When will we see a replacement for the 100-400?

[mrsfotografie]

If Canon had a much better 100-400 (similar to the raves I have heard about the new Nikon 80-400) it would make my travels a lot lighter. Then I would have a hard decision. Keep both the 200-400 and improved 100-400 or sell the 200-400.

I believe a number of nature photographers feel the same way.

Indeed. For travel, I often opt for the 70-300L as a much smaller alternative.

Yes I sometimes look upon my 70-300L as a sort of 100-400 alternative, but to me they're still very different lenses if you use them both on a full frame sensor. Due to the extra reach afforded by the 100-400, that one still finds its way to my camera more often. The 70-300L may be good for travel due to its size, but its weight is another matter - last trip I did (Japan) I really felt my back with the sum of the 'travel' gear that I was carrying, and the 70-300L sadly pushed the weight over the comfortable limit.

 

[NancyP]

As far as I can tell, the 100-400 is the lens amateurs get to shoot air shows, sports, mid-sized wildlife, birds, whatever. It is a great all-around lens that is reasonable in weight, and sells very well. Why change success? The current formulation is within affordability for mere mortals. Same goes for the 400 f/5.6L no-IS for specialty birders. It is affordable. It has fast AF. It is lightweight. It is really sharp wide open. Damn good for the price. I would love to shoot a Big White, but in the meantime I love my Little White.

Now, if they can produce updates that are in the same price range but are appreciably better, they could expect additional sales. I daresay that people will still be shooting with Little Whites due to autofocus performance.

 

[JonAustin]

I voted "when hell freezes over," because I'm holding out for a mark II release. Even if it doesn't take forever, it's starting to feel like it.

I have a 70-200 II, and rarely shoot longer (sold my 1.4x II with my 70-200 I), but the ability for further reach would come in handy from time to time. I get the "gateway lens" argument, but I doubt I'll ever be in the market for one of the big whites.

A 300 f/4L IS II + 1.4x III or a 400 f/5.6L IS would fit the bill, too.

The new 16-35 f/4L is also on my radar, so I'll probably spring for one of those next time I absolutely have to buy new glass.

 

[Tanispyre]

I am not sure this will ever be replaced. I think Canon figured it's replacement was the 70-300L, so we are good for another 8 years.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm starting to wonder if Canon pulled any replacement to look at producing a longer zoom. A 100-500mm f/5.6 might be possible. It would be larger and a lot more expensive, but might compete with the Sigma or Tamron 150-600 which are f/6.3 lenses.

For now, I'm hanging on to my 100-400. I like it, and use it at 400 mostly, even with a 1.4X TC on my 5D MK III. I've ordered a 2nd 1.4X TC (Kenko) to see if I can make it work with my 100L by taping pins. I can shutoff the AFMA, but my 100L needs 10 points, so that's not a option.