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

[tron]

Re: The Next \

Is Canon's pricing of the recently released Canon E-FS 10-18 and Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0 and indicator of things to come?
Perhaps a realization that the way cheaper third party lenses are decent enough performers to drive their prices down?
Let's see what pricing pattern the next few releases bring.

16-35 f/4L does not replace 16-35 2.8L II so you cannot say it is cheaper. And, it is more expensive than the 17-40 4L normal since it has better IQ (according to MTF) and IS.
SImilarly 10-18 is a whole stop slower than the 10-22. So you cannot compare prices again.

 

[sdfreeland]

Re: The Next \

Is Canon's pricing of the recently released Canon E-FS 10-18 and Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0 and indicator of things to come?
Perhaps a realization that the way cheaper third party lenses are decent enough performers to drive their prices down?
Let's see what pricing pattern the next few releases bring.

Those new releases are similar in price to Nikon's offerings. Since the Nikon 80-400mm is about $2700, I imagine the 100-400mm replacement will be similar. If it's more than that I don't see the point. The 100-400mm is already very sharp and a good lens. I can't see spending double the amount of money to get something that is only very slightly better.

 

[Etienne]

Re: The Next \

This is a much anticipated lens , and a really popular focal range. If Canon nails this, which they should, and keeps it reasonably priced they'll sell boat-loads of them and make a ton. I'll buy one if it's around US$2000, like the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS

 

[Etienne]

Re: The Next \


... a 150-500L would be better though.

 

[dufflover]

Re: The Next

The pricing of the new lenses are pretty good (given it's Canon! lol) but I don't think it'll apply for a new 100-400.

There are just more options around the shorter focal lengths whereas I don't think lenses like the Sigma 120-300mm don't even register on their radar as competitors, let alone the cheaper alternatives like the Tamron 150-600 and Sigma 50-500.

 

[dslrdummy]

Re: The Next \

My 400 f/5.6 is plenty sharp - did well on safari last year - but would consider upgrading if the new lense has the measure of improvement optically that you would be entitled to expect after all these years. Pleased to hear they are reverting to a conventional zoom. 100-400 and 7Dii should make a great pairing - but that's about the price of a 1DX :-\

 

[Don Haines]

Re: The Next \

My 400 f/5.6 is plenty sharp - did well on safari last year - but would consider upgrading if the new lense has the measure of improvement optically that you would be entitled to expect after all these years. Pleased to hear they are reverting to a conventional zoom. 100-400 and 7Dii should make a great pairing - but that's about the price of a 1DX :-\

The 400F5.6 is definitely sharper than the 100-400. I did a side-side test between them a couple of years ago and the 400F5.6 was noticeably sharper.... My suspicion is that a new 100-400 would be sharper than the 400F5.6, but if they come out with a new 400F5.6 I'll be on it like a fat boy on a wedding cake! For my needs, that would be ultimate combination of reach/portability/quality.

 

[Canon1]

Re: The Next \

January 30, 2009.

oh man
one of the few times CR2 has been totally, utterly wrong

Not necessarily. That rumor didn't mention that there would be a built in tc. ;-)

 

[dufflover]

Re: The Next

I would surprised if Canon were bothered to refresh the 400mm prime (unless to deliberately provide a cheaper alternative) after re-doing the 100-400mm as it is likely going to be plenty sharp. Most of their new lenses, expensive and cheap, have fantastic performance.

Granted that assessment could again change depending what kind of resolution the 7DII ends up sporting to once again "expose the minute flaws" in the sharpness.

 

[AvTvM]

Re: The Next \

Canon would make a killing if they'd launch the following 2 lenses asap:

1. totally new 100-500/4.0-5.6 L IS ... IQ like 70-300 L IS all they way to 500mm and @ 500mm ... fully weathersealed ... current version +4 EV IS ... launch price 3,500

2. improved 400/5.6 ... Latest 4+ stop IS ... full weathersealing ... slightly better IQ ... launch price USD 2,200

It would not really hurt super-tele sales with still higher IQ and features. And it would give all those 5D3 (and 6D) owners 2 good and just "affordable" options, rather than leaving them to Tamron and wait until sigma comes up with a new 150-500 with IS and ART-like IQ at a surprisingly low price. Canon would be smart to preempt that with own "mid-priced L" tele offerings. I doubt they will be. Sigh.

 

[Maximilian]

Re: The Next \

We’re told that the next “L” lens Canon announces will likely be the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS replacement.

Hooray! Finally the pink unicorn seems to become reality. Will it really…? :-\
I doubt it, until I see it.

… it being announced around the time of the EOS 7D replacement, which we hear is for Photokina,

Maybe it will be the Photokina 2016. :-\

… it will not be push/pull zoom …

Sad! :'(

… more expensive

Sad! But expected. :'(

One day this lens will be announced…

Yes! I really (want to) believe in pink unicorns. :-\ Nope! They should stay white.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: The Next \

My 400 f/5.6 is plenty sharp - did well on safari last year - but would consider upgrading if the new lense has the measure of improvement optically that you would be entitled to expect after all these years. Pleased to hear they are reverting to a conventional zoom. 100-400 and 7Dii should make a great pairing - but that's about the price of a 1DX :-\

The 400F5.6 is definitely sharper than the 100-400. I did a side-side test between them a couple of years ago and the 400F5.6 was noticeably sharper.... My suspicion is that a new 100-400 would be sharper than the 400F5.6, but if they come out with a new 400F5.6 I'll be on it like a fat boy on a wedding cake! For my needs, that would be ultimate combination of reach/portability/quality.

I have to disagree with you there. I've done several tests recently between a new 400/5.6 and my old 100-400 on the 50D with AFMA checks on both and the 100-400 beats the prime on axis every time. The 400/5.6 - the second I have had - will be put up for sale shortly! Maybe your 100-400 was a below par version.

BTW on distant objects say 200m and beyond the image sizes are the same ie the 100-400 gives a true 400 assuming the 400/5.6 does the same.

Get on with it Mr Canon and gives us a new 100-400 with IS2.

 

[Hillsilly]

Re: The Next \

With the announcement of the Tamron 150-600 and generally positive reviews, I wonder how much interest there really is in a Canon 100-400 if it came with a serious price jump? Ok, sure it avoids long term compatibility concerns, will likely focus faster, be better built and hopefully will offer better image quality. All of that definitely demands a premium over a third party lens. But how much? I know my main use would be at the longer end and apparently the Tamron does ok up to around 500mm. I'm not sure if the Canon lens would be on many people's radar if it stayed at 400mm and was priced at $2500+ as some are hypothesising.

 

[Loswr]

Re: The Next \

With the announcement of the Tamron 150-600 and generally positive reviews, I wonder how much interest there really is in a Canon 100-400 if it came with a serious price jump? Ok, sure it avoids long term compatibility concerns, will likely focus faster, be better built and hopefully will offer better image quality. All of that definitely demands a premium over a third party lens. But how much? I know my main use would be at the longer end and apparently the Tamron does ok up to around 500mm. I'm not sure if the Canon lens would be on many people's radar if it stayed at 400mm and was priced at $2500+ as some are hypothesising.

Compared to the Tamron 150-600, the 100-400L is over 1 lb. lighter, close to 3" shorter, and delivers similar IQ through the overlapping range. An updated 100-400L would be similar in size, deliver much better IQ, and that would put it on many people's radar, even at $2500+.

 

[278204]

Re: The Next \

I really don't get their sense of timing.

The one plus side is it does let one more easily just wait half a year at that point until next spring by which time some of the early adopter pricing has worn off. But you'd think that would be the LAST thing they'd want. Don't they get that if they put it out in the spring or summer that they will lure in people to nab it at full release price because they want some new equipment right before their huge summer trip or the new wedding season or for the summer league and fall sports shooting seasons or at least the fall foliage vacation? Those are the sorts of things that can lure people into getting suckered into full intro pricing. ;D

Does it really make that much of a difference to them? Are that many early adopters and does the price tail off so quickly in 6 months? Presumably this is a model that is going to stay around for 10 years or so.

I think it's good that companies bring out a product when it's ready and neither rush or delay it to fit in with the market.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: The Next \

With the announcement of the Tamron 150-600 and generally positive reviews, I wonder how much interest there really is in a Canon 100-400 if it came with a serious price jump? Ok, sure it avoids long term compatibility concerns, will likely focus faster, be better built and hopefully will offer better image quality. All of that definitely demands a premium over a third party lens. But how much? I know my main use would be at the longer end and apparently the Tamron does ok up to around 500mm. I'm not sure if the Canon lens would be on many people's radar if it stayed at 400mm and was priced at $2500+ as some are hypothesising.

Compared to the Tamron 150-600, the 100-400L is over 1 lb. lighter, close to 3" shorter, and delivers similar IQ through the overlapping range. An updated 100-400L would be similar in size, deliver much better IQ, and that would put it on many people's radar, even at $2500+.

.....and Canon quality control must be a lot better than the made in China Tamron.
With the T you might be lucky to get a good one but then you might not...

 

[dufflover]

Re: The Next

That's the classic rubbish line about the 3rd party. You can just as easily get a dud Canon or Nikon. You could make a fuss with the exact numbers but unless there is something inherently wrong with the design then "in practice" it is not particularly more likely than the other.

People have had bad 100-400s. I think mine is pretty good compared against the 400 prime I borrowed once (behind but not too far)

 

[rrcphoto]

Re: The Next \

Is Canon's pricing of the recently released Canon E-FS 10-18 and Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0 and indicator of things to come?
Perhaps a realization that the way cheaper third party lenses are decent enough performers to drive their prices down?
Let's see what pricing pattern the next few releases bring.

it's probably due to with a falling yen more than anything. i doubt canon cares what third party lenses sell at, as that would happen in the design goals way before they get this far.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

Re: The Next \

What about the 50 or 85mm IS fast prime? Huh? Hmm? :

 

[DigitalDivide]

Re: The Next

That's the classic rubbish line about the 3rd party. You can just as easily get a dud Canon or Nikon. You could make a fuss with the exact numbers but unless there is something inherently wrong with the design then "in practice" it is not particularly more likely than the other.

It is not just a question of a good or bad design, although any designer of volume products worth his or her salt will try to minimize the sensitivity of the design to manufacturing variations. The extent to which the manufacturers are able to optimize their process control will play a big part in how likely you are to end up with a dud.

A company which maintains tight control over the materials, assembly equipment, manufacturing processes and externally sourced components will be able to minimize the percentage of out of tolerance products coming off the line. By controlling their test processes they can also ensure that most of the duds get rejected. This is what the science of process control is all about, and big companies like Canon take this very seriously. Not only does it improve the quality of their products, allowing them to charge higher prices, it also saves them money in failures and rework.

Even if two companies share a design, the quality from one may be very different from the other. An example which was quoted in a marketing class I took many years ago featured a gearbox that was built by both Mazda and Ford, who had (and I think still have) significant design sharing agreements. According to the class, Mazda's quality metrics were 8 times better than Ford's for the manufacture of an identical product. (I'm not bashing Ford by the way - this example is several decades out of date, so has little relevance today.) I don't have any hard data to compare Canon's quality with Tamron's, but I would disagree that the quality of the design trumps the manufacturing methods used to build it.