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

[Loswr]

But isn't perception what everyone here argues in favour of because measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment on websites like DxO don't favour Canon?

I don't see many people arguing that here. DxOMark's 'measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment' are just fine (usually, although they have gotten bad copies of lenses, refused to admit it, and then later quietly re-done the measurements on another lens). They don't seem to favor any one brand.

But when they take those 'measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment', put them in a bias blender and whirl them around at several thousand rpm, then take the goo that pours out and feed it to scum-digesting bacteria, then take the bacteria excrement and bake it in an oversimplifying oven at several thousand degrees, then take the steaming pile of baked crap and call it a Score...that's the problem, right there.

 

[Sabaki]

This is cool!!!

If its at least as sharp as the 400 f/5.6 from 100mm all the way to AND INCLUDING 400mm, this may become another iconic Canon lens!

I would be prepared to sell my excellent copy of the 400 f/5.6 I have for this

There is very little to chose between the 100-400mm L and the 400mm f/5.6 L in the centres - see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14296.msg259688#msg259688

If the new zoom lens is only as good as the 20 year old 400mm f/5.6, then I'll give it a miss as it won't be much better than the current - we want something better.

Hi Alan. Some fair comment there. I can tell from personal experience that the 400 f/5.6 handily outperforms the current 100-400.
Read the review at Luminous Landscapes. Pretty much echoes what I've seen.

Not for me. They are very similar, and the actual lens tests show it. Luminous Landscapes is a good site, but they do not have lens testing facilities, its merely the perception of the evaluator.

But isn't perception what everyone here argues in favour of because measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment on websites like DxO don't favour Canon?

+1

 

[mrsfotografie]

I've got the old 100-400 and love it but my IS recently went buggy. It'd gone out in January but came back to life and then died again about a month ago.

Does anyone know about or have experience with getting a lens repaired near end of life? I'd send it in now if I had the cash available, but just finishing grad school and so it hasn't been a priority. I figure they'll have some spare parts around still once the new lens is released. But for the sake of hassle and cost, should I save up and send my copy in as soon as I can?

I would suggest you to contact your Canon service center and get a quote.

 

[mycanonphotos]

But isn't perception what everyone here argues in favour of because measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment on websites like DxO don't favour Canon?

I don't see many people arguing that here. DxOMark's 'measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment' are just fine (usually, although they have gotten bad copies of lenses, refused to admit it, and then later quietly re-done the measurements on another lens). They don't seem to favor any one brand.

But when they take those 'measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment', put them in a bias blender and whirl them around at several thousand rpm, then take the goo that pours out and feed it to scum-digesting bacteria, then take the bacteria excrement and bake it in an oversimplifying oven at several thousand degrees, then take the steaming pile of baked crap and call it a Score...that's the problem, right there.

Hey...Wait....I don't think DXO has even TESTED the 100-400... What the Heck!!?? all the other lenses, why not this one..!!

 

[AlanF]

Between the 300 F4 L IS, 400 5.6 L, and 100-400, I'd take the primes. Even the 300 with Canon TC is sharper than the 100-400 in my experience (as well as WCastleman and Photozone's).

The 100-400 has nice versatility, but so does a Canon S3.

I did choose a prime - the 300mm f/2.8mm II to get a huge stonking increase in performance not a tiny quantum, if any, with the antique ones. And I travel with an SX50 because it is versatile and fits in my briefcase. But, I want a really sharp 100-400 zoom with modern AF and IS to go with my Canon body for those occasions when zooming is needed and when I don't want to lug the big white primes.

 

[lycan]

I'll wait for the 400 5.6 IS.

Now that would be something worth getting

 

[noncho]

Come on Sigma, make 400/4 OS for crop cameras and kill them all 8)

 

[Plainsman]

I'll wait for the 400 5.6 IS.

...wait till hell freezes over.

There seems to be a conspiracy between Can/Nik not to produce a simple easy to design lightweight 400/5.6 IS prime. It would such a sharp handy hand holdable long lens.

It would be best seller but won't be made by Canon because it would stop the production line of the mediocre but profitable 400/4 DO and impinge on sales of a new 100-400L whenever that one turns up.

 

[Loswr]

There seems to be a conspiracy between Can/Nik not to produce a simple easy to design lightweight 400/5.6 IS prime.

Nikon took it a step further, and didn't even make a 400/5.6 prime at all.

 

[AlanF]

Come on Sigma, make 400/4 OS for crop cameras and kill them all 8)

The Canon f/2.8 300mm II with a 1.4xTC III is a 420/4 IS with MTFs, AF and quality of construction that Sigma could only dream about (at a price, unfortunately).

 

[Loswr]

Come on Sigma, make 400/4 OS for crop cameras and kill them all 8)

The Canon f/2.8 300mm II with a 1.4xTC III is a 420/4 IS with MTFs, AF and quality of construction that Sigma could only dream about (at a price, unfortunately).

Sigma couldn't design a better lens than Canon? (*cough* 35/1.4 *cough*) And have you seen the new Sports-series 120-300/2.8 OS? No, it's not a 300 II - but it's a zoom, and still comes close...especially at half the price!

