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.
Maybe 50 or 100-500 is a stretch, but realistically a 200-500/4.5-5.6 would be a fine and mroe practical range.
pKai wrote:
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.
Disagree all you want on the first. I have owned four 100-400's and four 400 f5.6's. I will bet that most people could not tell the difference in 16x20 prints from both lenses.
I don't really care what a DXO test performed on probably only one of each lens shows. I only speak from my own experience, and as I said, IMO.
Yeah, the AF is so glacial, that you can't ever get shots like this with the 100-400:
Troiuble is even on the 100-400L 100mm is too much sometimes. 200mm makes it more specialised, whereas for a zoom I want maximum versatility 100 or 125mm are a nice tradeoff, even if it means a bit more bulk. Still I'd consider it if shown to be noticeably better than the 100-400L.
Imagemaster wrote:
The majority of wildlife shooters are shooting between 300 & 500mm. If you want 300-800, get a Sigmonster.
That's why I have a 500mm prime which I can use TC's with if I need more. The zoom isn't just for birding/wildlife so IMO needs more flexibility than being a one trick pony.
Over exaggeration like lacial AF are ridiculous..
The 100-400 has been one of the most purchased and used zooms ever released jut look at every safari or wildlife tour they are everywhere.
If they do as good a job and simply replace it exactly as is with a similar improvement in IQ as the 70-200 recieved it will be a brilliant replacement of a great lens.
Oh I love push pull!
dehowie wrote:
Over exaggeration like lacial AF are ridiculous..
The 100-400 has been one of the most purchased and used zooms ever released jut look at every safari or wildlife tour they are everywhere.
If they do as good a job and simply replace it exactly as is with a similar improvement in IQ as the 70-200 recieved it will be a brilliant replacement of a great lens.
Oh I love push pull!
I love the current 100-400L but it's AF speed for fast action is not as good as it could be and can't touch the 400 f/5.6L. That's a well known fact and should also be addressed with higher drive current motor. If they can get close to 400L I'll be very happy.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I love the current 100-400L but it's AF speed for fast action is not as good as it could be and can't touch the 400 f/5.6L. That's a well known fact and should also be addressed with higher drive current motor. If they can get close to 400L I'll be very happy.
And it they could make the MFD on the prime equal to the zoom, I would be happy.
I suppose "glacial" is a relative term. When compared to the 400 5.6L, the 70-300 4-5.6L, and the 70-200 2.8L II, the AF on the current 100-400 seems very slow to me. Nowhere near as slow as pre-USM lenses, but much slower nevertheless.
That's not to say you can't do BIF with it... I was doing BIF with MF back in the day and so were many others.
AF speed is one thing Canon MUST improve with this lens. Even if they can't get the IQ to match the 400 5.6, AF speed MUST improve to be considered a "modern" lens in 2012-2013.
As I said, if this lens comes with the new IS, AF speed matches the 400 5.6L and IQ is improved, I'm game. Ring zoom would be a bonus, but I understand this is a matter of taste and lots of people like push/pull. I would give on this point if they address the others.
Antje wrote:
That would be awesome, though. After playing with the new 100/2.8 L IS USM and, what's worse, the cheapish Panasonic 100-300, I cannot help thinking that the IS on the 100-400 would rather benefit from an overhaul. I love my 100-400, but if they promised faster AF and better IS, I'd preorder it the moment it's announced.
Antje
I couldn't care less of a new 100-400. The IS works well, IQ is superb, the push-pull system is quick and easy. Never had any dust issues with this lens either. AF works fast, too. No reason for me to upgrade.
surf monkey wrote:
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, even it was more about 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....Show more →
Well, eventually Canon will update this lens, I just don't think it's anytime soon.
You may say Canon would make a ton of money from upgraders but don't forget the increased cost of producing a new lens. It's much cheaper for Canon to produce the current 100-400L than they would a new version. As long as the profit margin for this lens is still acceptable to Canon, and that the competitors have no equivalent lens, they won't replace the 100-400L.
The 100-400L may keep many Canon users from defecting but I don't think Canon sees it as their bread and butter. Unlike some of their supertele primes, medium telephoto, standard and WA lenses, most of which had been updated (or at least announced), eg. the TS-E24L II, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 300&400 f/2.8L II, 500 & 600L II, etc. All these lenses also have a direct Nikon equivalent that have just been updated fairly recently.
One more reason why I don't think this lens won't be updated soon is because together with the 400/5.6L, they're more "entry level" supertele lenses. As such, I don't think Canon wants them to perform at the level of the f/4L IS lenses. The 100-400L focuses slower but has an IS while the 400/5.6 focuses faster but has no IS. This will change as soon as Nikon makes their own counterpart lenses.
n0b0 wrote:
You may say Canon would make a ton of money from upgraders but don't forget the increased cost of producing a new lens. It's much cheaper for Canon to produce the current 100-400L than they would a new version. As long as the profit margin for this lens is still acceptable to Canon, and that the competitors have no equivalent lens, they won't replace the 100-400L.
The 100-400L may keep many Canon users from defecting but I don't think Canon sees it as their bread and butter. Unlike some of their supertele primes, medium telephoto, standard and WA lenses, most of which had been updated (or at least announced), eg. the TS-E24L II, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 300&400 f/2.8L II, 500 & 600L II, etc. All these lenses also have a direct Nikon equivalent that have just been updated fairly recently.
