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

[richy]

I was curious re the filter size. Firstly, I have no idea re lens design, I loved the article on this site about it but beyond reading that I have no clue so this is just ramblings The filter side normally relates roughly to the front element size but a increase in filter size could just be to reduce vignetting from the filters rather than specifically a larger front element. I picked two lenses and compared the filter size between manufactures. All 35mm full frame lenses.

50mm f1/1.4

Leica 50mm f/1.4 SUMMILUX-M 46mm
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM 77mm
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM 58mm
Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T 58mm
Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF 52mm
Sony 50mm f/1.4 55mm

100mm 2.8 macro lenses

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM 58mm
Sony 100mm f/2.8 55mm
Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 PRO D 55mm
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS 67mm

There is quite a bit of difference between lenses! The same differences occur with 300 2.8 lenses although it is tougher to get all the info as they are usually drop in filters. However, after looking at patents it is often the case that lenses are not actually the exact ratings advertised. Sometimes a f2.8 is a 2.9 or a 3.0, sometimes a 50mm is a 47 mm etc. Just as happens with motorcycle engines some rounding / wishful thinking / marketing occurs. Until canon release the lens (fingers crossed!) we won't know for sure. They could have increased the front element size just as sigma did with their 50mm, they could just be moving the filter thread further out to reduce the impact of using filters. Canon increased the front element size and filter size on their L versions of the 100 2.8 macro and the 70-300 over the non L versions. Both lenses improved image quality. Again, I do not design lenses but it seems like a modest increase does help! It is also not a huge increase, we arent talking 105mm screw in filters here so the costs arent insane. It would be a pita to have to carry an additional set of cpl and different rings for the nd grad system.

I just wish they would hurry up and release it!

 

[Steve Campbell]

What is this about AF not working with teleconverters? I am planning to pick up the Canon 1.4 TC III soon to use with my 70-200 f4 IS and 300L f4 IS. Will AF work? I have a 5DII and a 7D.

 

[richy]

What is this about AF not working with teleconverters? I am planning to pick up the Canon 1.4 TC III soon to use with my 70-200 f4 IS and 300L f4 IS. Will AF work? I have a 5DII and a 7D.

Yes, should work fine with both lenses and bodies. However a x2 tc that reports to the camera would not retain af on those bodies (1 series prior to the 1dx would retain af at f8 on the center point).

A 1.4tc makes the f4 lenses f5.6 lenses. You may lose cross sensors which would work as horizontal only (can't remember specifically for those bodies) but you would retain af, albeit at reduced speed.

The 100-400 v1 is f5.6 at the long end which means other than a 1.4tc on a 1 series body it will not autofocus with a 1.4 or 2.0 tc. There is a further expection, taping some pins or using a non reporting tc should retain af although the reliability likely won't be ideal. Long story short, you should be fine!

 

[Steve Campbell]

What is this about AF not working with teleconverters? I am planning to pick up the Canon 1.4 TC III soon to use with my 70-200 f4 IS and 300L f4 IS. Will AF work? I have a 5DII and a 7D.

Yes, should work fine with both lenses and bodies. However a x2 tc that reports to the camera would not retain af on those bodies (1 series prior to the 1dx would retain af at f8 on the center point).

A 1.4tc makes the f4 lenses f5.6 lenses. You may lose cross sensors which would work as horizontal only (can't remember specifically for those bodies) but you would retain af, albeit at reduced speed.

The 100-400 v1 is f5.6 at the long end which means other than a 1.4tc on a 1 series body it will not autofocus with a 1.4 or 2.0 tc. There is a further expection, taping some pins or using a non reporting tc should retain af although the reliability likely won't be ideal. Long story short, you should be fine!

Thanks for the advice. I had heard that the 300 f4 IS worked well with the 1.4 TC and the 70-200 would take it also.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Here are compatibility charts for the 1.4x extender and the 2x extender (note that where it states 1D series, that doesn't apply to the 1D X).

 

[tron]

If it is with Internal Focus and don`t get bigger when im zooming. Then this is a one i want very much

I am afraid that in that case the size will be rather big. Just compare the size of a 200/2.8 against the size of a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom or, even worse, think 100-400 fully extended!

 

[neuroanatomist]

If it is with Internal Focus and don`t get bigger when im zooming. Then this is a one i want very much

I am afraid that in that case the size will be rather big. Just compare the size of a 200/2.8 against the size of a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom or, even worse, think 100-400 fully extended!

Exactly. But in this case, I suspect Heidrun will be disappointed. Even though the CR2 rumor is for a ring zoom rather than push-pull, the 100-400mm patents (both the new ones) indicate an extending zoom.

