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

[viggen61]

Sign. Me. Up.

Focal length markings: If the first photo we saw is right, then the ring between the zoom and focus rings may be a zoom lock in the manner of the current 100-400. Since that ring rotates against the focus ring, has no fixed position, so you could not put markings on that ring. My thought is the markings are on the top of the extending barrel, just like the current 100-400.

Push-pull vs. twist: Judging by the textures on the rubber rings, the new lens is definitely a twist zoom. The push/pull zooms have texture in the rubber that helps one push or pull, where the new lens has texture that helps in twisting.

The hood in the second photo definitely looks interesting. I bought a BGN hood cheap from KEH a while back, and someday, I was going to get around to cutting a slot in the bottom section so I could turn the CPL easily. I figure it being on the bottom, it wouldn't be that much of a problem for glare, and I could always cover it with tape...


Can't wait!

 

[Besisika]

A 1 m MFD and 0.31x mag is awesome!

I have no need for the 300mm f4 anymore if that is true (MFD 1.50m, mag. 0.24x).
Hmmm, sounds too good to be true, but who knows?
If true, I wouldn't be surprise if price is high.

 

[dolina]

It will sell for around $2,700.

 

[JonAustin]

Hmmm, sounds too good to be true, but who knows?
If true, I wouldn't be surprise if price is high.

I'm more concerned about the specs than the price ... the price will fluctuate (mostly drop) over time, but the specs are / will be locked in "forever."

If the price at launch is too high, wait until the "new & shiny" premium goes away ... or for a rebate ... or for a refurb ... or for it to hit the used market.

 

[ahsanford]

A 1 m MFD and 0.31x mag is awesome!

Concur. That's a nice upgrade (if true). Most lenses in these FL run around 0.2x.

- A

 

[NancyP]

I was not going to be interested in this, being very fond of my 400 f/5.6L, but I have to say, I am intrigued.

 

[bluenoser1993]

Focal length markings: If the first photo we saw is right, then the ring between the zoom and focus rings may be a zoom lock in the manner of the current 100-400. Since that ring rotates against the focus ring, has no fixed position, so you could not put markings on that ring. My thought is the markings are on the top of the extending barrel, just like the current 100-400.

Good point about the rotating locking ring, and the markings may well end up on the top in production models, but the angle of the second picture is such that it should be just slightly visible. Maybe down the other side of the barrel as that would work with the right hand operation of DSLRs?

 

[pknight]

I use the Tamron 150-600mm as a very decent lens for portability and the 300/2.8 + TCs more generally for best performance. A decent 600 will outperform a very good 400 for small subjects far away, but I would sacrifice the extra length of the Tamron for the much better portability of the 100-400 (and probably pair it with a 7D II) if it is better than the Mk 1. So. if it is good, I'll sell the Tammy and get the new 100-400. I wasn't one of the few lucky ones to have a sharp copy of the 100-400.

I just today sold my 100-400, after having the Tamron 150-600 for several months and comparing the two. I have no doubt that the new 100-400 will probably focus faster than the Tammy does, and it is likely to be sharper at pixel-peeping magnification. I, for one, am willing to sacrifice a bit of AF speed and wide-open sharpness I can only see at 100% (when I can see it at all) for having 600mm native focal length, especially when the new 100-400 will certainly cost more than twice as much as I paid for the Tamron. After having used the 100-400 for years, and the Tamron for months, I value the reach over the other considerations for what I do (many small subjects, far away).

I suspect that when the Sigma 150-600 Sport shows up, it could rival the new 100-400 in most, if not all, criteria. The question will be whether the extra weight of that lens is compensated for by the additional length and cost savings.

But, I am sure that the 100-400 II will indeed be a very good lens. If it butters your bread, I am happy for you.

 

[ahsanford]

I use the Tamron 150-600mm as a very decent lens for portability and the 300/2.8 + TCs more generally for best performance. A decent 600 will outperform a very good 400 for small subjects far away, but I would sacrifice the extra length of the Tamron for the much better portability of the 100-400 (and probably pair it with a 7D II) if it is better than the Mk 1. So. if it is good, I'll sell the Tammy and get the new 100-400. I wasn't one of the few lucky ones to have a sharp copy of the 100-400.

I just today sold my 100-400, after having the Tamron 150-600 for several months and comparing the two. I have no doubt that the new 100-400 will probably focus faster than the Tammy does, and it is likely to be sharper at pixel-peeping magnification. I, for one, am willing to sacrifice a bit of AF speed and wide-open sharpness I can only see at 100% (when I can see it at all) for having 600mm native focal length, especially when the new 100-400 will certainly cost more than twice as much as I paid for the Tamron. After having used the 100-400 for years, and the Tamron for months, I value the reach over the other considerations for what I do (many small subjects, far away).

I suspect that when the Sigma 150-600 Sport shows up, it could rival the new 100-400 in most, if not all, criteria. The question will be whether the extra weight of that lens is compensated for by the additional length and cost savings.

