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

[PureClassA]

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?

I hope that you are correct as I will probably purchase one as some point. However, this is the company that charges $12,000 for a lens with a similar range and is also releasing the 400 DO this year for nearly $7000. The 70-200 f2.8L, despite being a superb lens, exists in a range where there are a lot of superb lenses. The 100-400L has been a bit of a leak in Canon's Big White price dam. With all of the pent up demand for this lens Canon might see this as a excellent opportunity to plug that leak. But thats just my 2 cents. I could be way off.

The 400 DO and 200-400 with built in TC are for a whole different professional market. The 100-400 is made to serve the pro but also the enthusiast. Plus it is not a fixed aperture like the other two which require exponentially more glass and more expensive glass. Granted I agree they are high priced, the market they intend to serve will happily pay for them.

 

[rrcphoto]

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?

I hope that you are correct as I will probably purchase one as some point. However, this is the company that charges $12,000 for a lens with a similar range and is also releasing the 400 DO this year for nearly $7000. The 70-200 f2.8L, despite being a superb lens, exists in a range where there are a lot of superb lenses. The 100-400L has been a bit of a leak in Canon's Big White price dam. With all of the pent up demand for this lens Canon might see this as a excellent opportunity to plug that leak. But thats just my 2 cents. I could be way off.

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

 

[Lee Jay]

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.

 

[docsmith]

I'm not comparing the IQ. I'm saying that asking 1/4th the price for this lens that they ask for the F4/5.6 doesn't seem out of line by Canon's pricing strategy. Assuming the IQ, weight and AF are pretty good which I expect them to be. As you can tell by these threads there is a lot of demand for this lens. I certainly would not expect then to come in under the new Sigma S. If they asked me how much to charge that's what I'd tell them. Pick off the early adopters and then let the market dictate the price.

Of course, the fear would be that they cripple it in some way such as having rear elements such that it won't take a 1.4TC. That would differentiate it further from the 200-400 and likely I keep my order of the Sigma.

 

[PureClassA]

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.

And that may be precisely why/if Canon will keep it difficult as the first one (Ive heard) to mount a TC on it ....

 

[Khalai]

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

 

[MichaelHodges]

Looks beautiful.

 

[Plainsman]

...price correlates closely to optical quality for Canon - so lets hope it's not to cheap then!

For Canon its position in the lens hierarchy has been carefully calibrated from way back.

 

[Lee Jay]

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.

 

[FTBPhotography]

Assuming this real and no hoax it looks really interesting.

I love to see that friction ring again so you have full control on this and lens creep.

if you look closely it does have it.

 

[Viggo]

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.

You can't be serious? Comparing the 300 f4 and 2.8 ? The 2.8 is sharper by a wide margin all over when both lenses wide open. And comparing the 200 f2.8 against the 200 f2 I'm not even going to comment on.

But as I always say, if you can't tell the difference, then you're lucky and saved yourself a huge amount of money.
Nothing wrong with that.

 

[bluenoser1993]

This will make for tough choices. I bought 70-200 2.8 II primarily so I could have the 2.8, but also to use with 2x III on my 7D and still have AF. This is for shooting paddling from dry land. Not so satisfied with this - still not quite enough reach, but for other uses the 70-200 has made a lot of my favorite shots. Now upgrading to 7DII, i'm tempted to sell the 70-200 plus 2x and get the new 100-400 plus 1.4x if the sharpness is there. Maybe then add a 135 f2 later, as that falls in the range of where I've gotten my favorite non-sporting shots (+- 20mm to make up with feet).

The plus, will never have to explain to parents around me why I can't see the other end of the lake with something so big!

 

[2n10]

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.

A lot of that price difference has to do with the size of the optics. It costs much more than 2X the $ to make a lens that is 2x the diameter. You have a much greater volume of high quality lens glass and a much longer time of grinding it to tolerance.

 

[Loswr]

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.

A lot of that price difference has to do with the size of the optics. It costs much more than 2X the $ to make a lens that is 2x the diameter. You have a much greater volume of high quality lens glass and a much longer time of grinding it to tolerance.

Plus fluorite crystals that take over a year to grow.

 

[Lee Jay]

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.

A lot of that price difference has to do with the size of the optics. It costs much more than 2X the $ to make a lens that is 2x the diameter. You have a much greater volume of high quality lens glass and a much longer time of grinding it to tolerance.

The rule-of-thumb is cubic with diameter.

So, a 300/2.8 is just short of 3 times as expensive as a 300/4. But that's just for the front elements. The rear elements and the rest of the lens are close to the same.

So, I think the 300/2.8 should be about 1.5x-2x as expensive as a similarly high-quality 300/4 or 200/2.8 (about the same size). And that's just about what the old one was. When I was considering it, the 70-200/2.8L IS was $1,700 and the 300/2.8L IS was $3,600. Now, Canon is off in la-la-land.

 

[Khalai]

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.

A lot of that price difference has to do with the size of the optics. It costs much more than 2X the $ to make a lens that is 2x the diameter. You have a much greater volume of high quality lens glass and a much longer time of grinding it to tolerance.

Plus fluorite crystals that take over a year to grow.

Also, from the Canon production factory videos, they stated and it was also demonstrated, that e.g. 500/4L IS USM takes about 6 wks to complete (from raw glass to finished lenses, barrel, assembly and calibration...). Add this to slow fluorite elements production (and twice the light means twice the AREA, you need a hell bigger crystals for that) and the price now seems almost understandable

 

[20Dave]

Just speaking for me (hobbyist bird and insect photography), if this lens has a minimum focusing distance that is relatively close to the 300 f/4 (which I don't own), then it would be a terrific lens for both birding and insect photography. If the MFD is far like the 400 f/5.6 (which I do own), then there's one less reason for me to swap out the 400. But, if the image quality is on par with the 400 and the IS is as good as I expect, then it is still a tempting upgrade for me.

 

[nebugeater]

Wow looks awesome! I can't wait to get a copy. I'll have to wait though, gotta buy a 7D Mk II first. Now I just have to figure out which museum I'm going to donate my old 100-400mm too.

NEBUGEATER Museum would gladly accept it. Let me know if you need a shipping address.

 

[mycanonphotos]

Looks it might have a "manual" slide option or a twist...notice the band between the zoom and focus ring...might be a tension ring...?

 

[ahsanford]

Anyone find it odd that Canon chose the day of low ISO loving DXO releasing a (predictably) scathing review of the 7D2 sensor to leak the Unicorn to us?

I know these lenses take years to get ready for us, but from a PR perspective, Canon could not have picked a better day to throw us a bone.

#dayoftheunicorn

- A