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

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/canon-ef-100-400-f4-5-5-6l-is-ii-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/canon-ef-100-400-f4-5-5-6l-is-ii-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We’ve had more mentions of the telephoto lens to be announced with the EOS 7D Mark II on September 5, 2014. We’re told it is indeed the replacement to the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. This is something we’ve heard a lot about over the years, but it has to come true some day, right? (memories of the 24-70 f/2.8 replacement)</p>
<p><strong>EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Specs</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Rotating zoom ring</li>
<li>New IS system</li>
<li>Lighter weight than predecessor</li>
<li>82mm filter thread</li>
<li>New coating</li>
<li>$2399 USD</li>
</ul>
<p>This comes from what appears to be a new source, we should know more soon.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Dylan777]

Hope IQ will be super- good. 100-400 zoom range is nice to have.

 

[Loswr]

Rotating zoom ring

Bummer.

 

[fragilesi]

Rotating zoom ring

Bummer.

You'd prefer one that wouldn't rotate?

 

[Canon1]

Rotating zoom ring

Bummer.

You'd prefer one that wouldn't rotate?

Despite the controversy, I rather like my push pull 100-400. Never had a dust problem... I would welcome faster AF. That's the only downside I have experienced with mine. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if the price is $2400.

 

[Sime2414]

Sounds Great! I like the rotating zoom ring! A lightweight walk around ZOO lens!

 

[candyman]

A 82mm filter compared to the 70-300L 67mm filter.... ???

 

[Northstar]

if AF is quick and it's reasonably sharp through the whole focal range, then i'd pay $2200 in a heartbeat...

 

[brad-man]

Rotating zoom ring

Bummer.

You'd prefer one that wouldn't rotate?

Despite the controversy, I rather like my push pull 100-400. Never had a dust problem... I would welcome faster AF. That's the only downside I have experienced with mine. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if the price is $2400.

I'm pretty happy with the AF speed and sharpness of mine, though there's always room for improvement. As it's not a particularly fast lens, I will enjoy the updated IS. I have no problem with the push/pull design, so the jury is out on whether a rotational zoom will be better or worse.

 

[Plainsman]

Rotating zoom ring

Bummer.

You'd prefer one that wouldn't rotate?

Despite the controversy, I rather like my push pull 100-400. Never had a dust problem... I would welcome faster AF. That's the only downside I have experienced with mine. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if the price is $2400.

I agree - push pull is a very robust design and it is a retrograde step to give us a telephoto like the 70-300L although admittedly that is a good lens optically but is not as tough as the current 100-400 where the front optical assembly slides along a rigid tube.

 

[Northstar]

Canon could sell a million of these if they don't hold back and just give us sports/wildlife people a great lens at a decent price.

1998 -2014, after 16 years you would think that this newer version would be much improved on what was already a decent lens.

 

[sagittariansrock]

<li>$2399 USD</li>

That sounds promising. I'd have expected north of $ 3K.

 

[Lee Jay]

I too don't mind the push-pull, but the handling of the 100-400L is actually pretty horrible. The lock ring is right where I want to put my grip, and if you have it loose so you can zoom, it rotates the AF barrel leading to OOF shots. I really hate that. My 70-200 with 2x is way more user friendly.

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. Well, that and an optical improvement wide open when the IS elements are shifted substantially off center.

I'm guessing the larger front element is about far superior IS causing larger angular shifts and needing a little extra wide at the wide end to accommodate that.

 

[9VIII]

Canon could sell a million of these if they don't hold back and just give us sports/wildlife people a great lens at a decent price.

1998 -2014, after 16 years you would think that this newer version would be much improved on what was already a decent lens.

I have to wonder if they're trying to protect the Big Whites. The 400f5.6 prime has arguably superior IQ to some of the old big whites, and upgrading something like that might look a little unbalanced.
Maybe they wanted to wait until they had all the version II supertelephoto lenses out before releasing a budget option that performs on a similar level.

 

[AlanF]

Rotating zoom ring

Bummer.

You'd prefer one that wouldn't rotate?

Despite the controversy, I rather like my push pull 100-400. Never had a dust problem... I would welcome faster AF. That's the only downside I have experienced with mine. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if the price is $2400.

I agree - push pull is a very robust design and it is a retrograde step to give us a telephoto like the 70-300L although admittedly that is a good lens optically but is not as tough as the current 100-400 where the front optical assembly slides along a rigid tube.

I'm with you guys. The small size of a push-pull makes a great compact unit. It will have to outperform the Tamron 150-600. If it does, I'll buy.

 

[wsmith96]

I hope there is some truth to this rumor. I've had a long telezoom on my list for a while.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[josephandrews222]

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.

I own the older Tamron super zoom (200-500mm). Its focus ring is placed where it is next to the camera's body...and I kind of like it that way! When used on a monopod or tripod, it seems a lot better that way...but certainly different from my Canon lenses.

 

[Click]

It will have to outperform the Tamron 150-600. If it does, I'll buy.

+1

 

[Lee Jay]

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.

I haven't, but since that lens is very short (physically), it's probably not as bad as it would be on a longer lens. I agree that on a 100-400, such a design decision would likely be pretty nasty.