EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]

[mrsfotografie]

When zooming in, you are literally pulling your camera away from you and when zooming out you are pushing your camera into your face. Plus, I had to change the way I hold my camera. I usually zoom using a finger on my left hand while cradling the lens in my palm...this wasn't possible with the 100-400. I shoot in manual mode and I'm constantly changing aperture and shutter speed along with continually moving my focus point around the viewfinder. This technique is second nature to me, but the push/pull zoom was very distracting and I know I missed shots that I wouldn't have missed. I just wasn't as fast with that lens.

In the end, I wasn't willing to change the way I shoot to accommodate one lens. I hope version II of the 100-400 will have the traditional zoom. I would buy it in a heartbeat.

You are aware that there is a tension/friction ring on the barrel that lets you adjust the amount of friction needed to move the zoom position, right? If I need to zoom fast I back it off a little so the zoom action is fast and easy

For MF I like the fact that your hand stays in the same position on the barrel (next to the focus ring!). Also, as the lens gets longer your left hand automatically stays on the long end of the barrel which helps to stabilise the lens.

Just another opinion. I love the 100-400 push/pull

 

[motorhead]

Just another opinion. I love the 100-400 push/pull
[/quote]

Me too.

 

[xps]

Just another opinion. I love the 100-400 push/pull

Me too.
[/quote]

+1. But mine stucks between 300-400mm and needs some force to change the focal length. Tried to repair it, but the 300€ did not change it sufficiently.
So, if the new lens will be under 200€ I will switch.
Most of my bird pics are taken by this lens, I own for 12 years now.

 

[Plainsman]

Personally I would be happy to retain the push/pull design.
It would keep costs down for a Mk II.
All I want is IS2 and a super ED lens element to improve the optics.
It will never happen like this of course...reinvent the wheel etc
So there will be a brand new design at $3k instead of $2k for a new push/pull.
Serious competition for it from the new Nikon which from early reports is a very good zoom particularly when allied to the high res 24Mp DXs.

 

[Albi86]

Personally I would be happy to retain the push/pull design.
It would keep costs down for a Mk II.
All I want is IS2 and a super ED lens element to improve the optics.
It will never happen like this of course...reinvent the wheel etc
So there will be a brand new design at $3k instead of $2k for a new push/pull.
Serious competition for it from the new Nikon which from early reports is a very good zoom particularly when allied to the high res 24Mp DXs.

The Sony 70-400G seems to be a great lens too.

However, if recent history is of any value, I think that Canon will do an incremental upgrade - i.e. solving the problems of the current version more than reinventing it. There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.

So sharpness-wise I don't think the new model is going to be a lot better. I think they will keep the best selling points being new IS and smoother bokeh. Maybe weather sealing? The push-pull design is a specific feature of this lens and they might well want to keep it.

 

[Bob Howland]

mine stucks between 300-400mm and needs some force to change the focal length. Tried to repair it, but the 300€ did not change it sufficiently.

My lens sticks too, at the other end, and Canon USA hasn't been able to fix it. After not using the lens for a week, initially zooming the lens from minimum can take considerable force.

 

[neuroanatomist]

However, if recent history is of any value, I think that Canon will do an incremental upgrade - i.e. solving the problems of the current version more than reinventing it. There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.

So sharpness-wise I don't think the new model is going to be a lot better. I think they will keep the best selling points being new IS and smoother bokeh. Maybe weather sealing? The push-pull design is a specific feature of this lens and they might well want to keep it.

Hey, thanks for my morning laugh – it was a good one!! How could a brand-new lens with the latest image stabilization system and the same focal length and max aperture NOT cannibalize sales of a 20 year old lens?? The only possible answer is by the 20-year-old lens being substantially cheaper, and no matter what, the old prime is going to be substantially cheaper. Besides, there are four 70-200 zooms and a 70-300 zoom in the L-series, along with the 100-400, and you think Canon is worried about cannibalization? For most people, a telezoom is the second Glenn's purchased after a standard zoom - Canon is very wisely offering a great selection for that choice.

As for sharpness, don't worry, the new lens will be significantly sharper than the one it replaces. Think 70-200/2.8 IS differential. I suspect the only people who believe there won't be a substantial boost in sharpness are Nikon fanboys (in or out the closet) who want Nikon to finally have an xx-400mm zoom with IQ that rivals Canon, which they do...and will continue to for however long it takes Canon to get the new 100-400 to market.

 

[Albi86]

However, if recent history is of any value, I think that Canon will do an incremental upgrade - i.e. solving the problems of the current version more than reinventing it. There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.

So sharpness-wise I don't think the new model is going to be a lot better. I think they will keep the best selling points being new IS and smoother bokeh. Maybe weather sealing? The push-pull design is a specific feature of this lens and they might well want to keep it.

Hey, thanks for my morning laugh – it was a good one!! How could a brand-new lens with the latest image stabilization system and the same focal length and max aperture NOT cannibalize sales of a 20 year old lens?? The only possible answer is by the 20-year-old lens being substantially cheaper, and no matter what, the old prime is going to be substantially cheaper. Besides, there are four 70-200 zooms and a 70-300 zoom in the L-series, along with the 100-400, and you think Canon is worried about cannibalization? For most people, a telezoom is the second Glenn's purchased after a standard zoom - Canon is very wisely offering a great selection for that choice.

As for sharpness, don't worry, the new lens will be significantly sharper than the one it replaces. Think 70-200/2.8 IS differential. I suspect the only people who believe there won't be a substantial boost in sharpness are Nikon fanboys (in or out the closet) who want Nikon to finally have an xx-400mm zoom with IQ that rivals Canon, which they do...and will continue to for however long it takes Canon to get the new 100-400 to market.

