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

[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.

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.

And that is even more true for fluorite elements.

 

[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.

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.

Yeah the Mark II 300 2.8 price is a bit nasty. It used to be that you went with Canon if you were not the super rich or full-time paid pro requiring that lens since the $3600-3800 made it vicious but manageable for some while the Nikons at like $5500-6300 were just out of reach of even most of the few. Now Canon is even above that price range so the upper end avg shooter is really in a spot now when it comes to super-tele. Canon no longer has an entry point.

That said, the Mark II, if I recall correctly, uses TWO giant fluorite elements and both are right up near the front.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

It says that it has one fluorite plus one Super UD (equal in quality to about 0.85 of a fluorite perhaps, probably more than that factor less expensive to produce though).

 

[gpolly]

If it is more than 2K I will go 70-200Mk2 with 1.4 or 2x extenders. If it is around 3k...I would just buy a 300. 2.8 and use a 1.4 if needed.

I rented a new 300 2.8 from lens rental for my HI trip this past spring....did not want to return it. amazing lens...sharp as a tack. much more versatile than I thought it would be.

I just do not expect this lens to be in the sharpness range of the 70-200 2.8 or 300 2.8 to be asking a premium price for it. I might be surprised.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

I guess the leak has been updated since you guys posted, but it states one fluorite and one Super UD element.

FOr ref, the 100-400 and 100-300L both had one fluorite.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

Just like the old days, the 100-300L and 100-400L were similar and now we get the similar 70-300L and 100-400 II designs.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

A 1 m MFD and 0.31x mag is awesome!

That is pretty cool.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

my prediction is that the first comparison would put the tamron far ahead for total detail, 200mm is an insane amount to make up for, the tamron would have to pale even compared to a coke bottle for that to be true

now in the second case maybe it would be about a tie???? who knows or even better?

 

[PureClassA]

Still thinkin some folks are way over shooting on price here. And someone else just added evidence regarding the suspicions pre-release of the 16-35 f4. $1200 steal in my opinion. 7D2, same thing. Everyone was thinkin $2500, and it came at $1799. I'm still saying this will be closer to $2k. Seems most everyone here feels the Sig or Tammy 150-600 is a much better value than a $3k 100-400. The current model is being gobbled up at $1699, I just don't think they would so radically abandon an already well-established price range. If this comes out at $3k, I'll buy the SIg Sport instead, and I think a not-so-insignificant amount of others will follow suit. Canon didn't price the 7D2 out of the target market. They won't do that to this lens either. But I will be happy admit I'm wrong if it turns out I am ;D

 

[JonAustin]

If it is more than 2K I will go 70-200Mk2 with 1.4 or 2x extenders...

I just do not expect this lens to be in the sharpness range of the 70-200 2.8 or 300 2.8 to be asking a premium price for it. I might be surprised.

I consider myself squarely in the market for this lens. I've never been a big fan of extenders (I've only owned a 1.4x TC II, which I sold this summer), and I expect the 100-400 II to be smaller and lighter than the 70-200 II + 2x TC III, so it'll be interesting to see how these compare performance-wise, since I already have a 70-200 II.

 

[Omni Images]

New specs are out.
I really want this lens now ... if only for the min focus distance .. 0.98m wow !
Min focus has been the main reason for not buying the 400F5.6L prime @3.5m ... and leaning towards the 300F4 @ 1.5m.
I've been making do with the 70-200F2.8is for ages with mfd of 1.4m ... but 0.98m .. sweet !
I'm sure the price will be fine ... I'm over trying to 400 using a 2x .. just not up to scratch image quality wise and slow auto focus.
Now just need to see some image reviews before I finally commit, but I'm sure it'll be better than version 1 .. so I'm sure it'll be a winner.

