Why Does the 100-400L Sell So Well Still ?

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Here are the actual quantitative comparisons of the 100-400mm L vs the 400mm f/5.6L from MTFs measured by Photozone, presented by Canon, and the blur tests from SLRGear. You can see from all three that the zoom is at least as sharp at the centre. I have had both lenses and can vouch for it first hand as well.

Interesting that those match the Canon MTF, but the Lens Rental measurements do not at all (nor TDP).

 

[scottkinfw]

I have been twice to Tanzania on private safari. I would strongly advise you to speak with the safari organizer about what to expect. There are many different types of tours, tour vehicles, tour guides, parks etc. Some venues will get you up close and personal, and obviously, a 560mm will be too much. That said, your coverage should be fine. Depending on the vehicle type, and if you will be out of the vehicle, you may do better with a bean bag. I would also suggest considering a flash, better beamer, extra cards and batteries, and a back up strategy. You will be surprised how many pics you will take, and how many mb it will use, especially if shooting raw.

Have a great time.

sek

I had a 600mm L as well as the 100-400mmL. I sold the 600 because the 100-400mmL was more usable and practical, even if it was not quite as sharp. I've never regretted that decision.
I've also owned the 400mm f/5.6L. The IQ is about the same as the 100-400L, the AF might be a bit faster, but... without IS, its limited to high shutter speeds or a tripod. It does not focus closely, and its a pain to carry in a ordinary camera bag. It also takes TC's, so I can get 560mm and AF with my 5D MK III.

I'm about to take the 5D III, 5DC, 400mm 5.6, 70-200mm 2.8II and 1.4x & 2X III extenders on safari. Hoping it will cover most situations. My first try on the weekend with the 400 and 1.4III suggests the IQ is reasonable and with a monopod (in the mail) I'm hoping to be able to get some reasonable shots at 560mm. Fingers crossed.

 

[AvTvM]

finally we get some real measurements, how the current 100-400 fares against the other 400mm lenses from Canon (except 400DO).

http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/lensrentals-com-tests-the-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x/

I would like a 100-400/4.0-5.6 L IS Mk. II, turning zoom (not push-pull), with 4 stop IS, full wheather-sealing, 9 aperture blades and IQ matching the current 400/5.6 at 400mm, f/5.6 ...

For the flexibility of a zoom lens and IS I would be prepared to pay up to twice the price of the current 400/5.6 for it, But not more.

P.S. The EF 400/5.6 currently retails for Euro 1260,- including 20% VAT where I live ...

 

[tron]

Rework the 100-400 and the 400F5.6 to the latest technologies, give them both IS and the same level of build. The 400F5.6 will be sharper, will cost less, and be outsold ten to one by the 100-400 zoom because PEOPLE LIKE ZOOMS!

I would get one too!

 

[viggen61]

Canon will sell hundreds of times more 100-400 zooms than the 200-400 lens. In the mass market, very few will pay $1500 for a lens and a miniscule percentage will pay $10,000. The 100-400 sells so well because it is affordable, works better than the kit lenses, and gives a longer reach. Plus, people love zooms.... zooms outsell primes....

Rework the 100-400 and the 400F5.6 to the latest technologies, give them both IS and the same level of build. The 400F5.6 will be sharper, will cost less, and be outsold ten to one by the 100-400 zoom because PEOPLE LIKE ZOOMS!

+1

 

[viggen61]

Some very interesting comments and observations. However I am still undecided on what to purchase but to be fair I am not the quickest in decision making.

But ...... it seems that the IQ is not really that much different between the two lenses. It also seems that most people, although admitting that the AF and IS is better on the 70-300L, still opt for the 100-400L. This can only be in my eyes mainly for the extra reach and being able to use teleconverters.

Well, yes, definitely on the first part. YOU must ask yourself if YOU will need or want to carry around that extra 301-400mm and the additional 9 ounces.

The 100-400 certainly has it's uses, and many of us have bought one, but the penalty is a heavier lens, with 15-year old electronics. I will gladly pay that penalty, because I use the lens at 400mm, and simply cannot afford to spend well over $5,000 on a lens!

So here is my thinking. The 100-400 has been around a long time. The 70-300 is very new and is an L lens which means in Canon terms the best.

Don't forget the 100-400 is also an "L" lens...

Are we saying that in all the years since the 100-400 came out that lens design has hardly progressed ?

