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

[ewg963]

I hope they keep the push pull method...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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!

Optically the 120-300 is very strong, but it's not in the same league as the top Canon Whites. All the other parts of the Sigma are lagging too. The IS and AF...again, the Canon Whites are in a different league. The Siggi lens is a very god lens, the Canon Whites are exceptional and state of the art...which is why they are SO expensive.

 

[Marsu42]

I hope they keep the push pull method...

I'm pretty sure they won't, but rejoice, no one prevents you form grabbing the lens hood and just pull/push that, at least that's what I often do with my 70-300L.

An announcement and release may depend on how fast Canon can sell off existing stock of the 100-400.

Canon should just leak the price of the mk2, then the existing stock of the mk1 will be gone in no time just like the 24-70 mk1 was

 

[Plainsman]

Canon could loose a lot of business by "delaying" their new 100-400 for tactical reasons if that is the case. So what are the alternatives?

The latest Sony 70-400 is reputedly sharp especially at 400/5.6 and pretty good value.

More expensive is the new Nikon 80-400 - also pretty good.

(Personally I don't like the telescopic designs of either but suspect that the Canon will also drop their robust push/ pull and offer the same).

I can't see the 100-400 - if it is that - being any cheaper. With camera bodies being relatively cheap quite a few loyal Canon customers might say can't wait so lets switch brands just this once to get a decent 400 zoom now. Brand loyalty is basically stupid and only suits the manufacturer.

 

[RLPhoto]

It's overdue, and in high demand. I'm sure this lens will be well received if it stays under 2k.

 

[hoodlum]

Canon could loose a lot of business by "delaying" their new 100-400 for tactical reasons if that is the case. So what are the alternatives?

The latest Sony 70-400 is reputedly sharp especially at 400/5.6 and pretty good value.

More expensive is the new Nikon 80-400 - also pretty good.

(Personally I don't like the telescopic designs of either but suspect that the Canon will also drop their robust push/ pull and offer the same).

I can't see the 100-400 - if it is that - being any cheaper. With camera bodies being relatively cheap quite a few loyal Canon customers might say can't wait so lets switch brands just this once to get a decent 400 zoom now. Brand loyalty is basically stupid and only suits the manufacturer.

This is especially true of bird/wildlife shooters. Many have the lens permanently attached to their body and use it for one purpose (myself included). I would have no issues switching systems for the birding I do, as the camera/lens is just a tool and birding is our first hobby.

But at the same time I don't like switching to a new tool until there are much better solutions available. I'll likely wait until next year for Canon's response and then choose the best system to go with. I would prefer a prime this time around but so far no one is releasing an updated light hand holdable prime with the latest IS (ie. 300mm f4+tc or 400mm f5.6).

 

[mrsfotografie]

It's overdue, and in high demand. I'm sure this lens will be well received if it stays under 2k.

This statement has been made before for new Canon products and is almost definitely untrue - I expect the new lens to easily be priced above 2k.

 

[RLPhoto]

It's overdue, and in high demand. I'm sure this lens will be well received if it stays under 2k.

This statement has been made before for new Canon products and is almost definitely untrue - I expect the new lens to easily be priced above 2k.

So your saying it's not over due and not in demand and wouldn't be well received if it was under 2k? ???

 

[tron]

It's overdue, and in high demand. I'm sure this lens will be well received if it stays under 2k.

This statement has been made before for new Canon products and is almost definitely untrue - I expect the new lens to easily be priced above 2k.

So your saying it's not over due and not in demand and wouldn't be well received if it was under 2k? ???

;D

 

[mrsfotografie]

It's overdue, and in high demand. I'm sure this lens will be well received if it stays under 2k.

This statement has been made before for new Canon products and is almost definitely untrue - I expect the new lens to easily be priced above 2k.

So your saying it's not over due and not in demand and wouldn't be well received if it was under 2k? ???

Corrected, see quote above. Also I'm sure this lens will be well received even though it will be priced above 2k

 

[tron]

It's overdue, and in high demand. I'm sure this lens will be well received if it stays under 2k.

This statement has been made before for new Canon products and is almost definitely untrue - I expect the new lens to easily be priced above 2k.

So your saying it's not over due and not in demand and wouldn't be well received if it was under 2k? ???

Corrected, see quote above. Also I'm sure this lens will be well received even though it will be priced above 2k

Still, it would be well received under 2K too :

 

[tron]

OK, seriously now, I would want it below 2K but I believe it would be slightly above that...

 

[Etienne]

The photographer in me is hoping for a home run on this lens,
and the banker in me is already crying.

 

[GuyF]

Note: I challenge you all not to have any more discussions about push/pull vs rotary zoom!!!

Without wanting to get all Beavis and Butthead on your ass, any lens that "trombones", sucks. The only thing suckier than a tromboner (stop sniggering at the back) is a trombonist. Fact.

Quod erat demonstrandum, as Butthead would say.

 

[dstppy]

Note: I challenge you all not to have any more discussions about push/pull vs rotary zoom!!!

Without wanting to get all Beavis and Butthead on your ass, any lens that "trombones", sucks. The only thing suckier than a tromboner (stop sniggering at the back) is a trombonist. Fact.

Quod erat demonstrandum, as Butthead would say.

Uhhhhh huhuhuhuh you said . . .

 

[GuyF]

Dstppy - Even I refrained from saying that. You had to go and spoil it for everyone now, didn't you.

See me after class and remember to bring your pink oboe.

 

[RLPhoto]

It's overdue, and in high demand. I'm sure this lens will be well received if it stays under 2k.

This statement has been made before for new Canon products and is almost definitely untrue - I expect the new lens to easily be priced above 2k.

So your saying it's not over due and not in demand and wouldn't be well received if it was under 2k? ???

Corrected, see quote above. Also I'm sure this lens will be well received even though it will be priced above 2k

Still, it would be well received under 2K too :

My original point exactly.

 

[tron]

Hmmm, I thought that many zoom lenses , how to put it... well trombone. 100-400 is not alone.
They just trombone by ...rotation instead of push pull. (24-70 both versions, 24-105, 70-300 L and non-L, etc)
;D ;D ;D

 

[JonAustin]

I'm looking forward to seeing how the II version of this lens is designed and performs ... and I'm potentially in the market for it ... but I'd rather see a 300mm f/4 IS II with built-in 1.4x TC!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

Canon looks at sales and the competition (none). I've owned the 300mm f/4L, the 400mm f/5.6, and two 100-400mm L's. All were excellent lenses for which there is no real competition at the current price.

They could all benefit from a upgrade, but the new price would also mean that a lot of buyers could not afford one. Canon does consider the price into the factor of deciding if a new and better design would sell. There seems to be a self imposed limit of about $2500 or $2600 for that type of lens, so they might have to raise the bar to $3K if they produce a new one. Will it sell for 2X the price? I think its likely that they have found a formula for the new100-400 that will let them sell it for $2600 and still make their usual huge profit.