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

[Drizzt321]

I wish people would stop buying [the 100-400] and force Canon to produce a more modern lens with better IQ and IS.

+1 I don't mind if people keep buying it, but I would like to see Canon refresh this 15-year-old design. I know that a v II would carry a price premium, but I'd be open to that. I would like a "collapsible" zoom with more reach than my 70-200, but I'm put off by the old tech and push-pull of the 100-400, as well as the "reversed" zoom and focus rings of the 70-300.

I plan to stay on the fence a while longer, holding out for a 100-400 II. If one doesn't materialize by the time I'm ready to pull the trigger, I'll probably go for the 70-300.

While Push-Pull might be 'old', it's not that it's bad. It's just a design that most of us aren't used to (me included, I don't have a push-pull). However, I agree. The optics & IS and such are quite old compared to most of the other current lenses, and from everything I've seen it does need an update to stay relevant compared to a lot of the other Canon L glass. Unfortunately, it will indeed carry a price that's a good bit more than the current price.

 

[bycostello]

i'd imagine because people want 100-400 that buy it....

 

[AvTvM]

1. Price, price, price!
2. 400mm
3. IS
4. Zoom

The 70-300L is a good lens, but just way too expensive.
And 300mm is too short for "real tele use" - e.g. wildlife, outdoor sports, airshows etc. ... especially on FF sensors.

 

[RGF]

1. Price, price, price!
2. 400mm
3. IS
4. Zoom

The 70-300L is a good lens, but just way too expensive.
And 300mm is too short for "real tele use" - e.g. wildlife, outdoor sports, airshows etc. ... especially on FF sensors.

Add hopefully fixed F4.5 Except price to close to $3000


Will make 70-300L seem cheap

 

[Hannes]

The 400mm prime doesn't seem to be sufficiently better than the 100-400 and it isn't particularly cheap either. If canon made a 400mm f4 prime that isn't DO I imagine it would sell quite well, at least as long as it wasn't much more than the 100-400. Maybe even a sharper 400 5.6 would sell if it had modern IS

 

[AlanF]

Focal reports accuracy and reproducibility of focus of different lenses and bodies. On the 7D, the 100-400mm is very poor, which I can confirm.
http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/online-tools/lenscamera-information/

On the 5DIII, the focu is excellent, which again I can confirm. The 100-400mm is in general much better on the new FF.

Adding a 1.4xTC III is no better than increasing the pixels by 1.33x in PS so it is not worth using it with an extender.

My 70-200mm L IS with a 2xTC III on the 5DIII has about the same IQ etc at 400mm as does the 100-400mm.
Trouble is, once you have used the 300mm f/2.8 II with 1.4 and 2xTCs (hand held), you are spoiled for lesser IQ.

 

[Loswr]

If canon made a 400mm f4 prime that isn't DO I imagine it would sell quite well, at least as long as it wasn't much more than the 100-400.

And that is only slightly less likely than seeing pigs flying over snowbanks in hell. You do realize that a 400/4, DO or not, needs to have at least a 100 mm diameter front element, right? A lens like that would certainly not be cheaper than the 200/2, i.e., $6K at a minimum and likely much more if built to the standard of the other MkII supertele lenses.

 

[Plainsman]

It sells well because it is a sharp robust design.

Robust because the front optics slide along single rigid tube.

If the new one is like the latest offerings from Sony (70-400) and Nikon (80-400) with the flimsy extending tube - prone to damaged alignment from the slightest knock - I will not be buying it.

One more reason for keeping this lens is that you actually get 400mm at the top end for distant objects - not 375/380mm or whatever from the new Sony and Nikon breathers. I have checked this myself with the 100-400 against the 400/5.6 side by side with the same body - both exactly the same image size at "infinity".

I wish Canon would keep the current design layout, upgrade the optics with IS 2 - that's all that is necessary.

 

[lol]

The 70-300DO does have a rather niche reason for existence, which is its really tiny size when retracted. I used to have one of those as well, but wide open it was highly prone to flare and low contrast. To get half decent output you really needed f/8.

The 70-300L size advantage is in part why I have it in addition to the 100-400L, but it is still far bigger than the DO for example.

If you think the 100-400L is heavy, you can try what I did. I got the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 too. Use that for a bit, and the 100-400L seems weightless in comparison!

