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

[mrsfotografie]

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.

Are you sure that the lens is to blame? Maybe the light was bleak, and contrast may have been reduced by too much humidity (or dense clouds of moquito's! ) in the air. Shooting long range is very susceptible to atmospheric conditions.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

We all know why the new lens will have a rotating zoom ring / extending barrel (aka 70-300L) instead of the current push pull: Video....
You can't fit a pull focus unit on a 15mm rail system where a lens can extend so much with the focus ring on the extending barrel. Where as, you can with the other design style.
There's another advantage too, the curent design pushes the centre of balance way forwards and the tripod collar is right at the back of this lens towards the rear mount. Hopefully the newer design will address this.

 

[mrsfotografie]

There's another advantage too, the curent design pushes the centre of balance way forwards and the tripod collar is right at the back of this lens towards the rear mount. Hopefully the newer design will address this.

This is what makes the current design such a great motorsports lens IMHO. I agree it's not great for tripod use, but the lens is fantastic to handhold and track objects. The lengthening effect helps to stabilize.

 

[AvTvM]

I do not like push-pull zooms. Just a remnant from the old analogue days. Never bought the current 100-400, but held off and will hold off, until Canon comes up with a completely new version of this lens. Newly calculated optics, current-day IS (4 stops, 3 modes) and visibly improved IQ - especially @400mm (as good as current 400/5.6) plus better bokeh (much improved background blur).
Would not mind use of plastics instead of metal, as long as it's really hi-grade (e.g. 100 L Macro).

But now, with the 70-300L and the Tamron 150-600 out, I would really prefer a 100-500mm or 200-500mm/4.0 - 5.6. Should be quite easy to reach with a 82mm filter thread!

So I am not sure, whether I am willing to pay USD/ € 2400 for a 100-400 II ... unless it has really ***stellar*** IQ @ 400mm.

 

[JonAustin]

All the specs reported in this rumor are good news to me, and I will likely buy one within 6 months of release, presuming all the specs are accurate and the reviews are good, as well. (Think repeat of the new 16-35/4IS.)

Since I own a 70-200 II, I had thought I would prefer a 200-400/4(.5)-5.6, in order to avoid paying for unnecessary FL overlap. But lately I'm of the mindset that this plus the 24-105 would make a great two-lens hiking kit.

 

[NancyP]

I am sticking with my non-stabilized 400mm f/5.6L until I can afford an f/4 supertelephoto.. I would not advise beginning birders to start with a non-stablized lens. unless they have lots of patience.

 

[Don Haines]

I am sticking with my non-stabilized 400mm f/5.6L until I can afford an f/4 supertelephoto.. I would not advise beginning birders to start with a non-stablized lens. unless they have lots of patience.

I keep hoping to see an updated version of that lens..

 

[mrsfotografie]

I am sticking with my non-stabilized 400mm f/5.6L until I can afford an f/4 supertelephoto.. I would not advise beginning birders to start with a non-stablized lens. unless they have lots of patience.

I keep hoping to see an updated version of that lens..

Yes, IS would make all the difference.

 

[noncho]

I have Sigma 100-300 F4 which is good with 1.4 extender, for new 100-400 it depends on:
IQ, Price, Weight.

 

[Don Haines]

I am sticking with my non-stabilized 400mm f/5.6L until I can afford an f/4 supertelephoto.. I would not advise beginning birders to start with a non-stablized lens. unless they have lots of patience.

I keep hoping to see an updated version of that lens..

Yes, IS would make all the difference.

not only that, but the improvements in IQ from the series 1 to series 2 big whites are truly astounding. As someone who has been into photography for more than 40 years, I find the quality of the recent lenses astounding. A lot of people fixate on sensors, but the glass is whats makes it all possible.....

 

[mrsfotografie]

I am sticking with my non-stabilized 400mm f/5.6L until I can afford an f/4 supertelephoto.. I would not advise beginning birders to start with a non-stablized lens. unless they have lots of patience.

I keep hoping to see an updated version of that lens..

Yes, IS would make all the difference.

not only that, but the improvements in IQ from the series 1 to series 2 big whites are truly astounding. As someone who has been into photography for more than 40 years, I find the quality of the recent lenses astounding. A lot of people fixate on sensors, but the glass is whats makes it all possible.....

To be honest I was checking out prices for the 400 f/5.6 yesterday because I find that now that I shoot full frame only, my 100-400 is fixed at 400mm almost all of the time - so I might as well use a prime. Still the lack of IS is THE show-stopper as war as the 400mm f/5.6 is concerned.

 

[Omar H]

I'd wait until this becomes at least CR2. We've all seen this so many times...

 

[KitsVancouver]

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.

Just out of curiousity, how do would you define, "on a similar level"?

 

[wickidwombat]

wow that price is amazing if its true cant wait to see how it tests out and how it takes a 1.4 TC
it will have panning mode IS and be smaller than the tamron

while i do like the tamron the lack of panning mode IS is an annoyance and at $2400 if it works well with the 1.4 TC
I'd upgrade in a heartbeat

 

[Don Haines]

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.

Just out of curiousity, how do would you define, "on a similar level"?

There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.

For example, the 24-70 F4 and the F2.8 are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop.....
The 70-200 F4IS and F2.8IS are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop....

by that logic, I would expect a 400F5.6 similar in IQ to the 2.8.... but around 1/4 the price. Realistically though, expect 1/3 the price...

 

[JonAustin]

There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.

For example, the 24-70 F4 and the F2.8 are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop.....
The 70-200 F4IS and F2.8IS are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop....

Not to sound too pedantic, but the difference between f/5.6 and f/2.8 is two stops, not one. (Which only further reinforces your point.)

 

[privatebydesign]

There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.

For example, the 24-70 F4 and the F2.8 are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop.....
The 70-200 F4IS and F2.8IS are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop....

Not to sound too pedantic, but the difference between f/5.6 and f/2.8 is two stops, not one. (Which only further reinforces your point.)

There is a full stop between f4 and f2.8 too.

 

[Etienne]

There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.

For example, the 24-70 F4 and the F2.8 are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop.....
The 70-200 F4IS and F2.8IS are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop....

Not to sound too pedantic, but the difference between f/5.6 and f/2.8 is two stops, not one. (Which only further reinforces your point.)

That's not pedantic. It needed to be said, or the author might have continued to make this mistake.

 

[Lee Jay]

There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.

For example, the 24-70 F4 and the F2.8 are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop.....
The 70-200 F4IS and F2.8IS are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop....

Not to sound too pedantic, but the difference between f/5.6 and f/2.8 is two stops, not one. (Which only further reinforces your point.)

That's not pedantic. It needed to be said, or the author might have continued to make this mistake.

There's also a reason an f/5.6 lens can't be as sharp as a really good f/2.8 lens - diffraction.

 

[AvTvM]

There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.

For example, the 24-70 F4 and the F2.8 are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop.....
The 70-200 F4IS and F2.8IS are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop....

by that logic, I would expect a 400F5.6 similar in IQ to the 2.8.... but around 1/4 the price. Realistically though, expect 1/3 the price...

F/2.8 to f/4 is a full stop.

And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-

Its only freaking "marketing differentiation".