Canon EF 100-400mmL IS

  • Thread starter Thread starter JTPAIN
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
J

JTPAIN

Guest
#1
Hey,

Does anyone know if Canon will be replacing their old 100-400mmL lens any time soon? - I know some have said that the 70-300mmL is a replacement, because of crop body users, But for birding, that extra length is pretty vital. I've heard mixed revues of the 70-300mm with 1.4x tele, and think it would probably be too much of a compromise to loose AF.

Many thanks
 
#2
There have been rumors of a new 100-400mm for several years. So far, there have been two patents published (about a year apart, IIRC). Still no new lens.

I'd skip the TC on a 70-300L; won't work at all with a Canon TC, and the optical quality of the 3rd party TCs isn't as good.

Personally, I'd like a 400/5.6L IS, wouldn't mind a new 100-400mm, but I'm quite happy with my 100-400mm now.
 
Upvote 0
#5
im waiting too...

either for a new 400mm f5.6 with IS or a new 100-400mm.

i really don´t like the current 100-400 and it´s push/pull design.
my father has one and it´s by far the lens that attracts the most dirt.
 
Upvote 0
#6
Canon-F1 said:
im waiting too...

either for a new 400mm f5.6 with IS or a new 100-400mm.

i really don´t like the current 100-400 and it´s push/pull design.
my father has one and it´s by far the lens that attracts the most dirt.
Click to expand...

I have stopped to wait and decidetd to get a 400mm f5.6 NON-IS, because
the 100-400 air pump should be addicted to dust - as you wrote.
Another reason is that the old 400 mm prime has just 6 lens elements and
should show less flare than a zoom with 14 (!) lens groups.

Another reason to buy the old 400mm is that I don't want to pay twice
the money for an IS version which has - maybe - 12 or 15 lens elements too.
In germany only a few dealers have listed the 5.6 400 and I hate to be too
late - after many frustrating decisions!

I observed that classic lenses are perhaps not as sharp as modern zooms (and
IS lenses) but have better contrast and render the object with higher fidelity. So
the percepted authenticity of photographs is better than that of the zooms.

My first impressions with that lens: very sharp, very contrasty, easy for hand-holding,
absolutely sturdy design (one metal tube enclosing/supporting the movable parts) and
a big advantage: the built-in hood with rubberized rim to take some rough bumps (I do
not plan them but they might happen).
 
Upvote 0
#8
The 400/5.6 is only 20% less than the 100-400 here in the US. FWIW, I don't have a speck of dust in mine - FYI, the 100-400 has weather seals at the switches and zoom extension/focus ring, i.e. it lacks the mount gasket but is otherwise a sealed lens (it's cousin the 28-300L has the mount gasket and is billed as 'weather sealed').
 
Upvote 0
#10
The whole dust issue in the 100-400mm is an urban legend. I use mine on polo fields with horses flying by all the time and I have never, ever had a problem with dust. EVER. Somewhere, somebody decided that the push-pull system just HAD to attract dust, the idea caught on and it's attained a life of it's own. It's crap. It's not a problem. It never was a problem.

Now image quality... that's hit or miss. And the autofocus is slow. I don't love this lens, but it's serviceable.
 
Upvote 0
#12
smirkypants said:
The whole dust issue in the 100-400mm is an urban legend. I use mine on polo fields with horses flying by all the time and I have never, ever had a problem with dust. EVER. Somewhere, somebody decided that the push-pull system just HAD to attract dust, the idea caught on and it's attained a life of it's own. It's crap. It's not a problem. It never was a problem.

Now image quality... that's hit or miss. And the autofocus is slow. I don't love this lens, but it's serviceable.
Click to expand...

ditto for the dust on the 28-300 never had a problem with it, once ou get the hang of the push pull zoom its very fast I found the AF speed on the 28-300 very quick, maybe not as quick as the 70-200 f2.8 but not too far off the mark, but As far as I know the 28-300 is rated as weather sealed where as the 100-400 is not "weather sealed"
 
Upvote 0
#13
neuroanatomist said:
smirkypants said:
The whole dust issue in the 100-400mm is an urban legend.
Click to expand...

+1. But, of course, the 17-55mm does have a dust problem. Mine doesn't, but they all do. So sayeth the Internet. ::)
Click to expand...
I am sure some of it is "Canon Rumor", but you can't make those sweeping statements unless you were in Boston/NY (or similar low dust places). Your answers would be more cautious if you were living in southwest. I dont have dust in/on my lenses as I am super careful but it does take my energy and time. When I use to live on Long Island, dust was not something I ever thought much about.
 
