First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens

[Loswr]

As hypothesized above, it looks like it's capable of being operated as a twist zoom or a push pull.

Think not. Unlikely the design would require 'pushing/pulling' with the hood or the short region where the filter attaches if no hood was attached.

 

[ahsanford]

Next picture ... extended:
http://p.twpl.jp/show/orig/M4d18

Nice get!!! Where did you find that?

(relinking your post here)

This completely backs up the Digicame shot.

So we're looking at a CR3 for the lens *existing* and the picture being generally accurate, now we just need a date and a price.

Also: look at his left hand: Any chance that the entire filter ring might turn if the hood is turned? This would be possible if the hood was non-petal-shaped (and Canon designs a rotating ring). What a killer feature that would be -- I always have to choose between the CPL or the hood on my 70-200 and I hate that decision.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

Yep, could be. Most canon lenshoods for tele/zooms are non-petal shaped (exception 70-200ii) ... 100-400 (old) and 70-300 l are non-petal.
See pic some way down the page: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


If lens filter thread and hood both turn ... not sure, what/how canon is going to implement it without risking any (long-term) stability issues on the front of the lens ...

 

[Maximilian]

Next picture ... extended:
http://p.twpl.jp/show/orig/M4d18

AvTvM, thanks for finding and sharing this pic.

So we're looking at a CR3 for the lens *existing* and the picture being generally accurate, now we just need a date and a price.

Finally the unicorn steps out of the forest. ;D
So there seems to be 0% chance of a hoax.
Let's hope the price is not too far north :-\

 

[mrsfotografie]

I quickly did a superimpose of the 70-300L over the 100-400LII. Size comparison is based on the size of the sealing gasket on the lens mount.

Looks like it won't fit 'standing up' in most lens bags, so the 70-300L still holds its value as a travel lens for that purpose.

I've attached the psd too if you'd like to play around some more with the image.

 

[Occams_Cat]

Funny, I've got both the F2.8 and F4 version of the 300mm and I can't see any difference in sharpness wide open. The bokeh is subjectively softer on the 2.8 but more than often I choose to carry the f4 version as it's images are so sharp and with the 5D3 and 1DX being so good in the higher ISO's, I'm happy to take the 1 stop hit.

Perhaps there's an issue with your copy of the 300/2.8L? Both the MkI and MkII are noticeably sharper than the 300/4L IS.

This new 100-400 has a lot to live up to. I have never encountered 1 copy of this lens over the last 10 years worth owning, they have all been soft at anything near the long end. Such a compromised lens. Hopefully, Canon can do something magical with this version.

My copy of the 100-400L was sharp at 400mm. Not quite as sharp as my 300/4L IS bare, but sharper than the 300/4L IS + 1.4x TC.

I think that I have (had - i dropped it, and just had fixation do a £500 repair!I'm yet to use it) a superb copy of the 300 f4. I agree with you over the 1.4TC use on the f4, but after many years of using a 1.4TC mk2 I decided to sell it since I found that I didn't like to use it on any of my L lenses as it degraded the image too much for me. I'd crop in a bit in post and still be able to easily produce 45MB+ TIFF files that the editor requests. Now I have a new 2.8 version i'll try one again. Sounds like you're the one who had the sharp copy of the 'classic' 100-400!

Looking forward to seeing what improvements Canon have made with this MK2 version, there may still be a place in my travel Billy if it's 100% weather sealed & sharp at the long end.

 

[AvTvM]

I quickly did a superimpose of the 70-300L over the 100-400LII. Size comparison is based on the size of the sealing gasket on the lens mount.

Looks like it won't fit 'standing up' in most lens bags, so the 70-300L still holds its value as a travel lens for that purpose.

I've attached the psd too if you'd like to play around some more with the image.

hmmm ... this way it definitely looks like an 82mm filter thread.

re. "length" ... my bag (thinktank retrospective 20) is limited to Camera body with attached 70-200 II. So 100-400 II might still fit.

 

[mb66energy]

[...]

7Dii + EF 100-400 L IS USM mark ii

[...]

IMHO, unless you mostly use a tripod, just upgrading to a modern IS lens will massively widen your shooting opportunities. I was sceptical until I did.

In forests I will need a tripod just with an IS equipped lens - 0.5 sec. exposure time @ f/11 and ISO 200 is a typical exp. parameter combination.

But there are other situations where I would like to have a 400mm lens WITH IS. So the new lens might a candidate - your experience confirms my liking of the new lens ...

Best - Michael

(1) Fascinating. What are you shooting?
(2) The super telephoto lenses detect tripods and only use IS to correct mirrorslap - but I find the combination still useful for some subjects, especially the moon and planets.
(3) Why do you stay at ISO 200?

Ad (1): I like scenes in deep forests where you have the play of light and shadows. The shadows are DEEP so I need these long exp. times to get the DOF with a telephoto lens.

Ad (2): That's what I meant with "replacing 70-200 4.0 and 400 5.6": Just having one compact lens which substitutes two lenses I usually carry with me is a great option - if the new 100-400 delivers the quality I like!
It will help me too in situations where I have the tripod NOT with me.

Ad (3): I now shoot with APS-C exclusively - a matter of cost/availability of lenses etc. ISO 200 or a maximum of ISO 800 delivers the quality I want with the equipment I have: 40D / 600D / EOS M .
For bird in Flight ISO 800 - 1600 are fine because freezing the motion adds more detail compared to the detail loss by increased noise/NR - but: The EOS 40D AF is good but 1Dx or 7Dii might be a little bit better - so I haven't tried this field of photography a lot ...

Michael

 

[Plainsman]

I quickly did a superimpose of the 70-300L over the 100-400LII. Size comparison is based on the size of the sealing gasket on the lens mount.

