First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
1) If this is around $2400 or less, they'll do fine.
2) With all this talk about Unicorns, I really have to warn you: Do NOT lick the Rainbow Unicorns. Yes, they SMELL like Doritos, but if you actually taste one, you get that bakers chocolate/vanilla extract yuck taste.
2) With all this talk about Unicorns, I really have to warn you: Do NOT lick the Rainbow Unicorns. Yes, they SMELL like Doritos, but if you actually taste one, you get that bakers chocolate/vanilla extract yuck taste.
Upvote
0
JonAustin said:
Here's why I don't like them.
When I reach inside a hood to remove the lens cap, and the cap is already in my pocket (this happens sometimes), if I'm reaching for a center pinch cap, I smear my greasy fingers on the front element of the lens. When I'm reaching for the edge of a standard cap, I just touch the metal edge of the lens and don't goober up the front element. I also find the regular ones easier to remove with just one finger and easier to remove with gloves on. The new ones, while you can remove them from the edge, they are stiffer and harder to remove without squeezing the center.
Upvote
0
If this is correct, I really have to hand it to Canon. They find niches to differentiate their products. Size and (assuming) weight. Using lenstip numbers, I bet the optics (center frame) are ~38-42 lpmm. Very good, maybe a bit better than the 70-300L. But not so good that they compete with the Big Whites (e.g. 300 mm f/2.8 II ~46 lpmm). Maybe not as good as the Sigma 150-600S @ 600 (assuming fall off with TC).
But the market for this lens....size and weight. I have the Sigma 150-600S pre-ordered since day 1 (still waiting), but I have to say, Canon may get me to cancel. Even if this is slightly worse than the Sigma 150-600S @~560-600 mm, the portability of this lens will likely tip the scales for me.
Simply great product differentiation. This lens could actually create a niche. Smallish, lightweightish telephoto zoom.
Show me the price, and MTF charts (w and w/o 1.4 TC).
But the market for this lens....size and weight. I have the Sigma 150-600S pre-ordered since day 1 (still waiting), but I have to say, Canon may get me to cancel. Even if this is slightly worse than the Sigma 150-600S @~560-600 mm, the portability of this lens will likely tip the scales for me.
Simply great product differentiation. This lens could actually create a niche. Smallish, lightweightish telephoto zoom.
Show me the price, and MTF charts (w and w/o 1.4 TC).
Upvote
0
If this lens is really smaller and lighter than the version 1, then I wouldn't mind spending a little extra for 100-400 over a used 70-200 f/2.8 IS + 1.4x TC. I need a long lens for shooting shy lizards. And right now I am using a 400mm f/5.6 just for that purpose.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Sweet! Looks like the length might be similar to the 70-200/4.
zim said:I think performance is a gimme, the price is what will dictate when I'd upgrade from the 70-300L (unless I can convince myself that both lenses can live together)
I bought the 70-300L mainly for it's compact size for travel (chose it over the 70-200/4 IS for the shorter length, more a concern to me than weight). I could see having both the 70-300L and 100-400L II in a kit. Perhaps not mine (I already sold my 100-400, wasn't really using it after getting the 600 II).
If this new 100-400 takes TCs and only a minimal IQ hit from the 1.4x (similar to the 70-200 II), I'd consider getting it as a more portable birding lens (size precludes the 150-600 3rd party zooms for me, that big I'll just take the 600 II).
I, too, have the 70-300 and plan to get the 100-400 II (assuming its IQ is as good as the rumors claim).
The challenge for me will be 70-200 F2.8 II and 200-400 or the 100-400 II and 600 II. the 70-200/200-400 will be lighter and sharper but the 100-400/600 will have longer reach and sharper at the long end.
Nice to have options ;D ;D
Upvote
0
Shy lizards? Yes, the 400 f/5.6 and the 180 f/3.5 macro with 1.4x TC are my go-to lenses for shy herps of all types, including poisonous snakes. But, I daresay the 300 f/4 IS, an old but excellent lens, may be a good and cheaper near-macro alternative for herps and large insects (butterflies and dragonflies). I have seen some great photos from the 300 f4. I also shoot birds, hence the choice of the 400.
