Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]

[bdunbar79]

still though, it would be nice to see a replacement.

Not push/pull? I could go for that feature.

 

[wickidwombat]

they will need to keep cost to a decent clip uner $2000 if it goes over 2k then it's going to be competing with the sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS which looks like a real winner

 

[drjlo]

The 1.2 TC doesn't add much, and the 2X has other issues as mentioned (there is no free lunch).

I used to think Canon 2x TC III was overpriced, but I just got one, and this thing is a beauty. It's even more impressive stopped down a bit On my 70-200 f/2.8 II, at 400 mm. Looking at the recent Canon telephoto prices, the 2x TC III is looking more like a bargain..

http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/2011/01/the-new-canon-teleconverters-image-quality-comparison/

 

[rpt]

This had nothing to do with AF, it had to do with IS being pretty darned worthless on this lens, at least compared to more modern lenses.

Hmmm... Again not my experience. My daughter who is 5'3 hand shot the moon a couple of times on my 300D at 400mm and 1/60th. And the shots were sharp. Sorry you are not happy with yours.

I got about 50% at 1/60th and 300mm. I get 90+% at 1/30th and 300mm on my 70-200 (with TCs).

That is a great rate. I have not shot any at 1/30th. May be I should try that. I am sure the IS II is better though. When I bought it, I did not have the option to get a 70-200 + 2x TC.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd be very suprised and pleased if a new one was as low as $2500. A higher price would get me wondering if it was worth it, since mine is already very good.
Some of the things I like about the existing one are the length when zoomed to 100mm, and the high magnification / close focus that lets you use it for small birds and objects that are relatively close. Its heavy, but managable. More weight would not be welcome.
If we see a rear focus design as in the 70-300mm L, it would not accept a TC, and the old one does and works with my 1D MK IV, which is another plus.

 

[candyman]

I might replace my 70-300 L if the 100-400 comes with the new IS, weathersealed, not push-pull, not heavier than 1,5kg, with aperture 4-5.6 and will not cost more than 1500 euro. I do like the extra reach and the flexibility of zoom. I think I can carry 1,5 kg on field trips that last a whole day.
But I believe I will not get this lens for a maximum 1500 euro because of the previous Canon pricing of products in 2012

 

[aldvan]

The 100-400 is, in a way, my standard lens, always on a 1Ds MkIII. It is something very different from what a 200-400 could be. Backed up by a 16-35 on a 5D MkII, it covers the 99% of situations, with great results in terms of IQ and image composition. I used my 24-105 may be three times in two years. Obviously is quite heavy, but going around with the above kit let me free of a backpack and I'm always ready to shoot.
Push-pull is ok for me, IS is not stellar, but good enough since 100-400 natural environment is usually well enlightened. Weather sealing should be welcome, but with very little attention you can survive without it. Last month I went for an hiking in a very rainy day. I found water right behind the 1Ds eyepiece cup, but keeping the resting lens inside my water proof jacket, was enough to protect the lens.
The only issue, for the kind of use I make of it, is weight. A 1D type body+ the present 100-400 is the maximum weight that I can afford at my neck for six-seven hours. By the way, I think that something can be done for that, also in case of improving optical quality by more glass. My 100 macro L plastic body is more solid than a metallic one and very light. I don't think that modern materials can't stand the heavier glass assembly of a tele zoom. A modern high quality plastic big white could be very fancy...

 

[Gcon]

I bet most CR forum members are more used to pulling on 100mm than twisting.

 

[drummstikk]

Why not make it a 200-400 f4/5.6L? I doubt most of its users will use it below 200mm. It's seen as an alternative to the 400/5.6L as it's reportedly(1) sharper at 400mm versus the prime lens.

Give that man a "Hell yes!"

I once did an EXIF data analysis of my use of this lens and found that less than 10% of the images I shot with it were NOT shot between about 250 and 400mm. When you zoom this one out all the way, you have a lens that is close to 4 times the size of a 100mm 2.0, much heavier, and over two stops slower. Feels kind of dumb. Sure you have the same thing at the 70mm end of the 70-200 zoom, but that's a much more "workhorse" zoom range than 100-400.

It's a good lens to rent when the zoom range is right for the job, but I'd never own one. Far superior optics on the 400mm 5.6 more than make up for the lack of IS, in my view.

