More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]

[Lee Jay]

$3,000 min. That's my prediction.

I'll make a different one. If it's real, I'll predict it will be available somewhere legitimate for right around the $2,000 mark at some point within the first year. MSRP might be $2,499, or $2,899 or whatever, but I still think street price will ultimately be at or lower than the 70-200/2.8L IS II.

 

[Jane]

Focus breathing or not, I have been extremely happy with my 70-300L. It's light and goes with me on most trips. Only stays home when I go on certain wildlife trips. The IQ is very good and the size/weight makes it easy to take along. If the 100-400II is designed the same way with the same IQ I'll be thrilled. I plan to buy it anyway - I've had my money saved for a while...a long while.

 

[Canon1]

$3,000 min. That's my prediction.

I'll make a different one. If it's real, I'll predict it will be available somewhere legitimate for right around the $2,000 mark at some point within the first year. MSRP might be $2,499, or $2,899 or whatever, but I still think street price will ultimately be at or lower than the 70-200/2.8L IS II.

You may be right, but I highly doubt it will be priced lower than the Nikon 80-400. If anything we generally see canon L glass fetching a premium.

 

[mycanonphotos]

I love my 100-400 and the way it functions. This new design dosent sound all that great to me ???. I'll stick with what I have...Wonder if it will totally stop being produced?...
Thinking....Rather than purchase a 1.4 TC I'll buy a 1.6 TC in the 7D II...give me 160-640...being that I have 2 5D'3 and want a longer reach and faster shutter...bonus is having the improved AF/improved IQ...

 

[Lee Jay]

$3,000 min. That's my prediction.

I'll make a different one. If it's real, I'll predict it will be available somewhere legitimate for right around the $2,000 mark at some point within the first year. MSRP might be $2,499, or $2,899 or whatever, but I still think street price will ultimately be at or lower than the 70-200/2.8L IS II.

You may be right, but I highly doubt it will be priced lower than the Nikon 80-400. If anything we generally see canon L glass fetching a premium.

Not always. The Canon 800/5.6 is $13,500, the Nikon is $17,900.

I think Nikon is asking a bit much for the new 80-400, especially since it doesn't seem to even be as good as the current 100-400L. If Canon follows, then they'll sell fewer of them.

 

[antonioleandro]

As the lens extends during the zooming process, could it pump dust into the camera and on the sensor? Altough it is not a trombone design, as the 28-300 or 100-400, the volume of the lens expands as we zoom in and contracts as we zoom out and I think it could allow air from the outside into the lens and from the lens into the sensor. Am I wrong?

 

[Lee Jay]

As the lens extends during the zooming process, could it pump dust into the camera and on the sensor? Altough it is not a trombone design, as the 28-300 or 100-400, the volume of the lens expands as we zoom in and contracts as we zoom out and I think it could allow air from the outside into the lens and from the lens into the sensor. Am I wrong?

It's hard to say where the air comes from and to during extension and retraction. Could be from the body or from the outside through the lens and not from the body.

My 24-105L extends and retracts, and I've never found it to be a dust problem.

 

[Canon1]

$3,000 min. That's my prediction.

I'll make a different one. If it's real, I'll predict it will be available somewhere legitimate for right around the $2,000 mark at some point within the first year. MSRP might be $2,499, or $2,899 or whatever, but I still think street price will ultimately be at or lower than the 70-200/2.8L IS II.

You may be right, but I highly doubt it will be priced lower than the Nikon 80-400. If anything we generally see canon L glass fetching a premium.

Not always. The Canon 800/5.6 is $13,500, the Nikon is $17,900.

I think Nikon is asking a bit much for the new 80-400, especially since it doesn't seem to even be as good as the current 100-400L. If Canon follows, then they'll sell fewer of them.

What do you think the price of canons 800mm will be when it's the mark 2? You can't compare the current Nikon 800 to the aging canon.

 

[DWM]

Late fall is not the best time to start selling the lens, fair weather photographers like me won't use one until late next spring. On the other hand, if camera and lens sales continue to be poor, we might see better prices by Spring.

It's only late fall on half the world. Late spring in the other half. Keep in mind it is before Christmas in all the world and many will make this purchase for a present or use Christmas money they recieve to buy it if avaliable.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I am trying to understand what the impact of this design will be for the sales of the 70-300L.
Because if it is light and the IQ plus AF same (or better) as the 70-300L, I will sell my 70-300L and purchase the 100-400MKII

for those leaning heavily towards wildlife it might

otherwise, I'm not so sure, it will obviously be heavier than the 70-300L which is already getting a touch heavy for a run around all day travel lens and not going wider than 100mm might be a pain for some since it would mean more lens swapping for some FF users, and will it really manage quite the same IQ at 70mm and 200mm?

still, it should be good

 

[candc]

this is the kind of talk i like to hear, smaller than the present one, excellent. this is sounding to be a good lens for in a beltpack or bag with a few others on a hike or bike ride. something besides wildlife shooting outings where you are carrying a big lens and nothing else.

take a 16-35 and this one and your all set for the road. maybe a 50mm too. that sounds like a nice travel kit.

 

[Jane]

[/quote]
... the 70-300L which is already getting a touch heavy for a run around all day travel lens...

[/quote]

Really, for the quality it's light. I can carry it all day along with other gear! I plan to walk all day with the 100-400II also, but that will be my only lens!

 

[WillT]

Why even bother with the Tamron 150-600 and the Sigma on the way. I think they would be better off making something longer than 400mm.

 

[Lee Jay]

Why even bother with the Tamron 150-600 and the Sigma on the way. I think they would be better off making something longer than 400mm.

