waiting for a new 100-400mm lens

[smirkypants]

I wholeheartedly agree with Neuro on the dust issue. As long as someone doesn't use the phrase "dust-pump" I promise to remain calm. I've taken my 100-400 to hell and back and there's no dust in it. I've shot in a dust storm pumping like mad. Nada. No dust.

I don't necessarily agree with Neuro on the image quality issue. I find it rather dodgy, especially on the long end. Also, the lens needs a LOT of light. This is purely my experience so, you know, who knows if it's generalizable, but I did an experiment with my 100-400 and a 70-200+2x converter. I set both to auto ISO and shot the same thing, and generally the 100-400 shot at a higher ISO, usually 1/3 stop but sometimes 2/3, even though both were 5.6.

Of course who the hell knows what was really going on. There are a lot of possible variables and I'm not a tech guy as much as an art guy.

 

[keithfullermusic]

I have a 50D and the 100-400, so I can offer some insight.

First, I had to micro adjust mine +6, and that made a huge difference right off the bat. Still, it is soft wide open at the 400 range. But, if you put it at f/7.1-9 it is sharp as a mother sticker. This means you need light - there is no way around it. When I am using it I immediately set my f stop to 8 and my ISO to 400. Then I see where my shutter is and go from there.

On the 50D ISO 400 looks just as good as 100, I'm usually able to get a fast enough shot with those settings and they look absolutely great.

In terms of dust, I have none. I bought mine used from lensrentals.com so I don't know about it's previous use, but you can bet it took some intense situations before it got to me. I've take mine to the beach during a frickin wind storm and have had no problems.

I don't get why people think that push pull means dust vacuum. Any lens that moves forward and backward will push and pull air. The sealing is what makes the difference.

Anyway, if you have a bunch of cash and want to wait a year or so then sure, wait. No doubt the new one will be nicer. But for $1,300 you can get the current one used and I promise you will love that thing. You can always sell it and get the new one when it comes out. You might lose a couple hundred, but that's much cheaper than renting it for a year. You might also realize that you don't want the new one because the current one is a great lens already.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Now, I am traveling in Nigeria. The wet day is easy to destroy your luxurious lens. If nothing happens, it would ok. But nobody can guarantee no accident happen. For example, when you go out from an indoor cold environment, into a warm wet outdoor area, you would find your lens covers foggy. It would probably be wrecked without water-sealed.

In that case, there is no interchangable lens camera that will work. None of them are vapor tight, so water vapor gets in them all. Yet, photographers by the thousands seem to have no issue.

 

[dturano]

I have been searching for a used 100-400mm, i can get one at a local camera shop for $1200. Im hoping to find one a little cheaper.

I have seen some great sample images with the 100-400mm, on FF I feel the extra 100mm over the 300mm will make a difference in reach.

Is worth getting this brand new for what im looking to spend on a used 100-400mm? The 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO OS HSM by sigma, im not looking to start a comp thread or get bashed for asking if the sigma is the same, just wondering if anybody has any experience using both lens and can either help me wait for the 100-400mm used i hope to find or get a new sigma.

Thanks.

 

[dturano]

I have been checking some reviews on the sigma lens, not looking good, i hear its not worth the price, and found most reviews were people like me hoping to get better results but would yearn for the better contrast and image quality from the canon 100-400mm.

 

[tron]

I would suggest that you get he Canon 100-400mm. I own one. It is a good lens and it could serve you for years (even after the introduction of a new version).

 

[dturano]

thanks tron, i have been getting mixed user reviews online which i take with a grain of salt, pic quality seems great, and i think your right about it being a solid lens that will hold its own even if a newer version is released. Thanks for your input.

I have been looking at quality on flickr, 500px, and some other resources, great stuff from that lens, i never gave it a look until i went FF and decided 400mm over 300mm would make a difference for me.

Thanks again

I would suggest that you get he Canon 100-400mm. I own one. It is a good lens and it could serve you for years (even after the introduction of a new version).

 

[smirkypants]

thanks tron, i have been getting mixed user reviews online which i take with a grain of salt, pic quality seems great, and i think your right about it being a solid lens that will hold its own even if a newer version is released. Thanks for your input.

You absolutely must NOT wait for a newer version. I waited THREE years from when Canon first started talking about the 200-400/f4 + 1.4x until the point where I just threw my hands up in the air and said the hell with it. Seriously... that lens has been OFFICIALLY announced for years and is still not out.

 

[dturano]

i know there is a big value lens thread right now, for this lens 100-400mm L whats a reasonable used price?

I was hoping to spend around $900-$1200 depending on the condition/date/etc.

$1589 after rebate, new is currently out of my range, looking to trade a barely used 100mm L plus cash for one, they have new and used at a local dealer and a few on cl

http://www.cameta.com/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6-L-IS-USM-Telephoto-Zoom-Lens-10141.cfm

$1199 plus tax
http://www.cameta.com/index.cfm?fa=display.search&page=1&keywords=100-400mm&used=1

Again thanks for the input, really helpful, i have my sights set on the current canon 100-400mm L

 

[epsiloneri]

....the hood "looks" cheap....no fancy tulip design, it's a straight up barrel. It just looks dumpy...but it works.

That's a negative? So...you'd prefer a 'cooler' looking hood to one that's designed for optimal optical parformance?

Isn't a tulip design, cool looking or not, always the optimal for optical performance?