 

[Maximilian]

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

I was very tempted to answer to the OP "because it was below MFD of the 100-400 II".
But that would have made me looking very stupid if this MFD of 1 m would come true

 

[daniela]

Still thinkin some folks are way over shooting on price here. And someone else just added evidence regarding the suspicions pre-release of the 16-35 f4. $1200 steal in my opinion. 7D2, same thing. Everyone was thinkin $2500, and it came at $1799. I'm still saying this will be closer to $2k. Seems most everyone here feels the Sig or Tammy 150-600 is a much better value than a $3k 100-400. The current model is being gobbled up at $1699, I just don't think they would so radically abandon an already well-established price range. If this comes out at $3k, I'll buy the SIg Sport instead, and I think a not-so-insignificant amount of others will follow suit. Canon didn't price the 7D2 out of the target market. They won't do that to this lens either. But I will be happy admit I'm wrong if it turns out I am ;D

Hello PureClassA!

You are right, many of us were expecting the 7D2 at about 2500€/$. This was a big surprise (a positive one for me). My contacts from Japan are irritated, why they all were wrong. The inner circle of the rumor board (they call themself as insiders (maybe they are working for Canon)), were a little bit shocked. There were many scenarios discussed. One of this is, that they were all foolished by an "insider" who made an joke. Another scenario was, that an "Canon-Foe" positioned an faked rumor. Another one, that Canon decided to cut off features from the 7D2, that were firstly contained in the Cam (e.g. Wifi, or an higher resolution sensor.). This last scenarion would made have sense, if Canon did an market analysis and realised, that an 2.5k Cam would not be accepted by the mass of possible customers. So, cutting off features would make sense.

And now, rurmors from Japan say, that this lens will be cheaper than first rumored. Maybe, the announcements of 2 possible competitors (Sigma, Tamron), changed their market strategy too and they will announce it cheaper than calculated.

We will see in some days.

 

[heptagon]

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.

my prediction is that the first comparison would put the tamron far ahead for total detail, 200mm is an insane amount to make up for, the tamron would have to pale even compared to a coke bottle for that to be true

now in the second case maybe it would be about a tie???? who knows or even better?

Results are mixed, see for yourself:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=10&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

The Tamron loses a lot of quality from 500mm to 600mm.

 

[fish_shooter]

I will be curious as to how much the magnification varies at a fixed close focus distance say 1m. Will the ratio be 4:1 when zooming from 400 to 100mm?

 

[dufflover]

Nice look specs and size too. Like others I have little doubts the image quality will impress; just comes down to Canon typical pricing and if they think this lens is special (esp with some of these design features) I can imagine them charging beyond the 70-200 II price initially.

The even shorter retracted length is nice. On the flipside all the differences (as in not just IQ like the 70-200 II) mean there is prospect I will upgrade to it in lieu of say that Sigma 150-600 S I was tempted to buy (not saying they are interchangeable, just talking about money wise)

 

[JonAustin]

... On the flipside all the differences (as in not just IQ like the 70-200 II) mean there is prospect I will upgrade to it in lieu of say that Sigma 150-600 S I was tempted to buy (not saying they are interchangeable, just talking about money wise)

I'm not a third-party lens guy, but I took a look at the specs and videos of the Sport 150-600 on Sigma's website, and there's no denying that their working hard to produce quality, well-featured and price-competitive lenses. Good for them, and if they're successful (as I hope they are) good for us all.

 

[iowapipe]

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.

my prediction is that the first comparison would put the tamron far ahead for total detail, 200mm is an insane amount to make up for, the tamron would have to pale even compared to a coke bottle for that to be true

now in the second case maybe it would be about a tie???? who knows or even better?

Results are mixed, see for yourself:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=10&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

The Tamron loses a lot of quality from 500mm to 600mm.

Though, as has been mentioned, the center sharpness remains and for 'most' instances with this lens, the point of interest will be reasonably centered and not offset overly far. As always, a compromise, though in this case one that 'generally' will work. It is by far not a perfect tele, but for the price it is more-or-less astounding.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

I suspect your prices are wishful thinking.

Take a look at prices for the 1+ year old Nikon 80-400mm lens, and then add $300.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-80-400mm-4-5-5-6G-NIKKOR-Digital/dp/B00BOZ1Y46/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415419938&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+80-400mm

 

[9VIII]

.31x maximum magnification makes this an almost instantaneous "must have" for me.

Living with .12MM on the 400f5.6 is a bit of a pain, getting three times closer will be great for small birds.

If it actually gives good quality at minimum focus distance, this lens will replace a lot of other potential lenses.