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

[Canon Rumors]

<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=7842" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=7842"></a></div>
<strong>Finally on its way?

</strong>I was told today that a new EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS will be making its debut “soonish”. It will be after the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x is officially announced.</p>
<p>It could be tested at Euro 2012 before being announced.</p>
<p><strong>Features</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Ring zoom (not push/pull)</li>
<li>Latest IS System</li>
<li>82mm Filter Size</li>
<li>Weather Sealed</li>
<li>Slightly heavier than the current model</li>
<li>Slightly faster f/4 at 100mm (Current is f/4.5)</li>
<li>Retail around $2800 USD</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>CR’s Take</strong>

A few folks want an EF 400 f/5.6L IS, I’d think this sort of product would fill the void. I’d expect it to be optically awesome.</p>
<p>This comes from a pretty solid source, though lenses are always hard to nail down.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Loswr]

We've been burned by this rumor before. I'll believe it when I see it...but if I do see it, I'll buy it straight away.

 

[wickidwombat]

wow I think i might find it hard to resist buying that but i have sooo many lenses already, dunno if i can handle carrying that one around too

 

[Meh]

I'll believe it when I see it...but if I do see it, I'll buy it straight away.

Ditto. Per my previously stated buying criteria.

 

[docsmith]

Add me to the list. Price is a little higher than I'd hope, but if the optics where there I'd get one.

 

[bvukich]

I'll believe it when I see it...but if I do see it, I'll buy it straight away.

Ditto. Per my previously stated buying criteria.

Ditto on the Ditto.

The original is quite good, but updated IS, coatings, and twist zoom, should make it downright awesome.

 

[tron]

I knew it! About one week ago I had sent an email to a friend saying that I may have caused this inadvertently by ... ordering the current 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS!!!
Seriously now, a few minutes after ordering it I saw in this site another announcement about a patent for a new 100-400!!! However no complaints.
I bought the lens 1310 euro which translated is just a little below 1800$. Prices are different in Europe and this was the lowest price ever!
Even so the price is way lower that the mentioned 2800$. This would translate to more than 2000 euros in Europe and it is too much for amateur use. In addition, I have an appointment with some ducks...

 

[LukieLauXD]

Just when you thought they couldn't make it any heavier. I have a 100-400 and it's really annoying to carry it for longer than 30 minutes. (I'm a high school student.)

And I hate the pulling zoom thing. WITH A PASSION.

PASSION. :|

 

[Meh]

Just when you thought they couldn't make it any heavier. I have a 100-400 and it's really annoying to carry it for longer than 30 minutes. (I'm a high school student.)

And I hate the pulling zoom thing. WITH A PASSION.

PASSION. :|

High school students with such great gear are not allowed to complain Just kidding, of course you can complain.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Just when you thought they couldn't make it any heavier. I have a 100-400 and it's really annoying to carry it for longer than 30 minutes. (I'm a high school student.)

And I hate the pulling zoom thing. WITH A PASSION.

PASSION. :|

I'm no longer a high school student (which is not to say my health went straight downhill, but this is a good point in your life to work on strength training) and the 120-300mm f/2.8 OS is annoying to carry for longer than an hour...you just gotta find a good tripod foot to use as a handle. That lens is 6.5 pounds, by the way.

Other than that, good grief - the price is nearly the same as that 120-300mm f/2.8. All things considered, I'm happier with a teleconverter (though minimum focus distance is lousy and the 2X is really needed to get a good set of equivalent focal lengths for birding, but degrades IQ and aperture unfortunately) and the faster lens.

I'm sure that it will blow the Sigma out of the water, but you have to wonder if the price tag could be right. This lens is projected coming in around $1200 more than the typical list price of the 100-400mm, and even after a discount for "real sales" it looks like a heavy purchase; you're saving only $300 off that Sigma and still getting nowhere near the same maximum aperture (although the maximum focal length is a big win, that essentially disappears when comparing to a 2X TC combination with the Sigma, albeit at further price costs and the IQ reduction, of course).

