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

[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.

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.

i'm hoping they realize that the bottom line is that some people, whether it be pro or rich amateur, are going to go for the very best and spend their money for the "high end stuff" no matter what...even if it's only fractionally better than a new and improved 100-400. (and/or they'll pay for the f4 or 2.8) this is what I'm hoping for here....a awesome lens for a few grand, not $10,000

 

[sagittariansrock]

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.

I doubt it. As far as I understand, one who buys a 400/2.8, needs it at f/2.8. Having an equally (or even better- though I strongly doubt that) performing lens at f/5.6 wouldn't work for them- or else they wouldn't shell out those $$$s.
Also, I heard that the v1 great whites are as good as the V2, except for TC usage with the Mk IIIs.

 

[Etienne]

I wish it would be 200-500, and lighter

 

[docsmith]

It's weird. I've wanted this lens badly for years but this, if true, is coming at a time when things have changed to the point I may not get it. The 70-200 II with 2x tc has replaced my currant 100-400L in my travel kit. That leaves local birding, and I have to wonder if the Tamron 150-600 may be better suited. To my needs plus I am saving up for a big white. We'll see. I've wanted this lens for so long I'll definitely look at it. But it is no longer a no brainer.

Oh, and I like the push-pull.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The lens needs to have a close mfd for small birds, and be short enough to carry easily in a bag. Lighter would be fine as well.


I'd likely hold off on ordering one until the price drop though, I find mine to be a lens that does not get a huge amount of use, and its pretty good for the price.

 

[that1guyy]

Interested to see how the AF and image quality stacks up against the Tamron 150-600mm.

 

[TexPhoto]

Canon should make it push pull and rotate to zoom. And lighter, and cheaper, and stronger, and more macho looking, and maybe scented to smell like roses on a summer morning right after the rain.

Oh and if it takes good pictures, sure that be cool too I guess.

 

[greger]

All Canon has to do is make this new 100-400 take sharper pics with improved coatings, better IS, faster focussing and zoom. They will sell a ton of these as the old 100-400 sells well as is. My 100-400 suits me just fine and is on my 7D when I leave the house and I know BIF pics are on the menu. ;D

 

[Krob78]

Additionally, I think it would be great if the new 100-400L played nice with the 2x III and the 1.4x III Teleconverters... :

I wouldn't be in a hurry to make the jump though. I'm a fan of the push pull, especially as birds come flying toward me, it works well and wasn't hard to get used too.

Also, my copy is super sharp, I use it more than my 70-200 f2.8L II, ever since getting it back from Canon. They put a whole new IS system in it, recalibrated it and it's been amazing ever since. Now the 70-200 II spends more time in the bag! I'd be worried I wouldn't get that same result from the new one. But who knows, I'm always a sucker for new glass! :

 

[MTCWBY]

I like mine but already warned my wife that I'll be replacing it with this one unless it's horribly expensive. It pretty much lives on my camera for kids sports. I don't mind the push-pull either. The only problem if it isn't will be adjusting back to shooting the rotating zoom for action.

 

[Maximilian]

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)

So finally the myth of the pink unicorn seems to come true... almost beyond belief

EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Specs

Rotating zoom ring

Okay. I liked the compact size of the old one. If that stays similar, I have no preference between push-pull vs. rotating.

New IS system

As expected.

Lighter weight than predecessor
82mm filter thread

If this together is true, then this means less metal and more engineered plastic.
If built quality is comparable to the 100L IS Macro or the 24-70L II this would be okay.
82 mm filter would be a little bit annoying but if it helps for better optical quality, so be it.

New coating
$2399 USD

This MSRP would be quite surprising... positively.

So if this one will come together with much better AF and a noticeable better optical quality in a housing that is equal to the old one, I would start saving up money and wait for some good discounts in 2015... *sigh*
GAS is so wonderfully awful

 

[Sabaki]

Non extending barrel, shorter MFD, ring focus and for the very least, as sharp as my 400 f/5.6, I'll grab a copy!