 

[leecheeyee]

In Hongkong, the price is most cheap than other places. For example,you can find 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II only 2050USD.

 

[unfocused]

i know there is a big value lens thread right now, for this lens 100-400mm L whats a reasonable used price?

When it is in stock, the Canon Refurb Store (USA) sells it for $1,359. Cheaper when they offer their special sales, but hard to come by. (It's currently out of stock). CanonPriceWatch.com shows a used one just sold at B&H for $1,349.

So, for pricing purposes, I would say a reasonable used price would be in the neighborhood of $1,200 to $1,350 if in top condition. The low end for a sale from an individual (no warranty, etc.) the higher end from a dealer that offers a warranty or return.

BTW, I was was waiting for the next version, but then when I read it would likely be twice the price, decided to pull the trigger on a refurbished last year. Glad I did.

 

[Loswr]

FWIW, there's one in 'excellent condition' up on my local Craigslist right now for $1100.

 

[Drizzt321]

In terms of dust, I have none. I bought mine used from lensrentals.com so I don't know about it's previous use, but you can bet it took some intense situations before it got to me. I've take mine to the beach during a frickin wind storm and have had no problems.

I don't get why people think that push pull means dust vacuum. Any lens that moves forward and backward will push and pull air. The sealing is what makes the difference.

Really? I knew it (and the 28-300) had weather sealing, but didn't know that it was good enough to prevent a bunch of dust from getting inside while extending the lens out. The reason I'd think that the 100-400/28-300 would get more dust in is because they extend more, and possibly faster (thus creating more suction).

Guess I might have to revisit those 2 lenses, or at least the 100-400 as a decent quality, reasonable cost telephoto for me. A lot cheaper than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, which I also want to get for some concert shooting & some portraiture.

 

[Loswr]

I knew it (and the 28-300) had weather sealing, but didn't know that it was good enough to prevent a bunch of dust from getting inside while extending the lens out. The reason I'd think that the 100-400/28-300 would get more dust in is because they extend more, and possibly faster (thus creating more suction).

Any extending zoom will move air. Through the 24-105mm and retracting the zoom generates a puff of backblow sufficient to make me blink...

Note that the 100-400mm lacks the seal at the mount gasket that would otherwise make it a 'weather-sealed' lens like the 28-300mm.

 

[akiskev]

I knew it (and the 28-300) had weather sealing, but didn't know that it was good enough to prevent a bunch of dust from getting inside while extending the lens out. The reason I'd think that the 100-400/28-300 would get more dust in is because they extend more, and possibly faster (thus creating more suction).

Any extending zoom will move air. Through the 24-105mm and retracting the zoom generates a puff of backblow sufficient to make me blink...

Note that the 100-400mm lacks the seal at the mount gasket that would otherwise make it a 'weather-sealed' lens like the 28-300mm.

Why, in your opinion, the 100-400 lacks this seal?

 

[leecheeyee]

Even I am not a rich experience photographer, I find some mistake in Canon product strategy. First is the 50mm f/1.4, second is 24-70mm f/2.8. You can see Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is better than EF 50mm f/1.4. And from Rumors today, it said that Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is more sharp than EF 24-70. The more important thing is that Tomron len is with stabilization feature. The price is around 1200USD. The new EF 24-70 II is around 2200USD. Compared this, I think most friends would select the front one. Please check the link. I am planning to buy EF 50 f1.4 firstly. At the end I change my choice to Sigma. The 24-70 lens, I think I would do the same. Let's back to 100-400mm II. I hope Canon understands what happen now. Don't let his fans lost patient in his market strategy.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data

 

[Drizzt321]

I knew it (and the 28-300) had weather sealing, but didn't know that it was good enough to prevent a bunch of dust from getting inside while extending the lens out. The reason I'd think that the 100-400/28-300 would get more dust in is because they extend more, and possibly faster (thus creating more suction).

Any extending zoom will move air. Through the 24-105mm and retracting the zoom generates a puff of backblow sufficient to make me blink...

Note that the 100-400mm lacks the seal at the mount gasket that would otherwise make it a 'weather-sealed' lens like the 28-300mm.

Why, in your opinion, the 100-400 lacks this seal?

I'd guess, from what neuro wrote, that the 100-400 lacks the gasket seal at the lens mount against the camera body the way the 24-105 & other lenses have. The 135L lacks this as well, which disappoints me a bit. It couldn't have been all that much more to add, but would have added to it's weather sealing.

 

[photophreek]

Isn't the rumored 100-400mm a f/4-5.6 as opposed to a f/4.5-5.6? If the ver II is indeed a f/4-5.6, this lens will be heavier and bigger than the ver I. I also seem to remember reading here that the rumored price could be $3000+. Given Canon's track record of pricing for new lenses, this price might happen. I'm in no rush for this lens as I am quite happy with my sharp 100-400 ver I.

 

[leecheeyee]

Isn't the rumored 100-400mm a f/4-5.6 as opposed to a f/4.5-5.6? If the ver II is indeed a f/4-5.6, this lens will be heavier and bigger than the ver I. I also seem to remember reading here that the rumored price could be $3000+. Given Canon's track record of pricing for new lenses, this price might happen. I'm in no rush for this lens as I am quite happy with my sharp 100-400 ver I.

It would be the same weigth I guess. If the new verson reach 3000+ USD, it is a little high gup to get it.