Why Does the 100-400L Sell So Well Still ?
- Thread starter CanonMan
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
Are we saying that in all the years since the 100-400 came out that lens design has hardly progressed ?
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
Are we saying that in all the years since the 100-400 came out that lens design has hardly progressed ?
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.
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.
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 ?
Upvote
0
I have used the 100-400 on Canon Rebels for 5 years obtaining some excellent photos and know many others who own this lens, but they are birders who want a good picture not a magazine quality photo. When I am on the trail I see dozens of these lenses.
Since I snap many small birds, I am looking for something longer for less than $5000 and have looked at the Nikon D7100, 80-400mm G VR, and 1.4x Tele giving more than 1000mm reach. I have seen many excellent comments on this configuration and hope it will push Canon to bring out a new 100-400mm f4.5-f5.6L and a new version of the 7D with f8 AF to compete with the above configuration.
Since I snap many small birds, I am looking for something longer for less than $5000 and have looked at the Nikon D7100, 80-400mm G VR, and 1.4x Tele giving more than 1000mm reach. I have seen many excellent comments on this configuration and hope it will push Canon to bring out a new 100-400mm f4.5-f5.6L and a new version of the 7D with f8 AF to compete with the above configuration.
Upvote
0
I enjoy shooting with it. You 400mm of reach for an ecomonical value.CanonMan said:Hi. Well I just posted a 70-200L / IS / 70-300L question and got some great comments. Food for thought.
I was not sure if to keep that post going or create a new one. As you can see I decided on the latter
I read recently that the 100-400L out sells the 70-300L by 4 to 1. If this is true how can that be ? It really confuses me more when I read that the 70-300L has better IQ, AF and IS. Build quality is amazing and no push pull.
Do people need the extra 100mm that much?
Do people compare the two lenses or just buy the 100-400L because so many other photographers use it?
Are people buying now because yes they would love the version II but are scared that it will be to expensive?
I had all the advice and helpful tips I needed to get my new camera sorted but the lens side for me is still driving me crazy
I really would still prefer a zoom over a prime.
As usual thanks in advance for your feedback.
Upvote
0
For trying to shoot wildlife with it as a main lens, the extra 100mm does help. Even 400m is very short and 300mm is practically wide angle.
The other 400mm options are $$$$$$$$$$$$ super-tele and 200-400 or a slow prime 400 f/5.6 with no IS.
(well you can use a 1.4x TC on a 300 f/4 non-IS or IS, the non-IS at least has fairly slow AF with the TC on, although some say the 100-400L doesn't have the world's fastest AF)
100-400 could use updated IS, faster AF and I'm sure they could make it crazy sharp these days
The other 400mm options are $$$$$$$$$$$$ super-tele and 200-400 or a slow prime 400 f/5.6 with no IS.
(well you can use a 1.4x TC on a 300 f/4 non-IS or IS, the non-IS at least has fairly slow AF with the TC on, although some say the 100-400L doesn't have the world's fastest AF)
100-400 could use updated IS, faster AF and I'm sure they could make it crazy sharp these days
Upvote
0
As I said, I would love to. I am just not optimistic!neuroanatomist said:tron said: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.
A modern 500mm f/5.6L IS for example would get a lot of happy buyers (me included) 8)
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
Seriously, it’s ridiculous that the current version doesn’t have IS! Brace yerselves and crank yer ISO’s mateys!
Upvote
0
tron said:200-400mm f/5.6L ?
This is impossible for Canon! It would compete with the 200-400 f/4L !!!
If a 200-400mm f/5.6L is impossible for Canon because it'd compete with the 200-400mm f/4L, a 100-400mm f/5.6L would kill the 200-400 f/4L, and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L should never exist! Oh wait ... :
Upvote
0
LOALTD said:
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.
Attachments
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
serendipidy said:
C'mon people, it's hell. You're making it sound fun and all, but realize that as you're ferried across the Styx, you'll be issued a Nikon D3200...with an AF kit lens (not AF-S), the DR crippled so it's worse than any Canon sensor, and locked in Small JPG mode.
CanonMan said:
Lens design has progressed a lot since the late 1990s. The 70-300L has better IQ than the 100-400L. But in all those years, they haven't managed to break the laws of physics that say a 400mm lens is 100mm longer than a 300mm lens.
The new 100-400 will have better coatings (SWC), better optical design, and noticeably better IQ, along with the latest IS...and the new 'white' paint.
Upvote
0
@dslrdummy - I'd strongly suggest renting a 100-400 or 70-300. The quality of the 100-400 at 400 is better than the 70-200 with a 2x TC, this has been shown in multiple online comparisons. The 400/5.6 is a good lens but you will lose flexibility in dealing with things near and far which is a reality on safari.
I think that 400 prime will be reasonable for long distance items (with or without the TC) but you will be hampered at closer distances. You don't want to be swapping lenses and/or TC's much in the environment on safari if you can avoid it.
This is a setting where a wider range zoom will shine.
Craig
I think that 400 prime will be reasonable for long distance items (with or without the TC) but you will be hampered at closer distances. You don't want to be swapping lenses and/or TC's much in the environment on safari if you can avoid it.
This is a setting where a wider range zoom will shine.
Craig
dslrdummy said:
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
@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.