 

[AlanF]

I'll wait for the 400 5.6 IS.

...wait till hell freezes over.

There seems to be a conspiracy between Can/Nik not to produce a simple easy to design lightweight 400/5.6 IS prime. It would such a sharp handy hand holdable long lens.

It would be best seller but won't be made by Canon because it would stop the production line of the mediocre but profitable 400/4 DO and impinge on sales of a new 100-400L whenever that one turns up.

On my very frequent bird photo outings, I have seen several 500s and 600s, dozens and dozens of 100-400s, one or two 400 f/5.6s and 300 f/4s, and only my 300 f/2.8 and one 400/4 DO, and lots of Sigma zooms. The 100-400 is where the sales are, and a new one at a reasonable price will be a best seller.

 

[Irishpanther]

I've got the old 100-400 and love it but my IS recently went buggy. It'd gone out in January but came back to life and then died again about a month ago.

Does anyone know about or have experience with getting a lens repaired near end of life? I'd send it in now if I had the cash available, but just finishing grad school and so it hasn't been a priority. I figure they'll have some spare parts around still once the new lens is released. But for the sake of hassle and cost, should I save up and send my copy in as soon as I can?

I would suggest you to contact your Canon service center and get a quote.

Thanks. I've done that a while back and am set for that. I was more curious what's going to happen as the new lens rolls out. Was hopeful some had some experience with other lenses as they reached the end of their production sales and could comment on the effects that has on repairs.

 

[AlanF]

Come on Sigma, make 400/4 OS for crop cameras and kill them all 8)

The Canon f/2.8 300mm II with a 1.4xTC III is a 420/4 IS with MTFs, AF and quality of construction that Sigma could only dream about (at a price, unfortunately).

Sigma couldn't design a better lens than Canon? (*cough* 35/1.4 *cough*) And have you seen the new Sports-series 120-300/2.8 OS? No, it's not a 300 II - but it's a zoom, and still comes close...especially at half the price!

300 is too short and you need TCs. Look at the image quality of the Sigma Sports series with a 2xTC at 600/5.6 vs the Canon 300 at 600/2.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

The Sigma is unusable. You have to stop down to f/11 to get on a par with the Canon at f/5.6

 

[noncho]

Come on Sigma, make 400/4 OS for crop cameras and kill them all 8)

The Canon f/2.8 300mm II with a 1.4xTC III is a 420/4 IS with MTFs, AF and quality of construction that Sigma could only dream about (at a price, unfortunately).

It's for FF cameras, 400/4 for crop should be smaller, lighter, cheaper

 

[Tiosabas]

Come on Sigma, make 400/4 OS for crop cameras and kill them all 8)

The Canon f/2.8 300mm II with a 1.4xTC III is a 420/4 IS with MTFs, AF and quality of construction that Sigma could only dream about (at a price, unfortunately).

Sigma couldn't design a better lens than Canon? (*cough* 35/1.4 *cough*) And have you seen the new Sports-series 120-300/2.8 OS? No, it's not a 300 II - but it's a zoom, and still comes close...especially at half the price!

300 is too short and you need TCs. Look at the image quality of the Sigma Sports series with a 2xTC at 600/5.6 vs the Canon 300 at 600/2.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

The Sigma is unusable. You have to stop down to f/11 to get on a par with the Canon at f/5.6

Comparing a prime with a 2x to a zoom with a 2x thats costs half as much means your comparison is unusable.

 

[Loswr]

300 is too short and you need TCs.

Fair point, but then you bought a lens that's too short. I would never buy a lens with a native focal length that didn't meet my needs, planning to use it with a TC all the time (especially not a 2x TC).

 

[AlanF]

300 is too short and you need TCs.

Fair point, but then you bought a lens that's too short. I would never buy a lens with a native focal length that didn't meet my needs, planning to use it with a TC all the time (especially not a 2x TC).

No, I did not buy a lens that is too short for my purposes. 300-600mm with TCs is the range I use most and my modus operandum is hand holding. Your 600mm at 8.65 lb is 3.5 lb heavier than the 300, which is too heavy by far for me (but not for you) (and the Sigma at 7.5 lb is too heavy for me, but not for some others).

The IQ of the 300x2 at f/5.6 is not far short of the 600 native.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=748&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

 

[Loswr]

It's for FF cameras, 400/4 for crop should be smaller, lighter, cheaper

A 400/4 for crop cameras would be......wait for it......drum roll......exactly the same size, weight, and cost as a 400/4 for FF cameras. It would still need to fill a 100mm (400mm / 4) pupil, meaning it would still need a front element at least 100mm in diameter. With a telephoto lens, the image circle isn't really a limiting factor.

 

[ewg963]

Interesting. I can see myself upgrading to the new model when prices level out because it's a safe bet the new 100-400 will outperform the old model, and the 200-400 is out of my reach both in budget and bulk anyway. I'm hoping for the same sort of image quality improvement of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk I vs MkII.

Note: I challenge you all not to have any more discussions about push/pull vs rotary zoom!!! Let's wait and see what Canon comes up with... ??? :

+1 on the price of the 200-400 way out my budget.