But, I am sure that the 100-400 II will indeed be a very good lens. If it butters your bread, I am happy for you.

Agree on what you said. I imagine that the preference of the 3rd party 150-600s vs. the 1st party 100-400 II will be similar to that of comparing the Canon 24-105 to the various Canon 24-70s: some folks will prioritize sharpness and others will prioritize reach. Get what makes you happy.

- A

 

[Lee Jay]

I'd be interested to see a comparison when these are out.

100-400L II at 400mm and f/5.6 upresed 50% compared to Tamron 150-600 at 600mm and f/6.3.
100-400L II + 1.4x TC III at 560mm and f/8 compared to Tamron 150-600 at 600mm and f/8.

My prediction as that both would be a near tie, except the Canon will have less CA and faster focusing on the first test.

 

[2n10]

A 1 m MFD and 0.31x mag is awesome!

That is what I thought when I saw those figures. WOW!

 

[mrsfotografie]

Focal length markings: If the first photo we saw is right, then the ring between the zoom and focus rings may be a zoom lock in the manner of the current 100-400. Since that ring rotates against the focus ring, has no fixed position, so you could not put markings on that ring. My thought is the markings are on the top of the extending barrel, just like the current 100-400.

Good point about the rotating locking ring, and the markings may well end up on the top in production models, but the angle of the second picture is such that it should be just slightly visible. Maybe down the other side of the barrel as that would work with the right hand operation of DSLRs?

I noticed that, too. Interesting that they retained the lock ring. That will allow us to keep shooting with it at a fixed focal length position like could be done with the MkI if we'd want to.

 

[Etienne]

Still waiting for the most important spec ...

... the $ spec

 

[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.

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...).

Yes, I was 'worried' for a minute that my use of the 70-300L as a travel tele-lens would be short lived, but alas it will stay in my collection.

Not that I truly believed the 100-400 could achieve the same level of compactness - the 70-300L is a bit of a squeeze in my Lowepro Fastpack 250.

Now I have to make up my mind if I want to go for the new 100-400 + 7DMKII or the 400DO II for my days at the racetrack. Quite possibly the latter (and retain the 100-400 MkI for its evil push-pull fast zoom capability). In that case I hope the 400DO II performs well with the 1.4TC II.

 

[dadgummit]

Still waiting for the most important spec ...

... the $ spec

I hope you are sitting down!! Just kidding, I am expecting a $3000 MSRP settling to a street price of about $25-2700 with discounts and rebates.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It's about time. Now is when I'd flip the version 1 to get the most $$$$ for it to prep for the version 2.

Actually now is when you hold onto the 1 so that when people see the $8000 price of the 2 and that the 1 is no longer being made they become willing to pay 50% more than current used prices (and more than the 1 sells for new now)! ;D

At least that is what happened when it came to the Mark II super-tele and a couple other recent lenses .

Then again the 16-35 f/4 IS came in not quite so crazy high as expected and that was the most recent release of all.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Judging by the released image, the unicorn exists and is beautiful. It also seems very solid and compact. It was a long wait.

hah, ironic though that you show a picture not having any unicorns in it! I guess what they say is true, only one unicorn can exist at any given time and now that the 100-400 II is here, all photos of unicorns got transformed into photos of pegasuseseseses (or is the proper plural term pegi? i guess strictly speaking there is only supposed to be one, Pegasus himself, so there actually should be no need for a plural).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Why did the first picture of this lens have to be out of focus?

because it was taken with the 100-400 II ;D ;D ;D

(or since it's actually in focus, but just a tiny pic that got scaled up and thus looks blurry, maybe it was taken from the next 1/2 MP 5D4, they had to be different from Nikon, so instead of bumping to 36MP, they decided to go for some old school nostalgia and make it 1/2 MP ;D)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

you're really not comparing this to the 200-400/4 are you?

Why not? It's only one stop of difference. The 100-400 has the 100-200 range while the 200-400 has the built-in TC. I'd bet the optics are similar and that it would be really hard to tell the difference between them at the same focal length.

I doubt that. The 200-400 delivers as well as Mark I Super-tele, not even the 70-300L or 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-200 2.8 II do that.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

you're really not comparing this to the 200-400/4 are you?

Why not? It's only one stop of difference. The 100-400 has the 100-200 range while the 200-400 has the built-in TC. I'd bet the optics are similar and that it would be really hard to tell the difference between them at the same focal length.

I'd say "it's a WHOLE stop of difference". Night and day in those focal lengths. Compare 300/2.8 and 300/4 or 200/2 and 200/2.8 - there is also "only" one stop difference, yet there is quite surprising PRICE difference

Yes, and that's one reason I find Canon superteles so hugely overpriced.

Compare a 70-200/4L IS and a 70-200/2.8L IS and you'll see a difference that I think is much more justified than the difference between a 300/4L IS and a 300/2.8L IS or a 100-400L IS and a 200-400/4L IS.

300 2.8 IS + 1.4x TC is at least as good as a bare 300 f/4