Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

[Lee Jay]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

The thing I changed in my shooting was to put the 100-400 on the 5D III instead of the 7D.

Effective approach, if you don't have to crop (i.e. if you can shoot at 400mm versus 250mm on the 7D). If you do (shoot at 400mm on both, crop to match), you've gained nothing.

Yes, but a keeper shot that might need some cropping is better than a fuzzy or lost shot. It comes down to how many keepers. If I need more reach, I'll put the 300 2.8 + the 1.4x on the 7D.

With a big, slow, lumbering full-scale B-17, you should have 100% keepers.

 

[PureClassA]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Canon had 50mm f1.0L ... it sells on ebay for $5000 if you can find one. I'm not sure they bring this one back. If they felt there was enough a market for it I'd have to assume they would still be producing new copies of it. It's enormous and heavy and expensive as all hell and obviously not enough people bought into it regardless how awesome it was

Okay ... not sure what bringing back discontinued models has to do with updating current models.

Ahhh "50 f 1.x" I read right over the "x" That said, I dont see them going bigger than 1.4 because of the size and price issue. But yes, I agree as I mentioned some pages ago that I would have to think the 50mm L is the next rebuild along with the 35mm L. I dont think there's anything else more pressing in Canon's glass line right now, especially considering the new Sigs and the fact that it seems there isn't much left in their line (apart from the 135mm) that needs a major reboot

 

[KeithBreazeal]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

The thing I changed in my shooting was to put the 100-400 on the 5D III instead of the 7D.

Effective approach, if you don't have to crop (i.e. if you can shoot at 400mm versus 250mm on the 7D). If you do (shoot at 400mm on both, crop to match), you've gained nothing.

Yes, but a keeper shot that might need some cropping is better than a fuzzy or lost shot. It comes down to how many keepers. If I need more reach, I'll put the 300 2.8 + the 1.4x on the 7D.

With a big, slow, lumbering full-scale B-17, you should have 100% keepers.

It also works when they are haulin' ass

F-22 Raptor afterburner turn © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr

 

[Lee Jay]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

The thing I changed in my shooting was to put the 100-400 on the 5D III instead of the 7D.

Effective approach, if you don't have to crop (i.e. if you can shoot at 400mm versus 250mm on the 7D). If you do (shoot at 400mm on both, crop to match), you've gained nothing.

Yes, but a keeper shot that might need some cropping is better than a fuzzy or lost shot. It comes down to how many keepers. If I need more reach, I'll put the 300 2.8 + the 1.4x on the 7D.

With a big, slow, lumbering full-scale B-17, you should have 100% keepers.

It also works when they are haulin' ass

F-22 Raptor afterburner turn © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr

Full-scale airplanes aren't ever really a challenge to keep in focus. This was done with the 20D and the 70-200/2.8L IS and 2xTC III, and this is easy and reliable.

 

[jeffdo]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Has it been confirmed that it comes with a tripod mount? I am still unhappy that the 70-300L did not.

 

[dufflover]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Pretty sure this one will include the tripod foot by default.
Unless they really really do suddenly lump it in the same group as the 70-300L and 70-200L/4 (as in the "smaller" whites, but it's not that small).

There is one big indicator I would still upgrade, eventually - I went from a 70-200 mk1 to mk2 LOL
(sadly it gets very very little use considering the price )

 

[JonAustin]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Pretty sure this one will include the tripod foot by default.
Unless they really really do suddenly lump it in the same group as the 70-300L and 70-200L/4 (as in the "smaller" whites, but it's not that small).

It would seem that the tripod mount is included, since it's shown in the photos and mentioned in the description. Seems to me the official images of the 70-200/4 and 70-300L don't include the tripod mount.

Also, given the pictures of the new lens and the description of the removable foot, it's possible that the "ring" part of the tripod mount isn't removable.

There is one big indicator I would still upgrade, eventually - I went from a 70-200 mk1 to mk2 LOL
(sadly it gets very very little use considering the price )

Right there with you. Probably my highest quality lens; certainly my highest quality zoom, but not my most used.

 

[JonAustin]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Ahhh "50 f 1.x" I read right over the "x" That said, I dont see them going bigger than 1.4 because of the size and price issue. But yes, I agree as I mentioned some pages ago that I would have to think the 50mm L is the next rebuild along with the 35mm L. I dont think there's anything else more pressing in Canon's glass line right now, especially considering the new Sigs and the fact that it seems there isn't much left in their line (apart from the 135mm) that needs a major reboot

I was actually thinking more in terms of the 50/1.4 getting updated with true ring USM and IS. Compared to the current 50L, the 1.4 is ancient.

 

[CanonOregon]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

I think I'll wait until the adaptor comes out for the Canon CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm to EOS mount. I know I'll have to sell the house and live in a tent, but....