, 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. clostridium said:
Upvote
0
Thanks for the suggestion Craig. I agree that not changing lenses or extenders in the wild is preferable, if not always practical. I think as Neuro said, one zoom will have to do. I actually had in mind putting the 1.4 extender on the 70-200 and that way I would have a 98-280 equivalent to go with the 400. anyways, time will tell me which is the best combination. Thanks anyway.clostridium said:
Phillip
Upvote
0
You know what I mean! A new version with exceptional sharpness (just like 200-400's sharpness in comparison to 400 f/2.8's as Roger Cicala mentioned) will affect sales of 200-400. True some determined professionals will prefer the f/4 but many may choose the new 100-400 if portability is of paramount importance (we all grow older). On the other hand I guess the new 100-400 would sell extremely well!!!marinien said:tron said:200-400mm f/5.6L ?
This is impossible for Canon! It would compete with the 200-400 f/4L !!!
If a 200-400mm f/5.6L is impossible for Canon because it'd compete with the 200-400mm f/4L, a 100-400mm f/5.6L would kill the 200-400 f/4L, and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L should never exist! Oh wait ... :
I would get one too 8)
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
tron said:
So, the one that is twice as fast and heavier with a more tank-like build won't sell as well, except to dedicated professionals - so why should Canon make the cheaper one that would sell extremely well? Remind me...why is there a 5DIII? Because my initial statement could just as well describe the 1D X.
There's a place for both...
Upvote
0
@neuro - You bring up a good point since the newer 70-200/2.8 IS and the newer TC is definitely a better combo than the old ones were. If we are purely talking real world shooting than the same could be said for the difference in quality between the 400/5.6 prime and the 100-400L at 400. You probably aren't going to notice it unless you are pixel peeping.
If he were planning a trip where it is incredibly convenient to use a tripod or even monopod the 400 prime would be an easy choice. Depending on the type of safari he is planning it is not particularly easy to maneuver that stuff in the vehicle. If it is a close sided vehicle with a roof hatch (like is common in Tanzania and Kenya) you can just use beanbags on the roof. If it is an open sided vehicle (like commonly found in South Africa and Botswana) it can be challenging depending on whether they have an awning with vertical supports that get in the way. IS becomes a handy thing to have in this situation, even the older IS of the 100-400.
It was very tricky to use my 500/4 effectively with appropriate support with open vehicles and was logistically a pain in the tail. If you have a vehicle with more than a couple of people that aren't traveling with you (and therefore presumably will tolerate more!) in it you will find it even more tricky and annoying to fellow travelers.
I also don't know what the impact on focus speed the TC will have on the 70-200 - I've not used the 2x with that lens but I do know that the impact on my 500/4 of the 1.4 TC is definitely noticeable.
It will ultimately come down to the details of his planned safari. A tele zoom with a wide range and IS is an incredibly nice thing to have on a safari because wider shots can come up with little warning and are sometimes the best shots.
I'd suggest bringing along some of those waterproof bags you can get from places like REI to stash your lens and camera in to protect from dust and provide a nice place to swap lenses if on the move. Also carefully check what the weight limitations may be if you are taking any bush flights. In some parts of Africa they are exceptionally uptight about weight and in others they don't seem to care.
Enjoy your trip!
If he were planning a trip where it is incredibly convenient to use a tripod or even monopod the 400 prime would be an easy choice. Depending on the type of safari he is planning it is not particularly easy to maneuver that stuff in the vehicle. If it is a close sided vehicle with a roof hatch (like is common in Tanzania and Kenya) you can just use beanbags on the roof. If it is an open sided vehicle (like commonly found in South Africa and Botswana) it can be challenging depending on whether they have an awning with vertical supports that get in the way. IS becomes a handy thing to have in this situation, even the older IS of the 100-400.
It was very tricky to use my 500/4 effectively with appropriate support with open vehicles and was logistically a pain in the tail. If you have a vehicle with more than a couple of people that aren't traveling with you (and therefore presumably will tolerate more!) in it you will find it even more tricky and annoying to fellow travelers.
I also don't know what the impact on focus speed the TC will have on the 70-200 - I've not used the 2x with that lens but I do know that the impact on my 500/4 of the 1.4 TC is definitely noticeable.
It will ultimately come down to the details of his planned safari. A tele zoom with a wide range and IS is an incredibly nice thing to have on a safari because wider shots can come up with little warning and are sometimes the best shots.
I'd suggest bringing along some of those waterproof bags you can get from places like REI to stash your lens and camera in to protect from dust and provide a nice place to swap lenses if on the move. Also carefully check what the weight limitations may be if you are taking any bush flights. In some parts of Africa they are exceptionally uptight about weight and in others they don't seem to care.
Enjoy your trip!
neuroanatomist said:@clostridium - not to be difficile
clostridium said:
Upvote
0
I often hear the statement that cannon will not come out with a lower or mid range version of a product because it will cut into sales of the top of the line unit. I couldn't disagree more.... it's the millions of lower end units that keeps the lights on, not the hundreds of top-of-the-line units. If the logic were true, then Canon would only make 1Dx's and $10,000 primes.... get rid of the p/s cameras because they cut into 1DX sales....neuroanatomist said:
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!
Upvote
0
- Status
