopefully the same would be true for the new iteration. We will not know about the durability of the Tammy in the field for a while.

 

[TheJock]

This announcement is so timley for me, as per my signature I’m looking at the 100-400L as my next purchase, I think I have a buyer for my 150-500 Sigma and I will be watching the prices over the next 2/3 months, looks like I’ll be fully kitted out by Christmas with 10-20mm & 24-105L & 100-400L of range…..now bring on that Dubai 24 Hour race in january!!!!!