Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS "Soonish" [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
Change from push-pull to twist zoom is not unexpected but still a disappointment to me. Latest IS and sealing are no surprise.
Increased weight? That's more interesting because in the other big white updates of recent past, haven't they been reducing weight? What are Canon putting into the lens to need this weight? More elements for further optical correction perhaps? Possibly related to that the filter size update...
Price again isn't too surprising to me. Since when has a significantly updated replacement lens not cost a lot more than the previous model?
The only question for me is do I get it, should it happen? I have the 100-400L already and its two weaknesses I'd like to fix are IS and weather sealing, which is where I got the 70-300L to fill in. It would be nice to get 400 back on the new one, but is the cost of the zoom handling downgrade worth it? Anyway, no point worrying about it until it officially exists and we can buy it.
Increased weight? That's more interesting because in the other big white updates of recent past, haven't they been reducing weight? What are Canon putting into the lens to need this weight? More elements for further optical correction perhaps? Possibly related to that the filter size update...
Price again isn't too surprising to me. Since when has a significantly updated replacement lens not cost a lot more than the previous model?
The only question for me is do I get it, should it happen? I have the 100-400L already and its two weaknesses I'd like to fix are IS and weather sealing, which is where I got the 70-300L to fill in. It would be nice to get 400 back on the new one, but is the cost of the zoom handling downgrade worth it? Anyway, no point worrying about it until it officially exists and we can buy it.
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
I've tried a number of 100-400 IS L's over the years and i've had mixed observations. There are soft copies and there are copies with mis focussing AF. Wide open, i've found it a little soft at the short end but very sharp at the long end. So i used stop down to f5.6 across the whole focal range and then i found that it was excellent and very sharp. It vignetted a bit and the out of focus areas were a little harsh. Very strong contrast and vibrant colours too. I did feel that it was a little shorter than the claimed 400mm, which seemed to get shorter as the focus point got closer (no suprises really....most zooms do this).
A good copy is a delight and amazingly versatile. But with every copy i've tried, I've been rather underwelmed by the AF speed. It's pretty redestrian and I'm pretty sure I could manually focus better than most copies i've tried.
Where can Canon improve this lens? Pretty much in every aspect to some degree. Yes it's handling can be improved, vignetting can be reduced (the reason for the 82mm filter threads I'm guessing), there's always room for a sharpness tweek, AF speed improvement is a must as is AF accuracy. The IS system was a revolution in it's day....but things have really moved on...just play with a 70-200\2.8 L IS II to see that. So a newer and fresher IS system would be fantastic...4 stops...very nice. I hope Canon put the tripod mount in a more sensible place. Racked out to 400mm and the tripod mount is so far from the objective lens, it can't be doing much to reduce camera vibration. The 400mm f5.6 L prime has it's tripod mount nice and central and it really works well there. I'd hope that the focal length really would be 400mm and that it wouldn't reduce significantly as the focus point get closer (the achillies heel of the new 70-300L).
Is it a lens that I'd purchase? Most probably, I'd sell my 400mm f5.6 L in a flash as long as it's results are comparible. Great IQ, fast AF speed, versatility and IS are the key points. Lets hope it ticks all these boxes...then again, Canon aren't going to make any mistakes with such a key lens in their range.
Gareth Cooper
A good copy is a delight and amazingly versatile. But with every copy i've tried, I've been rather underwelmed by the AF speed. It's pretty redestrian and I'm pretty sure I could manually focus better than most copies i've tried.
Where can Canon improve this lens? Pretty much in every aspect to some degree. Yes it's handling can be improved, vignetting can be reduced (the reason for the 82mm filter threads I'm guessing), there's always room for a sharpness tweek, AF speed improvement is a must as is AF accuracy. The IS system was a revolution in it's day....but things have really moved on...just play with a 70-200\2.8 L IS II to see that. So a newer and fresher IS system would be fantastic...4 stops...very nice. I hope Canon put the tripod mount in a more sensible place. Racked out to 400mm and the tripod mount is so far from the objective lens, it can't be doing much to reduce camera vibration. The 400mm f5.6 L prime has it's tripod mount nice and central and it really works well there. I'd hope that the focal length really would be 400mm and that it wouldn't reduce significantly as the focus point get closer (the achillies heel of the new 70-300L).
