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

[scyrene]

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.

Of course what seems good value is subjective, but you mustn't forget the superteles have better ruggedness and weather sealing, better IS, better AF speed and accuracy, and are sharper wide open than their little siblings. It's not just about the aperture.

 

[LSV]

Let us take a moment to give thanks to Tamron and Sigma for hastening the release of version II of the 100-400mm -- without their competition it may have taken another 16 years and much lighter wallets.

 

[PureClassA]

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!

I bought the 70-200 IS2 first then just recently finally picked up the 135 f2 for headshots. Very different lens even with overlapping focal ranges. 135 at f2 is very sharp with gorgeous bokeh. The 70-200 IS2 does a great job as well but not quite as well as the prime. As it should be. That said, after having bought the 135f2 I kinda regret a little bit not getting the 100-400 instead of the 70-200, but the extra stop is still more important to me than the extra reach. Now with the new version I'll be tempted to consider it anyway. Get the right lens for your needs! Don't worry as much about the versatility of one piece of glass. Concentrate on usability for your type of photography.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

Let's shake the old trusty magic eight ball:

How much will this cost?

geez...

What about a holiday discount to make a lot of photogs happy this Christmas, or Hanukkah?

 

[thedman]

Can this really be happening?!?!?!?!?! Better not be this again:

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

If history is any indicator, used prices have already dropped, I see used ones for $800. However, when potential buyers see the price of a new one, ( ~ $3,000 if the Nikon 80-400 is a example) then prices on used lenses rise after the new ones are out.

Eventually, prices of everything will drop, but I plan to wait before jumping. MFD is important to me, as is the use of a TC, if those expectations are not met, I might keep mine or go for a different brand.

 

[jarrodeu]

Plus fluorite crystals that take over a year to grow.

I believe that the current 100-400 has fluorite glass, do you anticipate the replacement to also have fluorite?
Jarrod

 

[Occams_Cat]

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.

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.

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.

 

[wsmith96]

Can't wait to see the price! This may become my second L lens I was holding off on a 400 f/5.6L to see if unicorns really existed. It appears they do.

 

[bluenoser1993]

Second look (who am I kidding), after several looks I noticed there are no focal length markings, which by reference to 70-200 and 70-300 layout should be visible wrapping over the top. Excitement fading :'(

 

[Harv]

Second look (who am I kidding), after several looks I noticed there are no focal length markings, which by reference to 70-200 and 70-300 layout should be visible wrapping over the top. Excitement fading :'(

It is probably racked all the way around to the short focal length setting and the last mark is top/center in that position and not visible from this particular viewing side.

 

[danski0224]

Availabilty, Q1, 2016

 

[nwardrip]

Second look (who am I kidding), after several looks I noticed there are no focal length markings, which by reference to 70-200 and 70-300 layout should be visible wrapping over the top. Excitement fading :'(

It is probably racked all the way around to the short focal length setting and the last mark is top/center in that position and not visible from this particular viewing side.

Agreed. If you look at the comparison picture from ahsanford on page 4 of this thread, the top view of the 70-300 shows that the numbers go down the side of the lens that we do not see in this leaked 100-400 image (when zoomed all the way out).

 

[Besisika]

I need a long lens for shooting shy lizards. And right now I am using a 400mm f/5.6 just for that purpose.

There is always something funny at CR. Among all other things on this planet, shy lizards actually the reason to buy a big white lens. Hmmm! That is dedication.
Where I grew up, they are not shy, they are fearful. They hide as fast as they can as soon as they spot a human.
Good luck with shy lizards, hope you post a link someday. I like insect macro.

 

[Loswr]

Plus fluorite crystals that take over a year to grow.

I believe that the current 100-400 has fluorite glass, do you anticipate the replacement to also have fluorite?
Jarrod

My X-ray vision failed to see through the image online. We'll see...the 70-300L does not, though.

 

[hoodlum]

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.

I suspect it will have a low minimum focus distance but that would also involve significant focus breathing so the actual focal length at short distances will be much less than 400mm at the long end. This seems to be the norm with most tele zooms these days as they try to make them more compact.

 

[Maximilian]

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.

FTBPhotography, thanks for pointing that out.
But I did already look closely. Otherwise I would have written "I'd love " (compare to bolt above)
If my grammar was wrong in first place, sorry, but as no native speaker I try to do my best in avoiding failures and misunderstandings.
In other words: "I am really happy to see this friction ring again".

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[Besisika]

Availabilty, Q1, 2016

I need it earlier than that so please predict something nicer! Who knows, maybe you are a real fortune teller.

 

[bluenoser1993]

Second look (who am I kidding), after several looks I noticed there are no focal length markings, which by reference to 70-200 and 70-300 layout should be visible wrapping over the top. Excitement fading :'(

It is probably racked all the way around to the short focal length setting and the last mark is top/center in that position and not visible from this particular viewing side.

Agreed. If you look at the comparison picture from ahsanford on page 4 of this thread, the top view of the 70-300 shows that the numbers go down the side of the lens that we do not see in this leaked 100-400 image (when zoomed all the way out).

Good to see some "the cup is half full" attitudes, I tend to go with "the cup is too big", but in this case I'm looking forward to some big glass.