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

[GmwDarkroom]

My bet is, much like the aforementioned 70-200 2.8, the improvements will not show up on paper, but in performance.

To do otherwise wouldn't be an upgrade. It would be a new tier of lens.

My prediction for what little it's worth: 100-400 or close to that, non-push-pull, better optics, better IS.

And I'll throw in with the heretic and say for fast zooming, I like the push-pull. However for general use, I do prefer the twist ring.

 

[AlanF]

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.

I know that review inside out - he can't read MTF charts despite supposedly being an expert. Look at the MTFs at the beginning of the thread in the link above: Photozone; SLRgear and Canon have both lenses the same in the centre, which where the action is in nature photography, as do the TDP charts. I owned both lenses for a while also and both my copies were just as would be expected from the numbers - about the same at the centre. There were production problems with the 100-400mm and there are some soft copies. It's a lens you have to test before buying. I am not a great fan of the lens but I don't like it being talked down either as it is a very useful zoom, which was exceptionally good for the 1990s. I just want to see a more modern sharper version with 4 stops IS to bring it in line with the new generations of lenses.

 

[viggen61]

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.

Some of us would be perfectly happy with the same optics, but with up-to-date AF and IS. Faster & better AF is welcome, as would be 4 stops of IS. That lens is 15+ years old technologically

I don't expect leaps and bounds better IQ from the new version (gotta leave something for the f/2.8 primes and the 200-400... ), but somewhat less vignetting and corner sharpness would be fantastic.

I, for one, don't particularly care about twist to zoom or push/pull, so long as I can still fit it in my bag!

 

[brad-man]

Oh how much I love reasonable pricing. I just hope the price settles to under $2300 after initial gouge release price.

 

[Don Haines]

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.

I know that review inside out - he can't read MTF charts despite supposedly being an expert. Look at the MTFs at the beginning of the thread in the link above: Photozone; SLRgear and Canon have both lenses the same in the centre, which where the action is in nature photography, as do the TDP charts. I owned both lenses for a while also and both my copies were just as would be expected from the numbers - about the same at the centre. There were production problems with the 100-400mm and there are some soft copies. It's a lens you have to test before buying. I am not a great fan of the lens but I don't like it being talked down either as it is a very useful zoom, which was exceptionally good for the 1990s. I just want to see a more modern sharper version with 4 stops IS to bring it in line with the new generations of lenses.

Two years ago, I had the opportunity to try out four lenses together... the Sigma 120-400, the sigma 150-500, the canon 100-400, and the canon 400F5.6.
The rating, based on real world tests, was Sigma 150-500 worst, Canon 100-400 next, Sigma 120-400 SLIGHTLY better, and Canon 400F4 a bit better than the Sigma 120-400.
Since then I have had other oportunities to use the canon 100-400 and I would now rate it as slightly better than the Sigma 120-400, but not by a whole lot. I think that the earlier copy of the 100-400 that I was trying out was a "soft copy".....

However you slice it, if the new 100-400 has the same improvements as the other "2" lenses released recently, it should be a superior lens to all of them.... the only one with any hope of beating a 100-400F5.6 II would be a 400F5.6 II.....

 

[schill]

Be cool if it was a straight f4...

Such a lens would cost at least $6,000. A straight f/5.6 would be much more affordable.

Much more affordable, but who wants a 100mm f/5.6?

I expect a straight f/4 version would cost more than $6000. Except for the teleconverter, that's the 200-400 f/4 but with an even larger zoom range.

 

[preppyak]

Be cool if it was a straight f4...

Such a lens would cost at least $6,000. A straight f/5.6 would be much more affordable.

Actually, since the 200-400 f/4 from Canon costs $12k, I'd venture a guess that a 100-400 f/4L would probably cost even more

 

[tron]

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

Oh, how much I like rotary zooms... ;D

Oh, how much I love primes.... ;D

I love primes too... ;D

 

[FunPhotons]

Lovely, I'm looking forward to it. I've been waiting for some three or four years. No rush, people advised "buy buy buy" on the current model, but I like getting lenses on the first rebate after they come out or sometimes before then. Anticipation is half the fun.

I think non push pull, the latest IS, better weather sealing and better IQ is a given. Oh and plus the annoyingly slightly changed white which won't match my slightly older 70-200 f/2.8.

 

[schill]

From the first post:

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

Lovely, I'm looking forward to it. I've been waiting for some three or four years. No rush, people advised "buy buy buy" on the current model, but I like getting lenses on the first rebate after they come out or sometimes before then. Anticipation is half the fun.

If people don't keep buying the current one, you'll never see your new one. Maybe you should buy the current one as a service to the rest of us so that we can get the new one sooner.

 

[tron]

Well, there is a CR2 that next year we will make the same discussion about a CR2 for a new 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS ;D

 

[brad-man]

Well, there is a CR2 that next year we will make the same discussion about a CR2 for a new 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS ;D

Que in "I got you, babe".

 

[Nawaf]

Sell it already! :'(

 

[tnargs]

$2,200? What do you reckon?

 

[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?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

+1

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.
There is no way I'd pay $3000 for a 100-400L that just matched the old 400mm f/5.6.

 

[mycanonphotos]

Be cool if it was a straight f4...

Such a lens would cost at least $6,000. A straight f/5.6 would be much more affordable.

Actually, since the 200-400 f/4 from Canon costs $12k, I'd venture a guess that a 100-400 f/4L would probably cost even more

I know I know....Not asking for a teleconverter to be built in..just a straight 4. Is that too much to ask for..? LOL!!

 

[MichaelHodges]

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.

 

[dslrdummy]

I'll wait for the 400 5.6 IS.