Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS in 2012 [CR2]

[docsmith]

I am sure there will be plenty of used copies of the current 100-400 L for those that don't want to pay the $3k. Like mine ;D. If the initital price is $3k, I would expect it to drop a few hundred after a few months. Say $2,500-$2,600.

If this lens has 4 stop IS, complete weather sealing, better IQ and faster AF....yes, I will find the money.

 

[samkatz]

over 10-12 years, you're right... $3000.00 is not a huge investment if this is your passion and or work....I am personally slowing down my updating of bodies. Have been buying one every 2 years. Canon would have to come out with some entirely new concept for the SLR for me to upgrade for a while.

 

[Haydn1971]

I am sure there will be plenty of used copies of the current 100-400 L for those that don't want to pay the $3k

There has been 3 used 100-400mm lenses at my local specialist photography dealer in the last few months, which either indicates times are hard and people are ditching their least used lenses or a lot of people are expecting something soon and want to get the maximum return on a old lens.

 

[Marsu42]

I agree, 80-100% price increases for the most popular lens updates is getting a little tired.

I just posted a seperate question about what existing tele lens to buy or to wait for the upcoming new 100-400. After writing, I realized the question would be better placed in this thread - but instead of repeating myself, I'd ask anyone who knows something about these L lenses to give me some advice if possible here:

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3359.0.html ... manually copy/paste the link or look in the lenses sub-forum - thanks.

 

[Astro]

over 10-12 years, you're right... $3000.00 is not a huge investment if this is your passion and or work....

problem is you have to have the 3000$ first.

in the current economy amateurs will think twice to buy a 3000$ lens.
1300 euro for the "old model" looks like a bargain.

with such high prices for telephoto lenses the µ43 system look more and more attractive to people who would have prefered a DSLR in the past. at least that´s my impression from discussions i had.

 

[tron]

I bought it 2 months ago but no regrets! It is a nice lens, maybe a little impractical but quite value for money.
Yes I would like a 4-stop stabilizer, faster autofocus, even better quality but still I am satisfied.
If the new version were to cost double the price I would still choose the old one (and use the rest money to get another lens...)

P.S I call it the "Duck Lens" because I use it to shoot ducks in a park close to my home

 

[KeithR]

[quote author=Haydn1971] which either indicates times are hard and people are ditching their least used lenses or a lot of people are expecting something soon and want to get the maximum return on a old lens.[/quote]
Or - like me - they've upgraded to a new lens (in my case a new Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS) and no longer need the 100-400mm...

 

[wickidwombat]

[quote author=Haydn1971] which either indicates times are hard and people are ditching their least used lenses or a lot of people are expecting something soon and want to get the maximum return on a old lens.

Or - like me - they've upgraded to a new lens (in my case a new Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS) and no longer need the 100-400mm...
[/quote]
going a little OT here but what are your thoughts on the siggy? quality how do you think it compares to say the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II

 

[KeithR]

I'm not familiar with that Canon lens, WW, but I'm very impressed with the Sigma.

I have a really, really good 100-400mm, and the Sigma outdoes it in every metric: the images are sharper, the AF is quicker, the stabilisation is brilliant, and - a surprise I'm really pleased about - the colour and contrast from the Sigma really are obviously better than the 100-400mm - that was the very first thing I noticed about the files.

It's damn' good with a TC too. This is 420mm with a Canon 1.4x (and a heavy crop) and it's good and sharp with two stacked 1.4s as well.

These are both "wide open". A key reason for me buying it was the additional DoF flexibility provided by f/2.8 if I want it, and it is definitely very usable wide open. It gets silly-sharp by f/5 (assuming - as will usually be the case - that I'm starting at f/4 because of a TC).

I only ever shoot handheld, incidentally: it's a heavy lens, but I'm already used to it.

I'd always said that regardless of what I upgraded to, I'd never part with my 100-400mm: now, I'm really not so sure about that.

I recently read a comprehensive review of the new Canon 300mm f/2.8, and - based on the sample images - the Sigma is barely a hair behind in sharpness terms.

 

[neuroanatomist]

There has been 3 used 100-400mm lenses at my local specialist photography dealer in the last few months, which either indicates times are hard and people are ditching their least used lenses or a lot of people are expecting something soon and want to get the maximum return on a old lens.

The 100-400mm is a very popular lens (for good reasons) - the fact that so many are sold new means a lot are sold used. They are commonly and easily available on the used market - there are three up on my local Craigslist right now, in the $1200 range, and I've seen them under $1100 lately.

By comparison, I only rarely see a 300mm f/4L IS or 400mm f/5.6L up for sale, perhaps only 1-2 of each per year.