 

[twdi]

This lens comes to late for me. Next august I'll go to Britisch columbia and I need something longer then my 24-105. I think I'll go for the 300F4IS on my 5DmkII because I also have a 1.4TCii.

I don't have large hands and the push pull doesn't seems nice for me although the range is. But I expect I would use it 99% at 400 so why not the prime

 

[Loswr]

But I expect I would use it 99% at 400 so why not the prime

Have you shot with one enough to know if your expectation is valid? It's likely close, at least. For me, about 15% of shos with the lens are at 150mm and shorter. So, why don't I have the prime? IS and physical length. At 400mm on APS-C (I almost always use my 100-400 with my 7D, since if you're focal length-limited, APS-C is a better choice), you need approximately 1/640 s for a decent handheld keeper rate. Over 50% of my shots with the lens are slower than 1/640 s (mostly 1/250-1/500 s), so I'm getting a lot of benefit from the IS. Also, the 100-400mm gets you to 400mm with a lens that's nearly 3" shorter (when retracted) than the 400mm f/5.6L prime - that means the zoom fits in my Lowepro Toploader 75 AW whereas the 400/5.6 prime would not, similarly for many other bags.

 

[noncho]

But I expect I would use it 99% at 400 so why not the prime

Have you shot with one enough to know if your expectation is valid? It's likely close, at least. For me, about 15% of shos with the lens are at 150mm and shorter. So, why don't I have the prime? IS and physical length. At 400mm on APS-C (I almost always use my 100-400 with my 7D, since if you're focal length-limited, APS-C is a better choice), you need approximately 1/640 s for a decent handheld keeper rate. Over 50% of my shots with the lens are slower than 1/640 s (mostly 1/250-1/500 s), so I'm getting a lot of benefit from the IS. Also, the 100-400mm gets you to 400mm with a lens that's nearly 3" shorter (when retracted) than the 400mm f/5.6L prime - that means the zoom fits in my Lowepro Toploader 75 AW whereas the 400/5.6 prime would not, similarly for many other bags.

Right on target, same things for me here - zoom is more usable and shorter wich is important too. And 100-400L is not so expensive second hand now, I'll problably go for it for Christmas(if I have the money).

 

[Marsu42]

I have the 70-300L + Kenko 1.4x TC (one of the only ones that will fit). I've done a couple of tests and didn't see much point to the TC. Slows down af, and you can crop @300mm and get something that looked as good as if it were shot with the tc. At least in my experience.

My experience is that using the tc is better than cropping, but the af is way less precise with single-point, working ok with multi-point but forget about motion tracking.

That said, not everyone wants to drag the 70-200 2.8 around due to the weight. If I were hiking around for a few hours, I'd much rather have the 70-300L or 100-400L.

+1 ... that's why I got the 70-300L, too. But since I don't think the "walk-around" 70-300L will be discontinued, the new "real tele" 100-400L will have to have some distinctions - meaning very good iq even at 400mmm, and this is very likely to result in a lot of more weight & size plus a much higher price. It will fill the gap toward the even heavier and crazy-priced 200-400L.

 

[FunPhotons]

The 100-400 is, in a way, my standard lens, always on a 1Ds MkIII. It is something very different from what a 200-400 could be. Backed up by a 16-35 on a 5D MkII, it covers the 99% of situations

Interesting, since most photogs consider 24-70 the most used range.

Anyhow a buddy got the 70-300 and I've spent time with it. Nice lens, light and L. I haven't gotten one because it seems kind of pointless with the 70-200/2.8 in my bag. How often do you want reach beyond 200mm? Either sports or wildlife. How much does an extra 100mm give you in that case (for $$$)? Not much ...

The 100-400 will round out my collection, I'll have the 8-16 zoom fisheye, 16-35 II, 24-105, 70-200/2.8 II and 100-400 II. If the latter plays well with TCs then even better. If canon comes out with a EF mount mirror less crop then I'll really be set.

 

[Lee Jay]

I have had nothing but good experiences with this lens. In the day before IS people didnt complain. If you are relying on technology like IS too much you need to go back to how you shoot and improve.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

I was shooting indoors from a long distance with an 18MP 1.6-crop camera. I could shoot at ISO 12,800 and 1/500th or I could shoot at ISO 800 1/60th. No tripods are allowed in the building. Do you think you can hand-hold a 400mm lens on an 18MP 1.6-crop camera and reliably get pixel-sharp results at 1/60th? Or do you think the IQ at ISO 12,800 is a better way to go than the IQ at ISO 800?