Hardly! Electronics has, of course, advanced very far. New IS modules are up to 4 stops of IS, whereas the 100-400 does "up to" 2 stops. AF algoritms have improved, as well as accuracy and repeatability. One of the other sites compared new lenses vs old lenses on several EOS bodies, and came to the conclusion that the best bang for your buck would be a newer camera (as in 5DII/7D and newer) with a lens from 2005/2006 or later. Older lenses, like the 100-400, 400 f/5.6, 300 f/4, etc. aren't quite as "repeatble" in terms of AF accuracy.

But better glass doesn't get cheaper at the same rate that newer electronics gets cheaper. The types of elements that make the Great Whites so good, and so costly, simply don't get all that much cheaper when scaled down to a more "mainstream" lens like a 100-400.

Are we saying that the only way to get more IQ is going to cost mega bucks ? In this case I refer to the new 200-400.

Well, first, the 100-400 is pretty darned good IQ to begin with. That's not to say there aren't lenses with better IQ, but Canon also produces a lot of lenses with not nearly as good IQ, a fact that often gets missed in conversations like these.

IQ is largely determined by factors, exclusive of AF and IS. The glass costs money, and to achieve the spectacular results of the 400 f/2.8, 300 f/2.8, 200-400 f/4 1.4x takes much more expensive glass, and that, apparently, doesn't scale well to a lower-cost lens. I'm confident that a new 100-400 will have better IQ than the current one, but likely not up to the standard of a lens like the 200-400...

Is this the reason why there is still no replacement for the 100-400 because Canon are unable to produce a much better product for only $1000 to $1500 more and if they do produce one then it will be at such a cost that it will just not sell. In other words why spend so much money of R&D and then take a risk that the new lens will not sell.

I think the 100-400, along with the 400 f/5.6 and 300 f/4 are long overdue for an upgrade. But it isn't like Canon has been twiddling their thumbs, doing nothing! Since 2006, basically all of the White "L" lenses have been updated, along with introducing the the 800 f/5.6, the 200 f/2.0, the 70-300, the 70-200 f/4 IS, and others. The original 300, 400, 500 & 600 IS lenses were introduced in 1999, so it took twleve years for new versions of those to see the light of day. I'd expect, in the next year or two (or three, or...) to see the 100-400, 400 f/5.6 & 300 f/4 updated to newer IS & AF at the least.

Also, Canon, Nikon, et. al. have us "prepared" for expensive lenses. When I got into Canon a couple years ago, I was shocked at the lens prices. But at this point, almost anything is acceptable for price, if it ups the "keeper rate". I don't think I'd expect the price to double, but it wouldn't shock me if they added $1,000 to the price tag on a 100-400 MkII...

Do people therefore accept that the 100-400 in a MKII version will only get very slightly better IQ but will upgrade because it will have better IS and AF ?

Don't underestimate the value of better IS & AF! Skulking about the woods, looking for birds can be a challenge for both, particularly when you are wanting to keep the ISO low! An extra stop or two of IS might mean I don't have to go to ISO 1600 to get a shot.

If I could send my 100-400 in to Canon and have them install the same quality AF & IS from the 70-300, I'd be a happy camper!

I think you're trying to find some magic feature of the 100-400 lens (aside from, well, 400!) that just isn't there. Comparing these two lenses is a lot like comparing a sports car (think Miata, not Porsche) to a hatchback. They can do a lot of the same things, but there are some things they do differently, or one can do that the other can not. You need to decide which features are the more important to you.

 

[K-amps]

@clostridium - not to be difficile , but while the 100-400 is slightly better in terms of IQ than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, it's not better enough to be significant in real-world shooting. (Note this applies to the MkII version of the 70-200 only.) I have them both, and the difference isn't great enough to warrant taking both white zooms, IMO.

I second that.... having both and tested them. The difference is very minor. The 100-400 had more contrast, but the 70-200mk.ii has newer coatings allowing more shadow detail retrieval. After good PP'ing, it will be hard to choose one over the other.

 

[RLPhoto]

It works and canon still makes it.

 

[Krob78]

I use them both, regularly... I like having both and can't see any reason for me not to own both... I would only consider selling the 100-400mm if I had a Canon 2x III converter or a 500mm or 600mm lens... So for now, I'll keep both and like it! ;D