EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS Replacement Coming in November [CR2]

[Lee Jay]

Soft at 600mm? I don't think so

I've seen plenty of full-sized shots at 600mm to know that it is soft at 600mm wide-open, even on full-frame.

I'm not a sharpness nut, except on telephoto lenses, where it's common to crop like crazy. When I can properly frame, I find my 17-40L and 24-105L to be quite excellent. But on telephoto, it's not uncommon for me to crop 2x into a shot that was shot with a 2xTC on a 1.6-crop camera. That's only 15% of the size of the image circle, enlarged to a full-frame. That requires critical resolving power.

Have a look. This is the Tamron against itself (400mm versus 600mm). There's a substantial difference.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

You continue to repeat this mantra "soft wide open at 600mm" as a deterrent against the Tamron, yet your own 70-200/2.8L IS II and 2x TC III is no different. Citing the same source

"Images are sharp wide open at 280mm (f/4).

The 1.4x reverses the 200mm pincushion distortion (resulting in very low distortion) and adds some CA and slight full frame corner softness. The 2x causes a noticeably softer image at 400mm."

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

No mention of aperture, although I suspect that "noticeably softer" applies only to wider apertures.

The fact is that this characteristic is shared by most long telephoto zooms. Let's move on, please.

My combo is slightly soft wide open at f/5.6 and sharp at f/6.3. The Tamron is soft wide open at f/6.3 and sharp at f/8. Do you see the difference?

Regardless, what I want is something SUBSTANTIALLY better than what I have, in both optics and focusing, in a similar size and weight. The Tamron isn't that. It's too long, and too soft/slow (f6.3/f8). If Canon makes a 100-400L replacement, it's likely to be far better optically even with a 1.4x TC attached, and also likely to focus faster and more reliably than the Tamron. Of course, that's several "if's" that we'll have to wait and see to evaluate (if it's real, if it's good optically, if it's fast-focusing).

For now, I'm keeping my current combo, which is equal to or better than the current 100-400L in several ways.

 

[JonAustin]

I've been patiently waiting for the 100-400 II for quite a while now. Not overly concerned about the price at launch (I would wait for a "deal" before buying, anyway), and only slightly bummed about the zoom ring / focus ring position rumor.

My use would be as a travel companion to the 24-105. I've considered getting a 2x III converter to mount to my 70-200/2.8 II; that would certainly be less expensive than a new lens, but a 100-400 II would likely be smaller and lighter than that combo. If / when the 100-400 II ever arrives, I will be eagerly looking for 100-400 II vs. 70-200 II + 2x III IQ comparisons.

 

[meywd]

The TDP test has the lens at different distances so that the chart completely fills the frame. That is a useless comparison for comparing the resolution of a lens for a subject at a fixed distance away - the target is 50% further away at 600 vs 400mm in the TDP tests. I have posted images of the iso chart taken at the same distance away using 400, 500 and 600 mm. The Tamron at 600mm clearly outresolves itself at 400mm.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19503.msg366741#msg366741

I took those with 100-400 @ f8 and f6.3 respectively, i guess it is very sharp, maybe not like the big whites but that a different thing.

these are almost 100% crops

For the fun of it, I did a collage of crops of your shots with the 100-400 and some of mine taken at random using the Tamron at 400 and 600mm and the 300/2.8 II + 2XTC. They are all 100% The comparison isn't really fair because yours are on a 600D and mine on a 5DIII. The big white wins hands down, of course. But all the photos are acceptable and enjoyable.

indeed and now i really want the 300 f2.8 , i know its not in the same category but at the same price i would like to get the 600mm f4.5 new FD

 

[dolina]

Derka derka derka rumor from since forever.

I dont know what's worse the 800mm IS II rumor or the 100-400mm IS II rumor.

 

[Loswr]

I dont know what's worse the 800mm IS II rumor or the 100-400mm IS II rumor.

Consider that 100-400 II rumors predate the launch of the current 800mm f/5.6L IS.

 

[RGF]

The new design resembles the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS with a thin focus ring at the base, and a wider zoom ring near the front element. The aperture range for the lens will remain at f/4.5-5.6. Another mentioned feature is in the lens hood for the lens. It sounds like there will be a retractable opening near where a filter would be, so you could turn your circular polarize easily if you needed to.</p>

70-300 is nice compact and sharp zoom. Not up to the 70-200 F2.8 II IS or 200-400 standards but reasonably sharp.

I have wished Canon would extend this lens by 30% on both ends but keep the weight and size down.

Perhaps it will happen - I can only hope.