Upvote 0
#14
pranav said:
Your answers would be more cautious if you were living in southwest.
Click to expand...
Obviously I need to show you the extent of dust that I deal with on Argentine polo fields. When there has been rain and the fields are well attended, it's not bad. When it's dry, I am often taking photos literally in swirls of dust.

Dust pump = urban legend, pure and simple.
 

Attachments

  • dust.jpg
    dust.jpg
    35.2 KB · Views: 1,048
Upvote 0
#16
smirkypants said:
The whole dust issue in the 100-400mm is an urban legend.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. I live in a very windy and dusty island. I traveled to deserts with my 100-400 that is for me something like a standard lens. After two years of travelling in very hard environment I never got a dust particle inside. Obviously you have to perform regularly a good maintenance, avoiding dust or other kind of dirt to build up for weeks on the barrel. As I wrote in other occasion, 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.
 
Upvote 0
#17
Tijn said:
I'm not sure if either of you can dismiss the other party as any kind of "legend" or myth, but I personally doubt it really commonly is a dust magnet. Lack of a filter could be a cause of dust for at least some unenlightened people. Others might be unfortunate. No two lenses are the same and all that.
Click to expand...

+1. I'm sure there are people with 100-400's that have dust, and people with no dust. I don't know that I'd call it an urban legend, but it's a popular lens and things do get blown out of proportion on the Internet. Try an experiment - search Google for 'your car make/year' and 'transmission problems'. You'll get hits - probably lots of hits. Assuming you've never had such a problem, your initial reaction will probably be, "That's BS." If you have had such a problem, those results will confirm for you that it's a pervasive issue. The real question is, if you had run that search before buying that car, would you still have bought it? If you say 'no', expand that concept - if you had done that search on every car you had been considering, you'd be taking the bus to work.
 
Upvote 0
#19
In the Land Rover Defender forum I attend, there is a member that used to own the latest model of that off road car. He should be very unfortunate getting his sample, or, may be, he wasn't very able to drive such a particular car or to perform a regular maintenance. He post regularly any sort of smear on the new Defender, affirming very unlikely that he owned four samples of the car and each of them was a lemon. Now, you can live very well ignoring that kind of obsession, but the problem is that is quite disturbing to read nasty and hardly demonstrated (a huge number of customer are very happy about that) things about something you had paid a lot of money and that you suppose to resell a day.
Conclusion: on the Internet is very easy to transform an individual case in a general opinion. And it is very easy that this opinion should be built on very specific situation. So, please, before stating some nasty opinion, consider if yours just a specific experience or a real flaw, since in few weeks a lot of people that never got in touch with the object, will sell themselves as great expert on that...
 
Upvote 0
#20
aldvan said:
In the Land Rover Defender forum I attend, there is a member that used to own the latest model of that off road car. He should be very unfortunate getting his sample, or, may be, he wasn't very able to drive such a particular car or to perform a regular maintenance. He post regularly any sort of smear on the new Defender, affirming very unlikely that he owned four samples of the car and each of them was a lemon. Now, you can live very well ignoring that kind of obsession, but the problem is that is quite disturbing to read nasty and hardly demonstrated (a huge number of customer are very happy about that) things about something you had paid a lot of money and that you suppose to resell a day.
Conclusion: on the Internet is very easy to transform an individual case in a general opinion. And it is very easy that this opinion should be built on very specific situation. So, please, before stating some nasty opinion, consider if yours just a specific experience or a real flaw, since in few weeks a lot of people that never got in touch with the object, will sell themselves as great expert on that...
Click to expand...

Funny that someone owns four lemon cars. Why buy a sencond lemon? What a lemon.

BTW, if the 100-400 sucks in air and dust when pulling, what will it do when pushing?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

axtstern
Thoughts on the folly of buying an exciting camera of the future but then being stuck in the past.
Replies
18
Views
6K
scyrene
S
J
Recommended RF Lenses to take on an African Safari
Replies
9
Views
11K
john1970
J
C
Did I make a mistake buying the RF 100-500
Replies
38
Views
33K
CODonnell
C
R
I'm a bit out of the loop on EF lens prices & rebates with COVID, need help
Replies
5
Views
2K
Ruined
R
L
RF and EF extenders on the EF 600/4L IS II
Replies
63
Views
31K
justashooter
J
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu