The Next "L" Lens Announcement Will be the... [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16526"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16526">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We’re told that the next “L” lens Canon announces will likely be the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS replacement. The odds are still on it being announced around the time of the EOS 7D replacement, which we hear is for Photokina, so I we expect an announcement some time in August of this year.</p>
<p>All we’ve heard about the lens is that it will not be push/pull zoom and will be quite a bit more expensive than the current and aging version.</p>
<p><em>One day this lens will be announced…….</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[ScottyP]

Re: The Next \

Wonder what the price will be?

 

[Lee Jay]

Re: The Next \

Frankly, it should not cost more than the 70-200/2.8L IS II (which is, indeed, substantially more than the current 100-400L). Hopefully, street price will drop under $2,000 in a year or so like it did with the new 70-200 (when I bought mine).

I hope the new one is solid on the 7D II and with a 1.4x TC. That would be the ultimate in easily hand-holdable reach.

I'll keep a possible Tamron 150-600 purchase on hold until we find out.

 

[rrcphoto]

Re: The Next \

Wonder what the price will be?

well we can usually tell by history somewhat.

the 100-400L was released at 260000Y 16 years ago highly unlikely it will be cheaper than this value.

the 70-200 2.8 L II IS was released at 300000 yen 4 years ago. probably more likely a little more around here or even more.

the 70-200 IS II 2.8 was released at a USD MSRP of 2499. I can't see it being substantially less then this.

 

[JorritJ]

Re: The Next \

I will believe it when I see it ...

Still, what is the attraction of releasing it at Photokina? A lot of tech releases have moved away from the show schedule. I would think that June would be the optimal date to release a 7D2+100-400, and sell it to every single summer-holiday-safari goer in the world.

 

[Dylan777]

Re: The Next \

$3499....same IQ as 200-400mm

 

[eml58]

Re: The Next \

$3499....same IQ as 200-400mm

There will be a lot of 200-400f/4 Lenses going cheap if this was the case

I think the 3.5k price Tag is pretty well ballpark though, the Nikon 80-400f/4.5 is selling for around 2.7k so you can safely bet the Canon will be close to 1k more expensive, be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.

Would work perfectly on the 1DMK IV.

 

[Lee Jay]

Re: The Next \

...be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.

You realize how nutty that request is? It would be bigger (and more expensive) than the 200-400/4.

 

[Orangutan]

Re: The Next \

...be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.

You realize how nutty that request is? It would be bigger (and more expensive) than the 200-400/4.

Not if it's an EF-S L 8)

 

[Don Haines]

Re: The Next \

$3499....same IQ as 200-400mm

There will be a lot of 200-400f/4 Lenses going cheap if this was the case

I think the 3.5k price Tag is pretty well ballpark though, the Nikon 80-400f/4.5 is selling for around 2.7k so you can safely bet the Canon will be close to 1k more expensive, be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.

Would work perfectly on the 1DMK IV.

The 70-200F4IS has about the same IQ as the 70-200F2.8IS
The 24-70F4IS has almost the same IQ as the 24-70F2.8

So a 100-400F5.6 (no internal teleconverter) could very well have the same IQ as the 200-400F4....

But however you slice it, it will not be inexpensive.

 

[jrista]

Re: The Next \

$3499....same IQ as 200-400mm

There will be a lot of 200-400f/4 Lenses going cheap if this was the case

I think the 3.5k price Tag is pretty well ballpark though, the Nikon 80-400f/4.5 is selling for around 2.7k so you can safely bet the Canon will be close to 1k more expensive, be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.

Would work perfectly on the 1DMK IV.

The 70-200F4IS has about the same IQ as the 70-200F2.8IS
The 24-70F4IS has almost the same IQ as the 24-70F2.8

So a 100-400F5.6 (no internal teleconverter) could very well have the same IQ as the 200-400F4....

But however you slice it, it will not be inexpensive.

Your comparing midrange L lenses to each other. The Canon great white superteles are in an entirely different class, there isn't any kind of comparison to be made between any one of the 70-200's and even the 200mm or 300mm great white Ls, let alone the 100-400 L II and the 200-400 L.

It's highly unlikely that a midrange L-series lens that costs anywhere between $2000 and $3500 will have the same IQ as the $10,000 200-400 L. It just ain't going to happen. The longer zoom range alone is going to dictate that it won't happen. The extra 100mm of focal length is going to put additional stress at some other focal length (it's all tradeoffs, either less zoom range but better IQ across the range, or more zoom range with IQ losses somewhere), and for Canon to make it true "supertele" quality would mean it would HAVE to cost at least as much as if not MORE than the 200-400 (even without a built-in TC).

 

[sanj]

Re: The Next \

$3499....same IQ as 200-400mm

Wishes!!

 

[AvTvM]

Re: The Next \

$3499....same IQ as 200-400mm

+1 ;-)

And, hey Canon: don't bother to build a 1.4x TC into this one ... we've got a TcC already. Just make the lens constant f/2.8, small, light, cheap and high-IQ.
Lol.



Golden unicorn with crystal horn!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Re: The Next \

...be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.

You realize how nutty that request is? It would be bigger (and more expensive) than the 200-400/4.

Not if it's an EF-S L 8)

Show us your calculations. A 100-400mm ef-s lens is not going to be noticeably smaller or cheaper, just because its EF-s, because the front element size is set by the f/4 aperture , EF-s only matters for wide angle lenses. That's why we do not have 400mm ef-s lenses, they are the same size and cost.

 

[Chaitanya]

Re: The Next \

so just in time to photograph a snowman riding an unicorn.

 

[rs]

Re: The Next \

...be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.

You realize how nutty that request is? It would be bigger (and more expensive) than the 200-400/4.

Not if it's an EF-S L 8)

The smaller imaging circle doesn't reduce the physical size of the lens when the angle of view is narrower than 45 degrees (longer than 50mm in FF terms).

A 400/4 lens requires an entrance pupil that's exactly 100mm in diameter. That means the front element cannot be any smaller than 100mm, regardless of the imaging circle size. Add in the complexities of a zoom and IS, and you've got a full size 200-400.

 

[9VIII]

Re: The Next \

...be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.

You realize how nutty that request is? It would be bigger (and more expensive) than the 200-400/4.

Not if it's an EF-S L 8)

(Grr I was typing the same response at the same time. Oh well)

Lens specifications essentially list the physical dimensions of the lens. The reason people say "crop sensor lenses are awesome because they're so small" is that they're pretending that the crop factor is the same as using a longer lens on a larger sensor.
The kind of lens you're thinking of is the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM.
Of course making that in a constant f4 design doesn't gain you anything compared to using a 100-400f5.6 on full frame, and more likely you lose performance overall.

 

[greger]

Re: The Next \

So Canon is going to release 2 unicorns at Photokina. At the end of summer for us in the Northern Hemisphere, means
poor timing. I will get to read the reviews with envy. What I have will have to serve my needs till the prices reach a
level that my Banker can accept. Oh Well!

 

[eml58]

Re: The Next \

...be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.

You realize how nutty that request is? It would be bigger (and more expensive) than the 200-400/4.

Ummm, Oooook, I was being.....facetious ?? attempting humour ?? it's an Aussie thing.

I understand on CR that sometimes, as in this case, doesn't work, I'll endeavour in future to be more serious, more in line with all the other very serious viewpoints that get Posted on CR from time to time, in among the more serious viewpoints, naturally.

And on a more semi serious note, a 100-400f/4 Lens with the IQ of the 200-400f/4, shouldn't be any larger, or more expensive than the attached, seems like a Bargain at $27k, well, except for the cost of the 2 Sherpas you would need to cart the thing around for you.

 

[TrabimanUK]

Re: The Next \

Yay! new 100-400!

Yay! 7D 2!

Booo! Photokina? September? Really?

Price? Whatever. It'll be expensive in the UK and cheap in the USA, probably $ for £, but might help to knock the price of the existing one down a bit.

I appreciate that this might be a bit hemisphereist, but September is almost winter up here in the northern hemisphere. A release before then would be sooo much better