I can't comment on the relative sharpness of the 100-400L too much, or if there is much sample variation. I only know that mine, and another sample a friend has, both are more than good enough.

 

[Deva]

When I had the choice, I chose the 70-300L over the 100-400L for a few key reasons:

1. I'd had the chance to try out the 100-400L for a couple of evenings, photographing the dress rehearsals of a couple of school plays - and by the end of each evening, after 1,000 or so pictures, I was really feeling the weight of the 100-400L, it was a serious workout!

2. Portability - the 100-400L was just too large to carry around on a day-to-day basis - it wouldn't fit in my camera bag (not to mention the weight again).

3. IS - the modern IS of the 70-300L is a joy to use. It's allowed me to take usable pictures off the back of a fast ferry at 1/6th of a second.

Yes, I do miss the extra reach of the 400mm at times - but I don't take enough pictures of distant critters to want to have to carry around a 100-400L all the time.

 

[distant.star]

And that is only slightly less likely than seeing pigs flying over snowbanks in hell.

Mmmmmmmmm, barbecue!!!!

 

[jthomson]

The 100-400mm L sells well because it and the 400 mm f5.L are the only semi-affordable 400mm lenses with decent image quality. The 100-400mm L sells better than the 400mm f5.6L because the zoom is more versatile than the prime.

The 70-300mm L doesn't sell as well because it is overpriced. You don't need to spend $1400 to get a 70-300mm lens. Canon makes a non-L 70-300mm that many people get as their first long telephoto and Tamron makes a 70-300mm that is both less expensive and better than the Canon Non-L. If you have either of these lenses and you want to upgrade, then you will most probably pick one of the 400mm's to get the better image quality and the extra 100mm than for the 70-300mm L that has only a small improvement in image quality.


This will probably change when Canon finally upgades the 100-400mm. I would expect that the price will go up to around $3500 and then the 70-300mm L will look more attractive.

 

[viggen61]

Do people need the extra 100mm that much?

One word: Birds... 400mm is "entry level", even with a crop camera like my 7D, for birding. 300 doesn't really cut it for wild birds. I have a Tamron SP 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di VC USD, and it's a nice, compact lens for travel, but when I'm out birding, it stays home. 100mm isn't a lot of difference, but it helps. There are times I can barely get close enough to a small songbird with the 100-400 @ 400. With the 300, I'd never get close enough.

Do people compare the two lenses or just buy the 100-400L because so many other photographers use it?

I'm sure many do make comparisons, and there are some serious points to consider that could make one choose one lens over the other.

When I was looking, the 70-300L was recently out, and priced similarly to the 100-400 (actually, slightly higher), but it "officially" does not support Canon Extenders. Since I already had a 70-300, and I knew I needed more reach, I opted for the 100-400. Plus, even if it did support the extenders, with a 1.4x, it gets me 420mm @ f/8, where my 7D cannot Autofocus!

Yes, the weight of this lens is an issue for some, but if you want to get good shots of birds, you're gonna be carrying the weight one way or another. Three pounds is pretty lightweight for what this lens does. You're looking at 8 pounds and up for other serious birding options though, with the "big whites". A 400 f/5.6 IS would (well, should...) be lighter, but it's not available.

As for the push-pull design, I don't find that an issue, but I DO wish there was a better mechanism for friction locking the lens in place. The double-ring thing is imprecise at best, and I tend to have it locked someplace, somewhat limiting the versatility. Back in the 80s, when "zoom" was a dirty word (well, more of a dirty word than it is today!) many, many zooms were push-pull. If you want really weird, there were even some where the "tele" end was pulled back, and the "wide" end was pushed forward! My point is, that, while push-pull may be unusual in Canon's lineup (only the 100-400 & 28-300 have it currently), it is not that unusual in the history of zoom lenses. As far as I am concerned, if Canon thinks a new design for the 100-400 is best as a push-pull, that would be fine by me, though (hopefully!) with a better zoom friction system.

Really, what I would most like to see in a new 100-400 is a modern IS and AF (the 100-400 is a FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD design!) with somewhat improved IQ that might make a II with a 1.4 have similar IQ to the original.

(Heck, if they just dropped modern IS (4 stops, please!) & AF into the current lens, I'd pay them $500 more than what it is now!)

Are people buying now because yes they would love the version II but are scared that it will be to expensive?

