To anyone waiting for a new 100-400L...

[mbpics]

Sony is getting ready to release a new 70-400, and it looks like the price of the new lens will be a whopping $3000!

You can see a blurb about the price at the bottom of this post: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-full-a58-and-nex-3n-specs/

I wonder what the eventual 100-400L successor will cost

 

[nonac]

Just sold my 100-400. I had it for almost 7 years and sold it for $160 less than I paid for it. Pretty good return for the thousands of pics I shot with it. Most of the shots were at the upper end of the zoom range, planning to buy a 400 2.8 later this year to replace it.

 

[Don Haines]

Sony is getting ready to release a new 70-400, and it looks like the price of the new lens will be a whopping $3000!

You can see a blurb about the price at the bottom of this post: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-full-a58-and-nex-3n-specs/

I wonder what the eventual 100-400L successor will cost

But further on in the article it states... I cannot confirm yet the price of the new lens. As you noticed $3,000 for the 70-400mm lens would be way too high!

 

[mbpics]

Sony is getting ready to release a new 70-400, and it looks like the price of the new lens will be a whopping $3000!

You can see a blurb about the price at the bottom of this post: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-full-a58-and-nex-3n-specs/

I wonder what the eventual 100-400L successor will cost

But further on in the article it states... I cannot confirm yet the price of the new lens. As you noticed $3,000 for the 70-400mm lens would be way too high!

whoops, good catch!

An earlier post has it priced at $2400-$2500, so slightly more reasonable considering the current model retails for $1900.

 

[dhofmann]

The A58 looks nice, too. 20MP and 8 fps for $600...

 

[mbpics]

The A58 looks nice, too. 20MP and 8 fps for $600...

Agreed! I'm interested to see what they mean by "one stop better" than its predecessor. I figure it has more to do with minimizing the negative effects of the translucent mirror at higher ISO than actually making the sensor a stop better at ISO 100, as the previous 16mp sensor is darn good to begin with.

8fps is nice, but I'd never be comfortable with having to use an EVF, especially on an SLR-sized body. It's a necessary evil (heheh) in mirrorless systems, but if I'm going to lug around an SLR then you'd better believe it's going to have an OVF.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Sony charges a arm and a leg for their lenses, even the ones with no IS. $3,000 +/- is about right. A new 100-400mml is going to run $2600 - 2800, which is likely why we haven't seen one. A tiny improvement costs a lot of money.

 

[Radiating]

Sony is getting ready to release a new 70-400, and it looks like the price of the new lens will be a whopping $3000!

You can see a blurb about the price at the bottom of this post: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-full-a58-and-nex-3n-specs/

I wonder what the eventual 100-400L successor will cost

The 70-400mm I is one of the worst lenses ever made. I doubt they can put out something decent.

 

[CarlTN]

Just sold my 100-400. I had it for almost 7 years and sold it for $160 less than I paid for it. Pretty good return for the thousands of pics I shot with it. Most of the shots were at the upper end of the zoom range, planning to buy a 400 2.8 later this year to replace it.

That is incredible, especially if you aren't adjusting for inflation...if you aren't, then you might actually be making money on it!

If you're talking about a new 400 f/2.8 II, then that's quite a jump in expenditure...you will certainly lose big money on that. Either of the 400 f/2.8's are quite superb, of course!

I would like to see a new 100-400. However, it would cost $2400 or more.

I would rather see a 400 f/5 with IS, or a 350 f/4 with IS, for maybe just under $3000. I guess it will never happen. Maybe Tamron or Sigma will make something like that.

 

[robbymack]

I think we'll be waiting a while, I don't think it's a priority. Maybe after the 200-400 starts shipping canon will want to update their other super tele zoom. I'd however rather see a 200-400 f4 without the built in teleconverter but I think that's a pipe dream. I wouldn't put it past tamron or sigma especially if they see canon resting on the old version of the 100-400.

 

[CarlTN]

I'm thinking of taking the chance on a Sigma 120-400. I currently own the 17-50, and before that, the 17-70. The 17-50 is a truly awesome, "L Quality" lens. Certainly the new f/1.4, is of the highest caliber. If I had a full frame camera, and sold a lot of other stuff (which I might)...I would get that lens also.

The main issue people have had with Sigma, myself included, was AF. I have no doubt their new line will probably never suffer those issues. And they certainly know how to design glass that meets a price point, and delivers quality beyond it.

I really am itching to try the new 120-300 f/2.8 with newly designed elements including two fluorite. Nobody knows when it will get released, it could be 40 years from now, or a thousand...or next week.