 

[lycan]

I wish it would be 200-500, and lighter

x2

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

 

[pj1974]

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.

I own a number of Canon L lenses - which started out with the Canon 28-135mm 'back in the day' which has the focus ring close to the body, and the zoom ring further away. (I've since sold the Canon 28-135mm)

Currently the 15-85mm and 70-300mm L are among my 2 favourite lenses (mainly used on my 7D) - and I actually prefer the configuration of focus ring close to body and zoom ring further away. The Canon 70-300mm L won for me over a number of other options (a few years ago) - because of it's IQ and size/weight. I did consider the 100-400mm... but that extra 100mm of zoom wasn't 'worth it' for me (I understand it might be for others).

I have used the 100-400mm a number of times, i.e. using friend's lenses, borrowing, etc. I became more accustomed to the 'push pull' after some time than I thought I would, but still generally by 'instinct' prefer a zoom ring, and a zoom ring nearer the end of my lenses. Having said that, I know it would be a different story if I had only got used to lenses with the zoom closer to the body (eg if I had owned the Canon 24-105mm L instead of the Canon 28-135mm). But hey, the Canon 24-105mm L wasn't around at the time I got into photography!

I have owned 3 x Sigma UWA lenses (and initially found it mildly inconvenient on each that 1) the zoom rotates the other way AND 2) the focus is at the end and zoom ring is nearer the body. Thankfully I pretty much have a 'mental switch' in my mind now, so when I put my Sigma 8-16mm on my camera, I somewhat reflectively know it's on and my hand/mind know what to do (eg in the dark).

Horses for courses... but most importantly, enjoy your gear and take great photos. I trust that Canon will have done their research (& design) well; and if they do come out with a 100-400mm L II (or similar) that they will come out with an awesome lens. However I doubt I'll be buying one... as the 70-300mm L meets my needs very well.

Best wishes all...

Paul

 

[Busted Knuckles]

I suspect the IQ would take a jump. I have the Tamron 150-600 and up to 400 it is really a vice nice image and it does get noticeably above 400 compared to under 400, but not unusably soft, just not shave your 3 day stubble sharp.

It would be tough to explain, gaining a bit of speed, losing 200mm, and spending $1,400 more. So the IQ would have to just stellar.

Compact is not a word that will ever be used for the T-150-600, packed up for travel its not bad, zoomed out to 600 and bazooka comes to mind.

 

[mb66energy]

Might be a nice replacement for my 70-200 4.0 and the 5.6 400 and should make a nice walk-around lens. (100mm equiv is a standard focal length for me Good contrast and strong flare resistance are very welcome. And add a built in lens hood (like 5.6 400 has) ... but that is just dreaming ...

Hopefully it is a 2 ring zoom which extends during zooming to keep it small for transportation at the 100mm setting. Usually I like fixed length lenses but in that focal length region it would be a 350mm thing and not fit into the bags I own.

Just dreaming about a 24-105 Mk II with great quality so you could live with
10-22 ... 24-105 ... 100-400 (+2x TC) and two 7D mk II for ultimate flexibility. Add a macro lens and everything is fine!

 

[Loswr]

I own a number of Canon L lenses - which started out with the Canon 28-135mm 'back in the day' which has the focus ring close to the body, and the zoom ring further away. (I've since sold the Canon 28-135mm)

Currently the 15-85mm and 70-300mm L are among my 2 favourite lenses (mainly used on my 7D) - and I actually prefer the configuration of focus ring close to body and zoom ring further away.

Many of the consumer lenses (the 28-135 isn't an L lens, as you know) have that configuration. In most of those cases, the focus ring is relatively small, whereas L lenses have broader focus rings.

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.

For the 70-300L, I got the Tripod Ring C – that allows me to support the rig from underneath and places my fingers at the zoom ring.

 

[candyman]

.............For the 70-300L, I got the Tripod Ring C – that allows me to support the rig from underneath and places my fingers at the zoom ring.

+1 - got it as well.
It is just very practical

 

[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

 

[Loswr]

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...