Is it a lens that I'd purchase? Most probably, I'd sell my 400mm f5.6 L in a flash as long as it's results are comparible. Great IQ, fast AF speed, versatility and IS are the key points. Lets hope it ticks all these boxes...then again, Canon aren't going to make any mistakes with such a key lens in their range.
Gareth Cooper
Upvote
0
You could ask that they don't hamstring the AF with an "upgrade"Heidrun said:briansquibb said:
Agree. 100-400 on a 7 D mk II eventually. That will with a 1,4 converter give me a in reality 224 - 896 mm zoom. Could i ask for more in landscape photos
Upvote
0
R
richy
Guest
LukieLauXD said:
The more you carry it the easier it gets. Handholding mf gear got me used to it (alongside rugby and american football at college) but the 100-400 is a midweight lens. You may be lucky enough to get your hands on a 300 or 400 2.8, they are heavy
Just get plenty of practice and maybe do a bit of training and you'll not notice the weight and will be able to focus totally on the pictures. Re the 100-400 II, I agree with most of the comments, price would require stellar optics, weather sealing, 4 stop is, and even then its close to the siggy in price. As much as I like siggy is canon can come in around 2400 street (after the 9 month ish price drop) I'll have one. There have been so many rumors about this lens though!
The 70-300L is great, but if its going to be 5.6 I want at least 400mm out of it. A 150-450 5.6 would be awesome, maybe even 500 at the long end. That would be worth 3-4k anyday!
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
kirispupis said:
No, it will not, at least with Canon teleconverters. It doesn't matter if it's f/5.6 at the short end, with the variable aperture the firmware will not allow AF.
J. McCabe said:
Better IQ, presumably - less vignetting and increased corner sharpness. The 16-35mm f/2.8L MkI uses 77mm filters, the MkII uses 82mm filters, and even though the larger front element obviously isn't required, the latter has much better IQ.
Upvote
0
The 70-200/2.8 IS mk2 managed to improve performance without increasing front element size. Ditto for 300/2.8 and 400/2.8. I don't see why they'd have to do it with a 100-400. FWIW, comparison with ultrawides isn't valid, optical design is very different. As such there must be another reason for the increased size.
In theory, a 82 mm front element would allow 500 mm at f/6.3.
A 100-500/4-6.3 would be pretty exciting, and worth the high price tag if it performs at the long end.
And yes it would autofocus even at f/6.3
In theory, a 82 mm front element would allow 500 mm at f/6.3.
A 100-500/4-6.3 would be pretty exciting, and worth the high price tag if it performs at the long end.
And yes it would autofocus even at f/6.3
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Makes sense. Plus, looking at the data for the current 100-400mm, it doesn't have more than 1 stop of vignetting at any point, which isn't really an issue that needs correcting.
Personally, I'm fine if it does have an 82mm filter size, since I've got two other lenses which use it, so I've got a CPL and a 10-stop ND in that diameter. But I agree - there should be no need for it.
At least the patent confirms that it's an extending zoom design. I don't mind a ring zoom vs. push-pull (although I have no problem with the current design), but I would have a problem with an internal zoom for a new 100-400mm.
Personally, I'm fine if it does have an 82mm filter size, since I've got two other lenses which use it, so I've got a CPL and a 10-stop ND in that diameter. But I agree - there should be no need for it.
At least the patent confirms that it's an extending zoom design. I don't mind a ring zoom vs. push-pull (although I have no problem with the current design), but I would have a problem with an internal zoom for a new 100-400mm.
Upvote
0
Justin said:
In times past, I spurned the 100-400 in favour of a 300 f4; perhaps, I may look to this in the future. I now have a 300 2.8, which I use extensively, but a 100-400 would be nice for a second camera...
Upvote
0
dr croubie said:
I don't think it will kill off the 70-300L because:
1. The 70-300L is way smaller and lighter. A major reason people get 70-300L, or 70-300 IS non-L or 70-200 f/4 IS is because they want a small, light little lens that is a great walk-around and fine for travel where maybe do some serious shooting and then some snap shooting and then stop in for lunch at some cafe and then run around more for hours all day long. The small ones can even be tucked away in a cargo pants pocket if need be. The 100-400L is simply too large a lens to be a tiny little compact tele-zoom.
