Would love to see this actually happen. Even better if they managed to release it in time for Spring sports but that's probably asking too much given their recent history.
This would be a great lens but I'm sure the price will be very high. A 500 f/5.6 would be excellent but, given current pricing trends, would probably be more money than a used 500 f/4.
Imagemaster wrote:
Do you know how many people would buy a 500 f5.6 IS that can't afford the cost or weight of a 500 f4?
Lots & lots.
You would think the folks at Canon might be thinking along the same lines. Especially with that price of their new 500 f4.
The cost of designing, developing and gearing up production to produce these lenses must be quite high. Maybe it's just cost prohibitive for them to produce a number of variations on these supertelephoto lenses. If anyone could do it, I would think it's Canon or Nikon. But we're just not seeing it. Not yet anyway.
I doubt we'll see a 100-400L Mk.II anytime soon, there's no competition to this lens. A company, especially the major player, in an oligopoly market is usually reactive instead of proactive.
The lens itself is not a system seller like some of the more popular lenses, eg. 70-200L. With no equivalent lens from its main rival, why would Canon worry about replacing it? I'm sure they have some designs ready "just in case" though.
A cheap 500/5.6 IS would indeed be a killer lens... as in killing the sales of Canon's other supertele primes like the 500/4L II and 400/4 DO. It's possible for Canon to do it... if they're ready to discontinue these lenses.
100-400 L with improved IS would be welcome, but better I think would be a 120-500 4/5.0, or even 100-500 4/5.6.
In terms of a less super-priced super-tele, I could see a 500/5.6.
If Canon can moderate the price of DO designs, I'd like to see a 500/4.5 DO. It would shave a lot of weight off the 500/4 L II, and if they planned to make it a relative volume seller, they could also sell it for a good bit less than the L II.
Photon wrote:
100-400 L with improved IS would be welcome, but better I think would be a 120-500 4/5.0, or even 100-500 4/5.6.
In terms of a less super-priced super-tele, I could see a 500/5.6.
If Canon can moderate the price of DO designs, I'd like to see a 500/4.5 DO. It would shave a lot of weight off the 500/4 L II, and if they planned to make it a relative volume seller, they could also sell it for a good bit less than the L II.
The thing is there are no quality 500mm zooms on the market. Sigma and Tamron have offerings that are decent, but not great especially at the long end and the Sigmas at least are nowhere near their indicated 500mm more like 465mm. The Tamron is ancient and has no USM or VC and all of them are f/6.3 which resort to lying to the camera about their max aperture. Canon could open up a can of whoop-ass on the competition with a high quality 100/125-500 f/5-5.6L IS with say 2-2.2m mfd. I'd pay up to $3-3.5K for this given that the 200-400 will be over $10K, it'll be a bargain.
If the new 100-400 matches the IQ and AF speed of the 400 5.6, I'm all over it if the price is around $2500. It will allow me to not have to carry 2 bodies most of the time. Any more than that, I'll keep my 70-300 4-5.6L and 400 5.6L, 2-body shooting style.
Ring zooming would be a nice bonus. I've hated push/pull since the FD 100-300 5.6L.
A 400 5.6 IS ain't gonna happen.... specially if THIS lens matches it in IQ and AF.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The thing is there are no quality 500mm zooms on the market. Sigma and Tamron have offerings that are decent, but not great especially at the long end and the Sigmas at least are nowhere near their indicated 500mm more like 465mm. The Tamron is ancient and has no USM or VC and all of them are f/6.3 which resort to lying to the camera about their max aperture. Canon could open up a can of whoop-ass on the competition with a high quality 100/125-500 f/5-5.6L IS with say 2-2.2m mfd. I'd pay up to $3-3.5K for this given that the 200-400 will be over $10K, it'll be a bargain....Show more →
A 300-500mm zoom would be more practical. Adding 50-300mm to that range just increases weight, bulk, and price, and diminishes quality at the long end.
pKai wrote:
If the new 100-400 matches the IQ and AF speed of the 400 5.6, I'm all over it if the price is around $2500. It will allow me to not have to carry 2 bodies most of the time. Any more than that, I'll keep my 70-300 4-5.6L and 400 5.6L, 2-body shooting style.
Ring zooming would be a nice bonus. I've hated push/pull since the FD 100-300 5.6L.
A 400 5.6 IS ain't gonna happen.... specially if THIS lens matches it in IQ and AF.
The current 100-400 already matches the 400 f5.6 in IQ. Push/pull is superior to ring zooming. It is faster and no twisting motion is applied to the lens.
Imagemaster wrote:
A 300-500mm zoom would be more practical. Adding 50-300mm to that range just increases weight, bulk, and price, and diminishes quality at the long end.
300-500 Yikes, makes it much more specialised. 300-800 sure. Wouldn't interest me much at all.
n0b0 wrote:
I doubt we'll see a 100-400L Mk.II anytime soon, there's no competition to this lens. A company, especially the major player, in an oligopoly market is usually reactive instead of proactive.
The lens itself is not a system seller like some of the more popular lenses, eg. 70-200L. With no equivalent lens from its main rival, why would Canon worry about replacing it? I'm sure they have some designs ready "just in case" though.
I use to believe this too. With no rival, a new version seemed unlikely. But I changed my mind when the new superteles were announced. Then the 200-400 was announced and now there is a huge price gap between the current 100-400 and 400f5.6 to the supers. I see the 100-400 all the time and many current users would welcome the upgrade, for me even it just had better AF speed and better IS, not IQ.
In regards to the system seller comment, the 100-400 certainly is one of the lenses that has keep many Canon users from defecting, because as you say the competition has no real rival lens. The current lens, the 70-200f4s, the TS-Es and some of the fast primes seem to be the big draw for Canon.
Why would Canon worry about replacing it?
They'd make a ton of money from upgraders.
Imagemaster wrote:
The current 100-400 already matches the 400 f5.6 in IQ. Push/pull is superior to ring zooming. It is faster and no twisting motion is applied to the lens.
IMO
Your last 2 points are personal preference. I have to respectfully disagree with you on the first. I had 2 of these lenses at different times and the IQ diff was visible. Objective measurements also supports this. At 400, wide-open, the 400 5.6 ls clearly better in the IQ dept. AF on the 100-400 is glacial.
but she is a beauty 