I will have to wait and see what the pricing and consensus is before I come to a final conclusion. Ultimately it does look like it more or less fits the pattern of the 70-300mm L IS - underemphasize the importance of wide aperture and underperform on price - though if your camera can hack it the maximum apertures on these lenses probably do represent a good tradeoff on glass required and price, at least for what Canon pays. On the other hand, the 70-300mm L IS was essentially carving out its own niche - if the 100-400mm is released at this price, it will be a hard sell for the mere fact that the current lens is already close to current "L" standards.

 

[dr croubie]

I got the 70-300L over the current 100-400L basically because of the new design, much better IS, and slightly better IQ in parts (although I would have been a lot better off with the extra 3-400mm in trade for more weight). I've used the pushpull and didn't mind it so badly, half the time I pushpull my 70-300L when I hold by the front barrel.
But if there's a 100-400L mk2, where is the 70-300L going to sit? For the small group of people who absolutely *must* have both 70-100 and 200-300 in one L lens?
If the 100-400L mk2 is priced less than halfway between 70-300L and 70-200/2.8ISmk2, then the 70-300L may as well be dead...

 

[docsmith]

Well, $2,800 is certainly more than the half way point between those two lenses. Canon has shown no fear of populating the same range of focal lengths with a variety of lenses setting different prices points with each (70-200 mm). I don't see the 100-400 L "II" (not really a II because of the change in aperture range) killing the 70-300....hurting, maybe yes....but not killing. I see the primary differentiators being price, weight, size, and that 70-100 mm range. And considering that many general purpose lenses end at 55 mm, I see the 55-100 mm range as a big gap....

Honestly, I think this, if it happens, will be a great move by Canon. The current 100-400 L still sells well and I think many of us would happily spend a little more for better IS, weather sealing and slightly better optics.

 

[Gcon]

Will it take the 1.4x or 2x extenders?

 

[Edwin Herdman]

But if there's a 100-400L mk2, where is the 70-300L going to sit? For the small group of people who absolutely *must* have both 70-100 and 200-300 in one L lens?

It appears to me (not having compared weights and measures, of course...) that the 70-300 will continue on not just for its more applicable portrait range (yes, 70mm is wider than 100mm) but also for its more compact size and probably a smaller weight. I am with you on this point - there isn't a whole lot differentiating the two, but price and a photographer's needs will hopefully determine which is the better choice. As you might say, an abundance of riches (and they are rich). The problem of discerning between similar but different options is not a completely terrible problem to have.

What would be really interesting would be for Canon to look into fast telezooms (like my Sigma!) or even longer zooms (again like Sigma, i.e. 500 or 550mm options, or longer).

 

[pj1974]

Should this CR2 rumour become reality, I can see an improved Canon 100-400mm L being very popular with a variety of shooters. I believe particularly those who are looking for a flexible, high quality telezoom to capture a variety of wildlife (eg from birds to wildlife in games parks, etc).

I have the Canon 70-300mm L, and love that lens. One of the things I really like about the lens is it's zoom range : portability aspect. While I would love a 100-400mm L, I was 'put off' by the bulk and impracticality for transport, having handled the current 100-400mm L zoom and some of the similar Sigma lenses (eg 120-400mm, 150-500mm). When I go travelling (locally or further afield), this is usually what I take in my LowePro shoulder bag: Canon 7D body, 15-85mm and 70-300mm L lenses. It's a great travel kit.

The 'soonish' in the rumour is an interesting aspect. : I could imagine if it was released soon, a lot of the new 100-400mm lenses would be used for the major 2012 sports (eg Olympics). However I know there will be people who don't necessarily need the 400mm (or who, like me - are happy 90% of the time cropping at 300mm to obtain pleasing results).

I'm aware there are people who are considering the 70-300mm L which has some of these features / benefits compared to the current 100-400mm L ie improved IS, zoom mechanism, alleged slightly improved AF & IQ. If a new 100-400mm L comes out, it may be the lens they are after if it 'borrows' or migrates those features from the 70-300mm L.