Looks like it won't fit 'standing up' in most lens bags, so the 70-300L still holds its value as a travel lens for that purpose.

I've attached the psd too if you'd like to play around some more with the image.

..unlike the 70-300 no focal length markings on the "new" 100-400 photo...rather odd.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I quickly did a superimpose of the 70-300L over the 100-400LII. Size comparison is based on the size of the sealing gasket on the lens mount.

Looks like it won't fit 'standing up' in most lens bags, so the 70-300L still holds its value as a travel lens for that purpose.

I've attached the psd too if you'd like to play around some more with the image.

..unlike the 70-300 no focal length markings on the "new" 100-400 photo...rather odd.

That's not so strange. The 70-300 is top view, the 100-400 is side view.

 

[AUGS]

So it is true!
Interesting to see the "EOS 7D Mark II" text in the top right corner of the new (second) image.

 

[timcz]

Im suspecting a pretty substantial price increase from version 1 as well....

 

[docsmith]

I quickly did a superimpose of the 70-300L over the 100-400LII. Size comparison is based on the size of the sealing gasket on the lens mount.

Looks like it won't fit 'standing up' in most lens bags, so the 70-300L still holds its value as a travel lens for that purpose.

I've attached the psd too if you'd like to play around some more with the image.

The current 100-400L is only 1.8" longer and 0.1" wider than the 70-300 L. This comparison makes me think the II is about the same size. Maybe a bit wider.

And I agree, I think the new photo showing it extended takes away the idea it is push pull. Remove the lens hood and that looks very similar to the current 70-300L.

 

[Loswr]

Also: look at his left hand: Any chance that the entire filter ring might turn if the hood is turned? This would be possible if the hood was non-petal-shaped (and Canon designs a rotating ring). What a killer feature that would be -- I always have to choose between the CPL or the hood on my 70-200 and I hate that decision.

I think it would be a rather bad idea, unless it was designed so the filter ring would rotate only with the hood mounted. Else, attaching and removing filters would be a real PITA if the lens threads rotated freely. Such a design would also preclude use of a variable ND filter with the hood mounted (personally, I was able to reach inside the current 100-400 and turn a CPL with a fingertip).

The 'sliding window' idea seems better from both a practical and an engineering standpoint.

 

[Loswr]

I quickly did a superimpose of the 70-300L over the 100-400LII. Size comparison is based on the size of the sealing gasket on the lens mount.

Looks like it won't fit 'standing up' in most lens bags, so the 70-300L still holds its value as a travel lens for that purpose.

I've attached the psd too if you'd like to play around some more with the image.

The current 100-400L is only 1.8" longer and 0.1" wider than the 70-300 L. This comparison makes me think the II is about the same size. Maybe a bit wider.

And I agree, I think the new photo showing it extended takes away the idea it is push pull. Remove the lens hood and that looks very similar to the current 70-300L.

The 70-200/4L IS is ~1" longer than the 70-300L, but that 1" precludes it fitting vertically in my lens bags (preferable as horizontal takes two 'slots'), while the 70-300L does fit vertically. I suspect the new 100-400 won't be more than an inch shorter than the current one, probably closer to 0.5" shorter. I'd worry that if they designed it much shorter, close to 70-300L size, that design would have the rear element too close to the mount at the short end of the zoom range to allow Canon TC compatibility. I hope they wouldn't make the 100-400 II not take TCs, particularly with f/8 AF now in the 7DII (but I wouldn't rule out the possibility, Canon being Canon and all...).

 

[hoodlum]

Now we have the specs. The only thing missing is weight and dimensions.

http://digicame-info.com/2014/11/ef100-400mm-f45-56l-is-ii-usm-1.html

- One fluorite lens, the one Super UD glass to use
- For the first time adopted a new development of the Air Sphere coating (ASC)
- IS unit effect of a shutter speed four stages
- Equipped with the IS mode 3 for sport shooting
- A minimum focusing distance of 0.98m
- Maximum magnification of 0.31 times
- The diaphragm blades nine circular aperture
- AF motor the ring-type USM
- Rotate zoom
- Zoom touch adjustment ring
- Detachable tripod mount
- Dust and water structure
- Fluorine coating

 

[Maximilian]

Now we have the specs. The only thing missing is weight and dimensions.

http://digicame-info.com/2014/11/ef100-400mm-f45-56l-is-ii-usm-1.html

- One fluorite lens, the one Super UD glass to use
- For the first time adopted a new development of the Air Sphere coating (ASC)
- IS unit effect of a shutter speed four stages
- Equipped with the IS mode 3 for sport shooting
- A minimum focusing distance of 0.98m
- Maximum magnification of 0.31 times
- The diaphragm blades nine circular aperture
- AF motor the ring-type USM
- Rotate zoom
- Zoom touch adjustment ring
- Detachable tripod mount
- Dust and water structure
- Fluorine coating

Thanks for sharing and translating. Sounds impressive and therefore expensive
MFD of 0.98m would be 0.82m better than V1 and fitting to max.mag. of 0.31 (to 0.20).
That would be very impressive.

 

[Meatcurry]

Wow! Looking forward to the reviews and possibly one day owning one as I'm selling my mark 1 soon, anybody care to speculate on why we can't see the focal length indication marks in either picture? I wonder if the marks are on the locking ring and only line up when unlocked? Also intrigued by the possible filter/hood rotating solution.



EOS 70D, EF 100-400,EFS 15-85,EFS 10-22,EF 50(f1.8)

 

[Loswr]

A 1 m MFD and 0.31x mag is awesome!

 

[bcflood]

I will be glad when this White Whale finally gets released so that Canon can work on some lenses I might actually be able to afford ;D