I'm glad - one of the great features of the current 100-400mm is its 'compact' (relative to the 400/5.6, at least) storage size. That means it fits nicely in a bag that can also hold a 70-200/2.8 zoom - convenient! For me, if it's an internal zoom, meaning a lens about as long as the current 100-400mm when extended, it will not be of interest to me at all. Fortunately, that's unlikely based on the patents. I expect the physical design to be reminiscent of the newish 70-300mm zoom (white extending barrel).

 

[Justin]

If it is with Internal Focus and don`t get bigger when im zooming. Then this is a one i want very much

I am afraid that in that case the size will be rather big. Just compare the size of a 200/2.8 against the size of a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom or, even worse, think 100-400 fully extended!

For me, if it's an internal zoom, meaning a lens about as long as the current 100-400mm when extended, it will not be of interest to me at all. Fortunately, that's unlikely based on the patents. I expect the physical design to be reminiscent of the newish 70-300mm zoom (white extending barrel).

Like you, I expect a similarly designed lens. White barrel, black ring around the end, smaller white barrel extending tube.

 

[tron]

If only its price was compact too... Back in the good old days when an updated lens was introduced at about the same or at a just higher price, one could find the older versions for less. Now when Canon introduces newer versions the prices are so higher that some might consider themselves lucky to find the previous model.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I was curious re the filter size. Firstly, I have no idea re lens design, I loved the article on this site about it but beyond reading that I have no clue so this is just ramblings The filter side normally relates roughly to the front element size but a increase in filter size could just be to reduce vignetting from the filters rather than specifically a larger front element. I picked two lenses and compared the filter size between manufactures. All 35mm full frame lenses.

I tend to highly doubt it is to reduce filter vignetting on such a long focal length lens.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If it is with Internal Focus and don`t get bigger when im zooming. Then this is a one i want very much

I am afraid that in that case the size will be rather big. Just compare the size of a 200/2.8 against the size of a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom or, even worse, think 100-400 fully extended!

Exactly. But in this case, I suspect Heidrun will be disappointed. Even though the CR2 rumor is for a ring zoom rather than push-pull, the 100-400mm patents (both the new ones) indicate an extending zoom.

I'm glad - one of the great features of the current 100-400mm is its 'compact' (relative to the 400/5.6, at least) storage size. That means it fits nicely in a bag that can also hold a 70-200/2.8 zoom - convenient! For me, if it's an internal zoom, meaning a lens about as long as the current 100-400mm when extended, it will not be of interest to me at all. Fortunately, that's unlikely based on the patents. I expect the physical design to be reminiscent of the newish 70-300mm zoom (white extending barrel).

The original 100-300L (push-pull) wasn't any shorter when at minimum setting than the new 70-300L (twist) from what I recall (of course true 70mm vs 100m). A twist zoom can be external zoom or internal zooming.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The original 100-300L (push-pull) wasn't any shorter when at minimum setting than the new 70-300L (twist) from what I recall (of course true 70mm vs 100m).

I didn't even know there was a 100-300mm f/5.6L! What an odd lens - looks like Canon took the consumer-grade 100-300mm f/5.6 (which is different than the newer 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM lens), and simply added L-level optical elements and a red ring, otherwise keeping the same consumer level build.

A twist zoom can be external zoom or internal zooming.

Of course it can. But in this case, the 100-400mm patent specifies: Lens Length 228.18 – 288.12mm, which clearly indicates an extending design. FWIW, the retracted length is about 1.5" longer than the current 100-400mm, which is going to be a pain in the butt (for me), as it means the new 100-400mm will likely not fit in a Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW or similar cases.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The original 100-300L (push-pull) wasn't any shorter when at minimum setting than the new 70-300L (twist) from what I recall (of course true 70mm vs 100m).

I didn't even know there was a 100-300mm f/5.6L! What an odd lens - looks like Canon took the consumer-grade 100-300mm f/5.6 (which is different than the newer 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM lens), and simply added L-level optical elements and a red ring, otherwise keeping the same consumer level build.

yup, that pretty much sums it up

people called it the Meat Grinder

slow and very, very noisy non-USM AF

It was my first L lens, I thinkit sold for like $900 or so new when it came out. I got one for about $300 used back in 2005 or 2006.