Should the alleged price $2800 USD in the CR2 rumour is accurate for the 100-400mm L, purchasers will be 'paying for this' in the upgrade over the existing 100-400mm L. I paid AUD$1600 for my lens soon after it was released, and I'm very happy with it. My copy has stellar IQ corner to corner: sharp, contrast, very low CA, etc.

My thoughts are that I wouldn't be surprised if the folks at Canons put out the 70-300mm L, and kept a very close eye on the sales, to determine the 'last minute tweaks & production' to a new 100-400mm L design / model they had in the pipeline already. 8)

If I would want to get really REALLY super serious into birding (or wildlife) photography - even as a hobby - and felt it wouldn't be too selfish, the 200-400mm f/4 with built in 1.4x teleconverter, (thus also being a 280-560mm f/5.6) presents a much more desireable lens to me because of the additional reach, still at aperture 5.6. It would match my 7D very well. However at this stage I have no plans to buy such an expensive and large lens.

These are interesting times. Thanks Canon Rumours for what you share, and for this forum. More choice can't be a bad thing. Horses for courses, and I do hope any new 100-400mm L would make for many happy photographers!

Paul

 

[Lawliet]

But if there's a 100-400L mk2, where is the 70-300L going to sit? For the small group of people who absolutely *must* have both 70-100 and 200-300 in one L lens?

Don't think in focal length, but in volume and weight. In your average non wildlife/sports situation convenience might be the more important factor. You don't have to look for a bag that can hold a 70-300L, but the 70-200/2,8 is about the largest lens I'd put into a general purpose bag/pack.
The 70-300L fits nicely as an everyday solution, whereas the 70-200s(+TCs) and/or x00-400s require more effort.

As for the sports season - perhaps seeing lots of 200-400/4s would be more likely, that's if Canon can supply them.

 

[wtlloyd]

Will it take the 1.4x or 2x extenders?

Not on the 1DX..... :

 

[KyleSTL]

A few folks want an EF 400 f/5.6L IS, I’d think this sort of product would fill the void. I’d expect it to be optically awesome.

At a rumored cost of nearly 3 times the amount, how exactly does this 'fill the void' of an IS 400mm f/5.6 replacement. The whole point of the 400 5.6 is affordable super tele. In most amateurs minds I would venture to say $2800 is not 'affordable'.

 

[kirispupis]

The big question I have about this lens is if it starts at F4 instead of F4.5, does that mean AF will still work with a 1.4 extender on the 5D2, 1D-X, etc. - even at 400mm?

I owned the current 100-400 and sold it awhile back. It wasn't a bad lens. It was of decent sharpness, though the AF was on the slow side. The main reason I sold it is I didn't see the sense in carrying it around any longer once I bought the 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III. That combination is much more versatile so I sold the 100-400.

However if the newer lens has the following I would certainly consider picking it up given that the 200-400 and other bigger primes will be out of my price range.
- Not only can have AF will a 1.4 extender, but still has decent image quality and AF.
- Improved image quality from current model
- Significantly improved AF

If it does have these things, then IMHO it is worth a look. Otherwise I will not bother with it.

 

[aldvan]

The present 100-400 is my favorite lens, something I have permanently screwed on my 1Ds. I am one of the few ones that like the push-pull and I carry without any problem 1Ds+100-400 hanging at my neck all the day long during 20 miles mountain hiking. The 100-400 is also a sturdy gear. I had it rocket launched from my backpack in Beijing last year and it needed just a new YA2-3629 zooming ring and barrel. No glass was minimally damaged, although the cinetic energy due to the heavy weight was huge.
Do I think to trade it for a new 100-400? Sincerely I don't know, for the same reason I'm not thinking to trade my Land Rover Defender for the next DC-100. There are some features that don't appraise a new customer that will disappear in the third millennium design but difficult to leave for people used to them, like the controversial push-pull zoom. You can accept to leave them for a relevant step ahead. I'm not sure to be willing to pay a gap bigger than 1500$ for a 4/5.6 instead of a 4.5/5.6. If I should be a new customer for this focal lenght, I would be more than happy for the news, but this is not my situation...