2. On APS-C I don't think it makes much difference and the starting at 100mm may even be just as well, but on FF I find the starting at 100mm instead of 70mm to be a big deal. I use a 70- lens as one of my main workhorse lenses in addition to just a little light travel zoom and I find that 70mm is often just wide enough for many short tele-landscape photos when using a FF body but 100mm just doesn't quite do it. If you use a 100- lens then you almost have to have some sort of 28-75/24-70/105 type zoom with you too and maybe need to do lots of lens swapping (and most of those can get a bit rough at the edges on FF) plus a high quality wider lens and then suddenly you are carrying three, sizable, lenses around at once.
3. If the 70- lens will be a main workhorse lens and not merely a little travel lens than you may want better quality than the 70-300 IS non-L or Tamron 70-300 VC.
4. There is also the $1500 vs $2800 which is not an inconsiderable difference.
That said for a compact, full-on wildlife lens where you want some flexibility and not quite the weight or expense of the 300 2.8 and reach really matters then the 100-400 IS sounds pretty awesome. If you don't want or can't with the super-tele plus 70- lens pairing the 100-400 IS is the ideal safari-type lens too.
So just as, currently, the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 100-400L have little to do with the 70-300L neither will the new 100-400L IMO (other than for a very few who got scared off the old IS and tech in the current 100-400L).
Upvote
0
J. McCabe said:
Perhaps because it retains f/4 a bit longer, maybe it has a touch less vignetting, maybe it makes it a bit easier to get decent corner performance without using even more fancy elements. I'm not really sure but guessing some mix of that sort of stuff.
The 70-300L also has an unusually large filter size for an f/4-f/5.6 70-300 lens.
Hopefully it is not simply a weight to avoid using more expensive fluorite whle they still charge fluorite prices and give us more weight though hah.
Upvote
0
N
nowinaminute
Guest
I tried 4 copies of the 100-400mm but none were any good, one was sharp on the left side and soft on the right, another sharp at the bottom and not the top (!) and the other two were generally soft.
I gave up and got the 70-300mm and it was pin sharp first copy I tried!
Now I bet this new version of the 100-400mm will be the lens I always wanted but It looks like there is going to be a major price hike so I'll stick to what I have I think! Around 1K is the most I could justify spending, I'm not a wealthy man and it takes a LOT of saving and with a new baby it will be a long long time before such an indulgence would be possible again! Maybe one day when this lens has been around a while I will be able to sell my 70-300 and buy the new 100-400 without there being much price difference but it's going to be something to gaze at longingly for the foreseeable future!
I predict it will be a stunner, with even lenses like the lowly 55-250 giving great sharpness I can't imagine this being anything but borderline prime sharp.
I gave up and got the 70-300mm and it was pin sharp first copy I tried!
Now I bet this new version of the 100-400mm will be the lens I always wanted but It looks like there is going to be a major price hike so I'll stick to what I have I think! Around 1K is the most I could justify spending, I'm not a wealthy man and it takes a LOT of saving and with a new baby it will be a long long time before such an indulgence would be possible again! Maybe one day when this lens has been around a while I will be able to sell my 70-300 and buy the new 100-400 without there being much price difference but it's going to be something to gaze at longingly for the foreseeable future!
I predict it will be a stunner, with even lenses like the lowly 55-250 giving great sharpness I can't imagine this being anything but borderline prime sharp.
Upvote
0
It certainly can be better, but mine is pretty good. The attributes I like are the close focusing, and the small size when telescoped in. It fits nicely in my camera bag. The push pull doesn't bother me, but a twist zoom is better.
I'd be disappointed with one that had a 15 ft minimum focus distance, and was too long to easily put in my camera bag with my other lenses. Thats one of the reasons I don't like the 400mm f/5.6, its a great lens, but takes up too long of a storage space.
If they can keep it shorter like the 100-300mm L and have a similar close focus distance, I'd go for it. It likely would not accept TC's if it was configured like the 100-300L either.
I'd be disappointed with one that had a 15 ft minimum focus distance, and was too long to easily put in my camera bag with my other lenses. Thats one of the reasons I don't like the 400mm f/5.6, its a great lens, but takes up too long of a storage space.
If they can keep it shorter like the 100-300mm L and have a similar close focus distance, I'd go for it. It likely would not accept TC's if it was configured like the 100-300L either.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