 

[tron]

I have had nothing but good experiences with this lens. In the day before IS people didnt complain. If you are relying on technology like IS too much you need to go back to how you shoot and improve.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

I was shooting indoors from a long distance with an 18MP 1.6-crop camera. I could shoot at ISO 12,800 and 1/500th or I could shoot at ISO 800 1/60th. No tripods are allowed in the building. Do you think you can hand-hold a 400mm lens on an 18MP 1.6-crop camera and reliably get pixel-sharp results at 1/60th? Or do you think the IQ at ISO 12,800 is a better way to go than the IQ at ISO 800?

You said nothing of the type of subject (static, moving).

"indoors from a long distance " You mean sports? In that case IS is not very helpful. For a static subject you could make use of existing IS. 2 stops IS not 0 stops.

If you can shoot a static object ISO 12800 1/500 , you could try ISO 3200 1/125

Granted 4 stops is even better (and mostly useful in telephotos) but the 100-400 has a 2 stops IS already!

 

[Lee Jay]

I have had nothing but good experiences with this lens. In the day before IS people didnt complain. If you are relying on technology like IS too much you need to go back to how you shoot and improve.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

I was shooting indoors from a long distance with an 18MP 1.6-crop camera. I could shoot at ISO 12,800 and 1/500th or I could shoot at ISO 800 1/60th. No tripods are allowed in the building. Do you think you can hand-hold a 400mm lens on an 18MP 1.6-crop camera and reliably get pixel-sharp results at 1/60th? Or do you think the IQ at ISO 12,800 is a better way to go than the IQ at ISO 800?

You said nothing of the type of subject (static, moving).

Museum - static.

"indoors from a long distance " You mean sports? In that case IS is not very helpful. For a static subject you could make use of existing IS. 2 stops IS not 0 stops.

In practice, I barely get 1 to 1.5 stops out of the 100-400L. It's better than nothing, but barely. I can easily get 3-4 stops out of my 70-200, and have managed as much as 7 stops on occasion.

If you can shoot a static object ISO 12800 1/500 , you could try ISO 3200 1/125

I'd rather use my 70-200 and get ISO 800 and 1/30th in the same environment.

 

[Stone]

While I see the usefulness of this lens and the merit in giving it an update, I doubt I'd be a potential customer. Assuming the FF 5DIII I'm about to purchase, I'd still be using my 70-200 & 1.4 TC for everything up to 280mm going between f2.8 and a still relatively large f4 aperture. I would only end up using this lens from 280-400 and I'm sure it's already at f5.6 by then, if I'm shooting birds and other wildlife, I think the cheaper 400 5.6 would be a more suitable and affordable option. This lens doesn't seem like much of a value for my needs if the price is over $2K.

On the other hand, something like a 300-500 f4-f5.6 is something I would save my pennies for. It would of course be ridiculously expensive, but I think it would be a far more useful range. Especially for birding and safari type scenarios where more reach is always better. As of right now, I'm still saving my pennies for the 400 2.8 II which was crafted by god himself. ;D

 

[tron]

I'd rather use my 70-200 and get ISO 800 and 1/30th in the same environment.

+1 on the use of 70-200. Which one?

I have both (f/4 IS and f/2.8 IS II) but I have the feeling that the f/4 version has a SUPER IS.

The 2.8 is larger, heavier and more difficult to hold (speeking for myself, other people think it's easier to keep steady a heavy lens).

 

[Lee Jay]

I'd rather use my 70-200 and get ISO 800 and 1/30th in the same environment.

+1 on the use of 70-200. Which one?

I have both (f/4 IS and f/2.8 IS II) but I have the feeling that the f/4 version has a SUPER IS.

The 2.8 is larger, heavier and more difficult to hold (speeking for myself, other people think it's easier to keep steady a heavy lens).

My old 70-200/2.8L IS or my new 70-200/2.8L IS II. The new one probably is a stop better in the IS department but the old one was already 2 or more stops better than the 100-400L.