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

[rrcphoto]

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

The only thing Canon could have done that would make this focal range a killer is a continuous f4 across the range, but that would have jacked up the price beyond many user's price point.

beyond most.. you're talking a lens with a longer zoom range than the 200-400/4 and it's 12K and how big?

 

[PureClassA]

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

Haha... some folks have some crazy unrealistic expectation in this lens. I guess they're all fine if you want to spend $25k.

Canon makes a lens for you. it's the 200-400 for $12k. To expect one for 100-400 at one fifth the price that performs and does everything as well as the $12k does .... i dunno what to tell you...

 

[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.

 

[e17paul]

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

Back in the day when the lens hit the market, sensor megapixels were less than what we have now.

Back in 1998 most SLR cameras used a roll of film.

 

[JonAustin]

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

I'm assuming it will perform better optically than the old one did with two 1.4x TCs attached. And this is the old one with two 1.4s.

I'm also assuming that it will AF at least as well at 560mm and f/8 on a 7D2 as my 70-200/2.8L IS II does with a 2x TC III on my 20D (for which I use only the center AF point as well).

Hi Lee Jay,

First, awesome moon shot!

I'm curious why -- since you (apparently) have a 2x TC III -- you chose the 100-400 + 2 1.4x TCs for your moon shot, instead of the 2x TC III? (Maybe you didn't own the 2x at the time?)

 

[JonAustin]

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

The only thing Canon could have done that would make this focal range a killer is a continuous f4 across the range, but that would have jacked up the price beyond many user's price point.

While I'm fully aware of why the 100-400 II isn't a constant f/4 max aperture, it would have been nice had Canon elected to make it start at f/4 at 100mm. (Of course, had they done so, this would no longer be the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 II!)

 

[Lee Jay]

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

Great R/C captures! I've shot them and it's crazy to keep them in frame, let alone in focus. The only thing more challenging is Dragonflys.

Thanks. Most people don't realize how hard it is to shoot these things.

 

[Lee Jay]

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

I'm assuming it will perform better optically than the old one did with two 1.4x TCs attached. And this is the old one with two 1.4s.

I'm also assuming that it will AF at least as well at 560mm and f/8 on a 7D2 as my 70-200/2.8L IS II does with a 2x TC III on my 20D (for which I use only the center AF point as well).

Hi Lee Jay,

First, awesome moon shot!

I'm curious why -- since you (apparently) have a 2x TC III -- you chose the 100-400 + 2 1.4x TCs for your moon shot, instead of the 2x TC III? (Maybe you didn't own the 2x at the time?)

Thanks, and correct.

 

[PureClassA]

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.

 

[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. The look and performance of this combo is really good and now is my go to combo for airshows and other sports. The lens will produce excellent images "when all the stars align". I think I would rent one and compare the two before deciding. The difference would have to be substantial.
click on the photo for the large image

B-17 sentimental Journey Chino 2014 sat 0395 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr

 

[JonAustin]

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. The look and performance of this combo is really good and now is my go to combo for airshows and other sports. The lens will produce excellent images "when all the stars align". I think I would rent one and compare the two before deciding. The difference would have to be substantial.

I'm shooting with a 5D3, so if the new 100-400 II performs as well as or better than your copy of the 100-400 I (as I fully expect it to), I'll have no complaints.

What did you mean about the "look" of the 100-400 / 5D3 combo?

How is the 100-400 better on the 5D3 than on the 7D?

Minor comment: From the large view of your (excellent) image, it looks like your sensor needs cleaning. There's a circular spot along the left edge, slightly higher than the midpoint between the right elevator and your (c) signature. Darn blue sky!

 

[JonAustin]

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.

 

[PureClassA]

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.

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

 

[lescrane]

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

As far as the "low" 2200.00 price, I think we can thank Mr. Tamron and Mr. Sigma.

I spent a lot of time at a local photo show/sale, all the major vendors were there. I don't work there, but my observations were:

Lot's of Tamzooka's (150-600) being sold for nikon and canon. I spoke to the tamron rep who encouraged me to send in my early copy to get a new chip and firmware to improve AI focusing. In general, a huge buzz around Tamron, more than I remember in past years.

The Canon booth was very quiet compared to previous years. A few people I know bought SLRs and they were practically giving away PIxMA pro printers with cameras.

I handled the Sigma 150-600 Sport, well, barely, the thing is a tank. I wouldn;t even consider it for that reason. I asked them when the "C" version will be out; they don't know.

Sony seemed to be selling the mirrorless like hotcakes.

Sorry to go OT, but the take away here is that Canon has to be more competitive on pricing and offer higher quality for the price. Since I have the Tamzooka already, I would not look at the 100-400 II for a while. however, since everyone seems to think that this will cut sales of 70-300L, maybe if Canon cuts that price I would buy one for when I don't need the 400- 600 reach and want something I can hand hold.

 

[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.

 

[JonAustin]

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.

 

[Skulker]

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

Minor comment: From the large view of your (excellent) image, it looks like your sensor needs cleaning. There's a circular spot along the left edge, slightly higher than the midpoint between the right elevator and your (c) signature. Darn blue sky!

: : : : : : : :
Just when you think you won't be surprised by comments on here. Someone will reach a new standard.

 

[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.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

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

Minor comment: From the large view of your (excellent) image, it looks like your sensor needs cleaning. There's a circular spot along the left edge, slightly higher than the midpoint between the right elevator and your (c) signature. Darn blue sky!

Yup




: : : : : : : :
Just when you think you won't be surprised by comments on here. Someone will reach a new standard.

 

[JonAustin]

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

Minor comment: From the large view of your (excellent) image, it looks like your sensor needs cleaning. There's a circular spot along the left edge, slightly higher than the midpoint between the right elevator and your (c) signature. Darn blue sky!

: : : : : : : :
Just when you think you won't be surprised by comments on here. Someone will reach a new standard.

Hurry for me! (Just trying to help ...)