Upvote
0
All due respect to some folks, but I think some of these price guesses are going way too high. This lens is not going to priced north of the 70-200 IS Mk II, which is now $2299. Remember a few months ago tons of people were speculating on a $2500 7D2. and out came $1799. This lens will be $1999ish or the same price as the 70-200 IS2 is now. $2500 or $3k for this would be corporate suicide. Show of hands, how many people would buy this at either of those prices over a 70-200 IS2 plus a 2.0 EX III? That's a far more versatile combination for the price even considering the larger size. Thoughts?
Upvote
0
Had to do it. See attached. Picture credits for the non-unicorns go to TDP:
Note that TDP's shots have a slightly isometric perspective to them that make an apples to apples comparison difficult. Note that I scaled the lower-res Digicame shot of the Unicorn off of the lens cap, which is not terrible accurate at the resolution we're working with.
So if the shot is real and I didn't pooch the scaling too badly, this will clearly be a larger front element. Veeeery crudely, the Unicorn looks to be about 15% bigger than the 70-200 F/4L IS, which puts that front element in the 78-80 neighborhood. Obviously, minor differences in the thickness of the outer ring could mean that this is a 77 or an 82, so there's no way to nail that down at this point.
- A
Note that TDP's shots have a slightly isometric perspective to them that make an apples to apples comparison difficult. Note that I scaled the lower-res Digicame shot of the Unicorn off of the lens cap, which is not terrible accurate at the resolution we're working with.
So if the shot is real and I didn't pooch the scaling too badly, this will clearly be a larger front element. Veeeery crudely, the Unicorn looks to be about 15% bigger than the 70-200 F/4L IS, which puts that front element in the 78-80 neighborhood. Obviously, minor differences in the thickness of the outer ring could mean that this is a 77 or an 82, so there's no way to nail that down at this point.
- A
Attachments
Upvote
0
PureClassA said:
My though is that it'll come out high to get some extra cash from early adopters that are willing to pay more, and quickly fall below $2k during the first year.
Of course, I have absolutely no real information, just speculation.
Upvote
0
PureClassA said:
That is actually my guess as well. I can see $1,800-$2,200 if the lens is as I expect. If they do something unexpectedly good with the optics, I could see $3,000-$3,500. The other thing that could drive up the price is the weight. If it is surprisingly light, that could drive up the price as well. But this is likely meant as a high end consumer lens. My guess is optics and price will match.
Upvote
0
PureClassA said:
Probably all the wildlife photographers who want to throw a 2.0 EX on the 100-400. Which is the real question -- does the new 100-400 have better optical quality and can it handle extenders better than the old one (which goes super soft even with a 1.4 extender).
Of course, if the new 100-400 has excellent optical quality and works well with extenders, then what of the new 400 DO prime? (A $5K differential is a lot to pay for 1 F-stop.) And if it doesn't have notably better optical quality, then how does it compete with the 100-600 zooms?
Upvote
0
I just look at the 100-400 now that is ages old and $1600. While of course there will be a new premium on the new version....I'm not seeing Canon go up 40% - 100%. Original 7D $1500. New 7D2 $1800. 20% premium. So I'm guessing $1999-$2200 (high side being where the 70-200 is now) I think making these same priced where one gets you constant aperture while the other gets you longer focal range is a good trade.
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
I can adjust the amount of friction on my Manfrotto tripod head to give more or less resistance to pan and tilt depending if i need to make large or fine adjustments. Why not have the same thing the zoom?? Makes perfect sense to me. Then twist it all the way to lock if you like.
Upvote
0
PureClassA said:
not really. the 100-400L originally came out at 260,000 Yen. canon's been pretty consistent about keeping that around the same on the version II's. speculating that it will be around the 300K yen value for the update isn't outlandish. which would make it easily around the 2700 to 2500 USD value.
I'm also not sure why you think it's suicide and outlandish when the Nikkor 80-400 is 2700.
and btw, the 70-200 2.8L IS II came out at 2499. what it's selling for now is meaningless.
Upvote
0