Some may be, but I'm not sure that would be the best idea just yet. It's not like the current lens will diasppear. When/If a new 100-400 arrives, the current one will likely be cheaper to buy used, well, at least still cheaper than the new one certainly will be! There will be lots of us who will be looking for ways to fund the version II by selling their version I!

 

[Solar B]

No mention of the Sigma 120-400? What do people think of this lens?

 

[AvTvM]

Really, what I would most like to see in a new 100-400 is a modern IS and AF (the 100-400 is a FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD design!) with somewhat improved IQ that might make a II with a 1.4 have similar IQ to the original.

(Heck, if they just dropped modern IS (4 stops, please!) & AF into the current lens, I'd pay them $500 more than what it is now!)

YES, this is what so MANY of us would like to get! Actually all of us, except those individuals who absolutely do not want a push-pull zoom or who are able & willing to purchase the 200-400/1.4x.

I for one would be interested in either of the following lenses:

A 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS L Mk. II - push-pull design, same amount of weather-sealing, but 4 stop IS and slightly better IQ at the long end, at a price similar to the current lens - meaning: way below 2000 USD/€

OR

B. 100-400/4.0-5.6 IS L Mk. II, turning zoom, better weather-/dustsealing (!), clearly better IQ across the entire focal range and frame - especially at the long end - and significantly better Bokeh (9-aperture blades), and included detachable tripod ring with integrated Arca-Swiss compatible grooves on its foot which also serves as nice carrying handle ... for around USD/Euro 2.500

However, based on my longstanding observations of Canon product development and pricing decisions I predict, they will eventually offer a 100-400/4.5-5.6 turning zoom with all other specs as in option A above ... "in order not to cannibalize the 200-400/1.4x" : ... AND a price tag north of 3000 USD/Euro

Some may be, but I'm not sure that would be the best idea just yet. It's not like the current lens will diasppear. When/If a new 100-400 arrives, the current one will likely be cheaper to buy used, well, at least still cheaper than the new one certainly will be! There will be lots of us who will be looking for ways to fund the version II by selling their version I!

If Canon comes up with what I predict [only very slightly improved Mk. II costing 3k+ USD/Euro], prices for well maintained, used 100-400's will go up and remain high for a long time.

 

[Krob78]

I think this is why it keeps selling...

Sure some may rip it apart for it's lack of sharpness but it works for me!

EF 100-400mm
f/5.6
ISO 200
1/2000 sec

Why wouldn't one want that?

 

[JonAustin]

Re: AvTvM's post:

I tend to agree, and I'd be fine with either of those alternatives. (Like you, I'd prefer option B, and would be willing to pay for it.)

I'd even be fine with them limiting the zoom range to 150- or 200-400mm.

 

[tron]

Re: AvTvM's post:

I tend to agree, and I'd be fine with either of those alternatives. (Like you, I'd prefer option B, and would be willing to pay for it.)

I'd even be fine with them limiting the zoom range to 150- or 200-400mm.

200-400mm f/5.6L ?

This is impossible for Canon! It would compete with the 200-400 f/4L !!!

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with your idea. Canon will!

Imagine a very good EF500mm f/5.6L IS or EF600mm f/5.6L IS.
They would sell like hot cakes (well almost!) and Canon would almost kiss goodby their f/4L IS II ones. OK there would still be professional buyers for these big telephoto lenses but not as many as there are to day.

(Unfortunately for amateurs...)

 

[Loswr]

200-400mm f/5.6L ?

This is impossible for Canon! It would compete with the 200-400 f/4L !!!

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with your idea. Canon will!

Imagine a very good EF500mm f/5.6L IS or EF600mm f/5.6L IS.
They would sell like hot cakes (well almost!) and Canon would almost kiss goodby their f/4L IS II ones. OK there would still be professional buyers for these big telephoto lenses but not as many as there are to day.

Sure, because the 300/4L IS means that Canon would never produce a 300/2.8L IS lens, much less multiple versions of one, right? And an 85/1.2 would be a non-starter, because of competition from the 85/1.8. A 400/4 lens? Never happen, there's a 400/5.6. Ummmm.....no.

 

[Jan van Holten]

For a lens of this size ( 100 - 400 mm ) push / pull works great. It is really easy to use.
Please bring out a new one according to modern standards. it is a great lens for traveling by plane, but reduce the weight a little bit more.