One thing it managed was having excellent large scale contrast at 300mm, something that none of the rest ever managed until the Tamron VC and the new 70-300L. Although it had the contrast at 300mm I don't think it had the sharpness of the new L at that long end. The lack of IS was a bit troublesome, the slow and noisy AF not so hot and the f/5.6 even at 100mm a bit rough though. The fluorite element in it, for a long time, had it far an away the best super-compact 300mm quality you could get. I eventually traded it away for 70-300 IS since I decided a bit faster AF and IS just managed to outdo the lesser 300mm large scale contrast. The new 70-300L means no compromises either way, it's definitely better than either of the lens (and tamron) in pretty much every last way.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

From what I recall the 100-300L had a similar optical design to the 100-400L, although the IS in the 100-400L meant for some differences in the formula. The MTF charts, I believe, were incredibly similar. The 100-400L was sort of a scaled up version that was allowed to be variable aperture and had IS and modern L build added in.

 

[Heidrun]

The more i think about it. The more i think this. If they instead of 100-400 produce a zoom with 200-500 f.5,6 L is. Because now i just put a 2 X converter on my 70-200 f.2,8 L is mk II. So the 100-400 is in the middle of nowhere for me

 

[pj1974]

The 'old' 100-300mm f5.6 and 100-300mm f5.6 L were 'decent' for their day, with the L receiving good compliments for raw optical quality. However the focus (slow, noisy) was often complained about. Their size meant that it was handy as a travel zoom also. I think the current 100-400mm L is quite different in most aspects to the above two lenses, though certainly some optical aspects could have been carried across (the 100-400 having variable aperture, IS, 100mm extra, much longer lens housing, etc.)

The 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM improved the focus on both 100-300mm f5.6 lenses, but sadly is lacking in IS - and the optical quality at the long end left more to be desired, especially wide open (not very sharp, and very low contrast). I bought this lens (my first 'tele zoom' lens) - and knowing it's limitations, I was able to get a lot of good photos (eg stopping down between f8 and f11, and using some clever post processing). It has great AF (fast and accurate), good build quality and is of a convenient size.

When I stepped up to the 70-300mm f4-5.6 L USM IS there was an improvement in every area over the 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM (except for size, weight and price)! That is:

• the usefulness of the IS can't be overstated for many applications (eg wildlife)
• the AF is even quicker and I'd say a touch more consistent / accurate
  • build quality is 'tank like' (solid, super smooth focus and zoom rings, and FWIW I prefer the focus ring closer to the camera body, and the zoom further away - I know some other people differ)
  • much reduced CA (the 100-300mm had lots of noticeable purple CA at the tele end)
    • faster aperture and retained longer in the zoom range (it's almost like a 70-200mm f4 IS with an extra 100mm)
    • 30mm more zoom range on the wide end
      • (and this is the most important one to me) - a huge increase in optical quality at 300mm f5.6, where from corner to corner its super sharp and has lots of contrast.
      
      I hope that any replacement to the Canon 100-400mm L would take the above good qualities of the Canon 70-300mm L, and apply them - to be a popular lens for many photographers. To me, it's going to be 'too big' as a tele-zoom travel lens, and not really long enough for the 'super serious' birding. The alleged price (of $2800 USD) is a considerable jump from the $1600 for the 70-300mm L.... Certainly though, many people will be prepared to pay for it, if it delivers the goods (look at how popular the 70-200mm f2.8 II is!)
      
      Paul

 

[richy]

I was curious re the filter size. Firstly, I have no idea re lens design, I loved the article on this site about it but beyond reading that I have no clue so this is just ramblings The filter side normally relates roughly to the front element size but a increase in filter size could just be to reduce vignetting from the filters rather than specifically a larger front element. I picked two lenses and compared the filter size between manufactures. All 35mm full frame lenses.

I tend to highly doubt it is to reduce filter vignetting on such a long focal length lens.

Very true, it would only potentially be at the 100mm end, but that's something like a 23 degree fov. I guess its just to improve overall iq and reduce normal vignetting wide open.

 

[NXT1000]

it sound great, but what about making the 70mm-400mm instead of 100mm, i am losing the ability to shoot close up on my full frame camera. Other than that, i think it will be a very popular lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The size of the front element is not what determines the f-stop.

No, but f-stop puts a lower bound on front element size, because the front element must be sufficiently large to fill the iris diaphragm with light.

 

[JR]

With the current 100-400L model, what is the minimum shutter speed you need at 400mm with IS to get a decent keep rate for your picture? I assume it would be less then 1/400. Maybe 1/200 with the current IS? Any thoughts as to how much of an improvement a new IS version would make using these parameters?

I was always afraid that at 400mm and f5.6, even with IS it must not be always obvious to get great shot on a cloundy day?