New 100-400 to Launch with EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]

[mrsfotografie]

100-400mm:
1) internal design like the 70-300

How do you define 'internal design'? The 100-400 has rear 'internal focusing'. If you're referring to the way the lens barrels overlap, I prefer the way the 100-400 is designed, with the outer tube carrying the big front element, and the rear tube carrying the small elements. That is one of the reasons this is such a (relatively) compact design!

 

[Loswr]

100-400mm:
1) internal design like the 70-300

How do you define 'internal design'?

I suspect he means a rotating zoom like the 70-300L, vs. the current push-pull design. Personally, I like the push pull, I could learn to live with the rotation but I hope if them implement that design, they don't switch the relative position of the zoom vs. focus rings as they did with the 70-300L (which matches the EF-S 17-55mm, for example, but is the opposite of the L-series standard zoom lenses). I highly doubt they'd make it internally zooming like the 70-200 series, it'd be too long.

 

[jrista]

LOL! I just love how you can save a WHOPPING WHOLE THREE DOLLARS on the Nikon 80-400 VR at Amazon! I mean, WOW, AMAZING SAVINGS!!

 

[Edwin Herdman]

I'll be interested to see how this works out, but it doesn't strike me as much of a savings when I've had, for roughly the same price, the ol' 120-300mm + 2X TC combo for a long time. Fills the niche better for my purposes, although of course that won't be true for everyone.

 

[xps]

Got some infos from an friend, using the old and the new AF-S VR 80-400mm 4.5-5.6G ED lens:
He got it some days ago and was on a trip in the south of Italy.
He told me that the new lens has an much faster AF than the predecessor model. But the AF was even not accurate every time. In his opinion Nikon pushed the AF-S VR 80-400mm 4.5-5.6G ED up in image quality and made it faster. But he doubts that he did right by buing this lens, spending 2,5 times more than his old lens costs today. Excellent rumors and advertisements are sometimes not true, as we all know.

Maybe Canon improves the lens too, but will it be 2500-3000€ worth - in comparison to the old 100-400? Let us see.

 

[RGF]

Sometimes I feel, that Canon and Nikon talk to each other, where the cutoff of the maximum price most buyers will pay for an product is.

I listened to an Nikon-seller information meeting. There will be an 800mm lens with an enormous price of more then 17.000€!!
You can be sure that, if Canon produces something equal to that, the pricelevel will be equal to Nikons price.

In my opinion, the 100-400 II will be priced above the Nikon 80-400. Canon will find an reason to do that.


I love my 100-400, but will think of buying the II version (if not pulling zoom). But only, if the lens will be under 2500.

Competitive pricing - match the competition.

Market analysis showing price sensitivity. Often major companies work off the same or very similar data. Pricing models tend to be similar, they could employ the same consulting companies (or buy white papers) showing price thresholds and diminishing returns as prices increase. Or even gone to a conference where one spoke of the the new normal in consumer acceptance of higher prices. None of this is illegal (though I am not a lawyer, just a lay opinion).

 

[RGF]

I suspect he means a rotating zoom like the 70-300L, vs. the current push-pull design. Personally, I like the push pull, I could learn to live with the rotation but I hope if them implement that design, they don't switch the relative position of the zoom vs. focus rings as they did with the 70-300L (which matches the EF-S 17-55mm, for example, but is the opposite of the L-series standard zoom lenses). I highly doubt they'd make it internally zooming like the 70-200 series, it'd be too long.

I wonder if there is a design benefit for longer lenses to switching the position of the zoom and focus rings. The position of the rings on the 70-300L could become the new normal. I just hope that Canon sticks to one layout. Annoying to fiddle rings to figure out which does which

 

[Loswr]

I wonder if there is a design benefit for longer lenses to switching the position of the zoom and focus rings. The position of the rings on the 70-300L could become the new normal.

I'm not sure. The zoom ring is also further out on the 200-400, but that might be so the hand on the lens is close to the zoom ring (that hand will be further out on such a heavy lens).

I had assumed it was the target market - Canon's 'lens positioning article' suggested the lens was aimed at APS-C shooters (and 'of course, it also works on FF cameras), and the 70-300L is similar to the high-end EF-S standard zooms. FWIW, the zoom ring is in back (opposite of the 70-300L) on the other 70-300 lenses (non-L and DO).

 

[greger]

This and other posts helped me to decide on buying the 100-400 now instead of waiting to see what the vs ll will be like.
I saved Money with the instant rebate. I haven't had it long enough to find anything wrong. The pics are good and I think I got a good copy of this lens. I just need to practice with BIF pics. I'm sure when vs 2 comes out my wallet will be happy I bought when I did.