Great, I'm glad that I made your day. However...

• I don't see cannibalization between the 70-200 as they are differentiated in price, aperture, and IS. They go by the simple principle that you pay more for wider aperture and IS and they serve different segments of the market.
  
• The 70-300L and non-L are differentiated very well in price and performance.
  
  
• The 70-300L and 100-400L are differentiated by those 100mm of focal length and portability.
  
  
• The 400/5.6 has been for many a 1:1 alternative to the zoom. Similar price, similar application, better IQ at the price of less flexibility. If the new 100-400 puts it to shame, the price will reflect it and so again no cannibalization. If they can make a much better zoom, they can make an even better prime. Eventually Canon will release a new 400/5.6 and the situation will be even again.

In my previous post I clearly stated that the price of the new Nikon 80-400G is ridiculous, but Nikon can get away with that because the previous version was crappy and the upgrade is substantial. The current 100-400L is quite good and making it astonishingly better will be more difficult. If they do, the price will be such that many will wonder if the previous version was a better deal. So I don't know of what imaginary fanboyism you're talking about.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

However, if recent history is of any value, I think that Canon will do an incremental upgrade - i.e. solving the problems of the current version more than reinventing it. There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.

So sharpness-wise I don't think the new model is going to be a lot better. I think they will keep the best selling points being new IS and smoother bokeh. Maybe weather sealing? The push-pull design is a specific feature of this lens and they might well want to keep it.

Hey, thanks for my morning laugh – it was a good one!! How could a brand-new lens with the latest image stabilization system and the same focal length and max aperture NOT cannibalize sales of a 20 year old lens?? The only possible answer is by the 20-year-old lens being substantially cheaper, and no matter what, the old prime is going to be substantially cheaper. Besides, there are four 70-200 zooms and a 70-300 zoom in the L-series, along with the 100-400, and you think Canon is worried about cannibalization? For most people, a telezoom is the second Glenn's purchased after a standard zoom - Canon is very wisely offering a great selection for that choice.

As for sharpness, don't worry, the new lens will be significantly sharper than the one it replaces. Think 70-200/2.8 IS differential. I suspect the only people who believe there won't be a substantial boost in sharpness are Nikon fanboys (in or out the closet) who want Nikon to finally have an xx-400mm zoom with IQ that rivals Canon, which they do...and will continue to for however long it takes Canon to get the new 100-400 to market.

Great, I'm glad that I made your day. However...

• I don't see cannibalization between the 70-200 as they are differentiated in price, aperture, and IS. They go by the simple principle that you pay more for wider aperture and IS and they serve different segments of the market.
  
• The 70-300L and non-L are differentiated very well in price and performance.
  
  
• The 70-300L and 100-400L are differentiated by those 100mm of focal length and portability.
  
  
• The 400/5.6 has been for many a 1:1 alternative to the zoom. Similar price, similar application, better IQ at the price of less flexibility. If the new 100-400 puts it to shame, the price will reflect it and so again no cannibalization. If they can make a much better zoom, they can make an even better prime. Eventually Canon will release a new 400/5.6 and the situation will be even again.

In my previous post I clearly stated that the price of the new Nikon 80-400G is ridiculous, but Nikon can get away with that because the previous version was crappy and the upgrade is substantial. The current 100-400L is quite good and making it astonishingly better will be more difficult. If they do, the price will be such that many will wonder if the previous version was a better deal. So I don't know of what imaginary fanboyism you're talking about.

You're missing the point. On the other hand I don't think you want to get it.

 

[Albi86]

I actually think that we are all agreeing that if the new version is much better, its price will be much higher than the current offering.

To make an analogy, for Nikon users their 300/4 is the best choice for IQ at a reasonable price. The new 80-400G is better in many ways, but the price is exhorbitant. Canon users are even better served by the current 100-400 and 400/5.6 prime. So I wonder if a new killer 100-400 at a killer price is going to be such a good deal for Canon users.

Somehow this simple observation has activated the Canon Patrol.

 

[candyman]

Somehow this simple observation has activated the Canon Patrol.

Yes, you know what it is with rumors. And where there are canon rumors, there is Canon Patrol. 8)

 

[RGF]

It would nice if Canon would give a review site both the 100-400 II and 200-400 to compare.

Then i (we) could make intelligent choices about the $ vs IQ or more likely $ vs desire to owner the latest and greatest toy

 

[brett b]

When zooming in, you are literally pulling your camera away from you and when zooming out you are pushing your camera into your face. Plus, I had to change the way I hold my camera. I usually zoom using a finger on my left hand while cradling the lens in my palm...this wasn't possible with the 100-400. I shoot in manual mode and I'm constantly changing aperture and shutter speed along with continually moving my focus point around the viewfinder. This technique is second nature to me, but the push/pull zoom was very distracting and I know I missed shots that I wouldn't have missed. I just wasn't as fast with that lens.

In the end, I wasn't willing to change the way I shoot to accommodate one lens. I hope version II of the 100-400 will have the traditional zoom. I would buy it in a heartbeat.

You are aware that there is a tension/friction ring on the barrel that lets you adjust the amount of friction needed to move the zoom position, right? If I need to zoom fast I back it off a little so the zoom action is fast and easy

For MF I like the fact that your hand stays in the same position on the barrel (next to the focus ring!). Also, as the lens gets longer your left hand automatically stays on the long end of the barrel which helps to stabilise the lens.

Just another opinion. I love the 100-400 push/pull

Yes...but I couldn't find a comfort zone and, in the end, decided I wasn't willing to try. I suppose I could've gotten used to it with time, but I had to think too much instead of shooting instinctually.

 

[MichaelHodges]

There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.

Why would it matter if they still buy a Canon lens in the end?


------------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/