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Ahhh "50 f 1.x" I read right over the "x" That said, I dont see them going bigger than 1.4 because of the size and price issue. But yes, I agree as I mentioned some pages ago that I would have to think the 50mm L is the next rebuild along with the 35mm L. I dont think there's anything else more pressing in Canon's glass line right now, especially considering the new Sigs and the fact that it seems there isn't much left in their line (apart from the 135mm) that needs a major reboot

I was actually thinking more in terms of the 50/1.4 getting updated with true ring USM and IS. Compared to the current 50L, the 1.4 is ancient.

Respectfully, this is OT. There are copious threads on the 50 f/1.4 replacement, included my 'can recite my personal rant verbatim' content here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21377.msg406009#msg406009

But let's stay on target, good people. This is a Unicorn thread.

- A

 

[cellomaster27]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

this lens is so freaking sexy. just sayin.. the recent lenses are aesthetically better than previous lenses. not just canon.

 

[Canon1]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

this lens is so freaking sexy.

You need to get out more... I find that my wife in Lingerie is sexy... My cameras and lenses... not so much.... But my 100-400 is a mark 1 afterall : : :

 

[JonAustin]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Ahhh "50 f 1.x" I read right over the "x" That said, I dont see them going bigger than 1.4 because of the size and price issue. But yes, I agree as I mentioned some pages ago that I would have to think the 50mm L is the next rebuild along with the 35mm L. I dont think there's anything else more pressing in Canon's glass line right now, especially considering the new Sigs and the fact that it seems there isn't much left in their line (apart from the 135mm) that needs a major reboot

I was actually thinking more in terms of the 50/1.4 getting updated with true ring USM and IS. Compared to the current 50L, the 1.4 is ancient.

Respectfully, this is OT. There are copious threads on the 50 f/1.4 replacement, included my 'can recite my personal rant verbatim' content here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21377.msg406009#msg406009

But let's stay on target, good people. This is a Unicorn thread.

- A

You're correct, of course. Just keepin' the thread alive until the official announcement ...

 

[Etienne]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

This lens is very tempting. I wish it was a little lighter but it's now on my wish list. Can't wait to see the reviews, but Canon seems to be on a roll with good lenses. I hope they replace the 50 1.4 soon. Also a new 85 with IS would be awesome.

They just rebuilt the 85L. Not gonna happen again soon. If any prime gets rebuilt with IS I figure it will be the 135L due to the focal length. That one is also long in the tooth, and even Sigma didn't bother with putting IS on the new 35 & 50 ART.

I think Etienne was referring to the 85/1.8, not the 85L II. Although the 85L was refreshed ~17 years after the original design, the 85/1.8 design is now 22 years old.

And while Sigma didn't put IS in its new 35 and 50 Art models, Canon did just add it to the 35/2 a couple of years ago.

I, too, would like to see the 50/1.4 updated, to a 50/1.x (true ring) USM IS version.

Yes I was referring to the 85 1.8, add IS, true USM, rounded aperture blades and we're good to go ... But an 85 1.4 would be cool too.

 

[Lee Jay]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

This lens is very tempting. I wish it was a little lighter but it's now on my wish list. Can't wait to see the reviews, but Canon seems to be on a roll with good lenses. I hope they replace the 50 1.4 soon. Also a new 85 with IS would be awesome.

They just rebuilt the 85L. Not gonna happen again soon. If any prime gets rebuilt with IS I figure it will be the 135L due to the focal length. That one is also long in the tooth, and even Sigma didn't bother with putting IS on the new 35 & 50 ART.

I think Etienne was referring to the 85/1.8, not the 85L II. Although the 85L was refreshed ~17 years after the original design, the 85/1.8 design is now 22 years old.

And while Sigma didn't put IS in its new 35 and 50 Art models, Canon did just add it to the 35/2 a couple of years ago.

I, too, would like to see the 50/1.4 updated, to a 50/1.x (true ring) USM IS version.

Yes I was referring to the 85 1.8, add IS, true USM, rounded aperture blades and we're good to go ... But an 85 1.4 would be cool too.

The 85/1.8 has true ring USM and is one of the fastest focusing lenses around.

 

[e17paul]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Has anyone noticed the odd profile of the focus ring? I wonder how it will be to use.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Has anyone noticed the odd profile of the focus ring? I wonder how it will be to use.

Do you mean the focal length/zoom ring? The inner ring, closest to the mount?

The focus ring is the outer, broad ring.

 

[dufflover]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Front fat ring is the zoom. Can even see half an FL marker in the graphic.

 

[tron]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Front fat ring is the zoom. Can even see half an FL marker in the graphic.

Indeed! But it's a shame it is the opposite of what is comfortable for use (and consistent to 70-200 lenses ) I hoped that they wouldn't adopt the 70-300 L design...

 

[dufflover]

Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Couldn't it have depended on the optics and/or size though? Like if the focusing group is at the back there?