Because a lot of people, myself included, would value something shorter in length and smaller in diameter than either the Tamron or the Sigma. The bag I would use for this lens won't take anything bigger than a 70-200/2.8 or the existing 100-400L in the retracted position. Further, the Tamron is a little heavy (not too bad) and the Sigma C is unknown. The Sigma S is way too heavy for me to handhold all day long. Finally, it's likely that this lens will out-focus the Tamron and SigmaC for moving subjects.

That's why.

 

[lol]

I do fear my 100-400L might be worn out from the use I've given it over the years. The push-pull mechanism isn't as smooth as it used to be, so a long(er) replacement isn't out of the question. No push-pull remains a disappointment to me but not unexpected.

Since the 600mm class lenses have also been bought up, to me the Tamron is not an option with its backward zoom ring. That leaves the two new Sigma lenses. I already have the 120-300 f/2.8 (to get 600 with a x2) and the '600 S will be similar in weight. A bit too much for regular use on the move. On the other hand, I'm not sure how good the C will be.

Or maybe I should just get another 100-400L before they stop making them Even bring back the 35-350!

 

[WillT]

Why even bother with the Tamron 150-600 and the Sigma on the way. I think they would be better off making something longer than 400mm.

Because a lot of people, myself included, would value something shorter in length and smaller in diameter than either the Tamron or the Sigma. The bag I would use for this lens won't take anything bigger than a 70-200/2.8 or the existing 100-400L in the retracted position. Further, the Tamron is a little heavy (not too bad) and the Sigma C is unknown. The Sigma S is way too heavy for me to handhold all day long. Finally, it's likely that this lens will out-focus the Tamron and SigmaC for moving subjects.

That's why.

If its about bag space and weight just get a teleconverter for the 70-200. Honestly for wildlife I would rather just use the 70-200 and crop than use the 100-400. The Tammy does well focusing in my experience.

 

[Lee Jay]

Why even bother with the Tamron 150-600 and the Sigma on the way. I think they would be better off making something longer than 400mm.

Because a lot of people, myself included, would value something shorter in length and smaller in diameter than either the Tamron or the Sigma. The bag I would use for this lens won't take anything bigger than a 70-200/2.8 or the existing 100-400L in the retracted position. Further, the Tamron is a little heavy (not too bad) and the Sigma C is unknown. The Sigma S is way too heavy for me to handhold all day long. Finally, it's likely that this lens will out-focus the Tamron and SigmaC for moving subjects.

That's why.

If its about bag space and weight just get a teleconverter for the 70-200.

I already have that combo.

 

[9VIII]

I love my 100-400 and the way it functions. This new design dosent sound all that great to me ???. I'll stick with what I have...Wonder if it will totally stop being produced?...
Thinking....Rather than purchase a 1.4 TC I'll buy a 1.6 TC in the 7D II...give me 160-640...being that I have 2 5D'3 and want a longer reach and faster shutter...bonus is having the improved AF/improved IQ...

I know it may seem like I push the 400f5.6 prime lens a lot, but...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

You can stop down to f11 and get decent IQ with the current 100-400, but at that point the Tamron on the 5D3 is going to look a lot better (and with a one stop advantage in light gathering due to full frame).
Specifically for BIF shooting on a budget, the 400f5.6 is still the best option, but the new Tamron and Sigma options are certainly a tempting offer for all around telephoto use.

 

[Rockets95]

If its about bag space and weight just get a teleconverter for the 70-200. Honestly for wildlife I would rather just use the 70-200 and crop than use the 100-400. The Tammy does well focusing in my experience.

I tried the 7D / 70-200 f2.8 IS II / 2X III combination. Intitial shots showed severe Front Focus Issues, so I exchanged that extender for another. I really wanted this combination to work for me, so I tackled lens Microadjustment. What I discovered was that at 400mm, the setup was fairly accurate, (although also somewhat inconsistant) with little or no adjustment needed, but at 200mm I needed to adjust focusing to +12 on the -20 to +20 scale. I decided this was not going to work for me, so I returned the second extender.

The reason I purchased the 70-200 in the first place over the 100-400, was I felt I could use the 2X extender to get to 400mm. Eventually I will probably end up getting a 100-400.

 

[slclick]

Why even bother with the Tamron 150-600 and the Sigma on the way. I think they would be better off making something longer than 400mm.

Because a lot of people, myself included, would value something shorter in length and smaller in diameter than either the Tamron or the Sigma. The bag I would use for this lens won't take anything bigger than a 70-200/2.8 or the existing 100-400L in the retracted position. Further, the Tamron is a little heavy (not too bad) and the Sigma C is unknown. The Sigma S is way too heavy for me to handhold all day long. Finally, it's likely that this lens will out-focus the Tamron and SigmaC for moving subjects.

That's why.

If its about bag space and weight just get a teleconverter for the 70-200. Honestly for wildlife I would rather just use the 70-200 and crop than use the 100-400. The Tammy does well focusing in my experience.

Ugh I took out my 70-200 2.8 Mk2 with the 1.4 today and mid shoot took it off and was much more pleased with the results, cropped or not. It's such a great lens, why degrade it? I know others would say it's such a great lens it can TAKE the hit but I just can't any longer. Thus the 100-400 Mk2 is up my alley. I tried my hand at birding and it's just not my thing. So I shelved my thoughts of getting a 400 5.6 and am rethinking the 100-400. Plus, it fits my bags, lol.


p.s. I call $1999-2299 (based on the Mk1 at $1699)