One more reason why I don't think this lens won't be updated soon is because together with the 400/5.6L, they're more "entry level" supertele lenses. As such, I don't think Canon wants them to perform at the level of the f/4L IS lenses. The 100-400L focuses slower but has an IS while the 400/5.6 focuses faster but has no IS. This will change as soon as Nikon makes their own counterpart lenses. ...Show more →
Good points here.
But, although it may be cheaper to keep producing the current 100-400, they can't make any more money on it with people who already have it. I'm sure there are plenty of current users willing to fork over more money to upgrade if the new lens will be a worthwhile upgrade. There is plenty of room to upgrade, much more than with the superteles, which seem to be lighter and have better AF with extenders, but not much else. I would think that an IQ improvement is necessary to make a new 100-400 a big seller.
I do agree that updating the lens doesn't make sense from a competitive point of view since it's much better than the Nikon 80-400. But Canon did improve the 70-200f2.8 IS and I think that many people are hoping for a similar improvement, necessary or not.
Note:
I waited two years to get my 100-400, because there were so many rumors about the impending release of the new model, but guess what. It didn't happen, so I eventually got it, and have been very happy with it. I'm not holding my breath on this recent rumor.
But, although it may be cheaper to keep producing the current 100-400, they can't make any more money on it with people who already have it. I'm sure there are plenty of current users willing to fork over more money to upgrade if the new lens will be a worthwhile upgrade. There is plenty of room to upgrade, much more than with the superteles, which seem to be lighter and have better AF with extenders, but not much else. I would think that an IQ improvement is necessary to make a new 100-400 a big seller.
I do agree that updating the lens doesn't make sense from a competitive point of view since it's much better than the Nikon 80-400. But Canon did improve the 70-200f2.8 IS and I think that many people are hoping for a similar improvement, necessary or not.
Note:
I waited two years to get my 100-400, because there were so many rumors about the impending release of the new model, but guess what. It didn't happen, so I eventually got it, and have been very happy with it. I'm not holding my breath on this recent rumor....Show more →
Good points there too.
But bear in mind that new lens means new price and it's usually higher, which may move this lens outside of the old lens buyer's budget altogether. That means many people will be buying a 2nd hand 100-400L Mk.1 or the old stock.
Another thing to consider is the lens placement within Canon's lens lineup. Better IQ, IS and AF is great, but it could potentially cannibalise the 400/5.6 as well as the new 200-400L.
The 70-200/2.8L IS was updated because Nikon updated their 70-200/2.8 VR the year before.
Believe it or not, I bought my 100-400 because my ex wanted to go to the zoo and I simply had no lens longer than 50mm at the time. Stopped by the shop, bought it, opened the box and had it mounted on the camera by the time we got to the zoo. Also very happy with it and have no plan to upgrade even if the lens is announced tomorrow.
surf monkey wrote:
And why would Canon worry about cannibalizing the sales of a $1300 lens. Wouldn't they rather sell a $2500 lens instead?
You're right. At double the price, I don't think it'll cannibalise the prime. I was thinking around $2000.
But you need to look at the lens markup. Canon must've gotten pretty efficient at producing the old design lenses. With no competitor having the same lenses, Canon would be a fool to update them, especially when people still find their performance acceptable.
Even if the competitor has an equivalent lens, Canon won't necessarily update them if they're a relatively low volume seller. Just look at the Tilt/Shift lenses. Canon only updated the TSE24L despite Nikon having a new PCE45 and 85.
@imagemaster,
Depending on the price, if the new 100-400L's IQ, and AF is improved to a point where it equals or even surpassed the 400/5.6L, wouldn't you rather have the more versatile zoom that has IS?
You're right about it not affecting the 200-400L though. I forgot the new pro bodies can't AF properly at f/8.
Depending on the price, if the new 100-400L's IQ, and AF is improved to a point where it equals or even surpassed the 400/5.6L, wouldn't you rather have the more versatile zoom that has IS?
You're right about it not affecting the 200-400L though. I forgot the new pro bodies can't AF properly at f/8.
It is doubtful a new 100-400's IQ would surpass that of the 400 f5.6, and it is probably not even technically feasible that the AF could be made faster than that of the prime.
There are a number of reasons why some will pay the much higher price of the 200-400: f4 = better bokeh and 1 f-stop of more light, better IQ, probably faster AF, built-in TC, etc.
Imagemaster wrote:
It is doubtful a new 100-400's IQ would surpass that of the 400 f5.6, and it is probably not even technically feasible that the AF could be made faster than that of the prime.
There are a number of reasons why some will pay the much higher price of the 200-400: f4 = better bokeh and 1 f-stop of more light, better IQ, probably faster AF, built-in TC, etc.
Optically the 400/5.6 is very good, but not exactly that great compared to what can be achieved in a modern prime. Certainly the 400/5.6 could be improved at the right price. Realistically a new 100-400 could be near enough if not a bit better in the center than the 400/5.6 and is a much more versatile lens in the kit.
Regardless of the prices, the 200-400/4 is simply too large and heavy to be practical in many situations where a 100-400 would be the ideal choice. I expect that many 200-400/4 owners would also have a 100-400/5.6. Maybe a few would not buy a 200-400/4 if the 100-400 were better, but I don't see that as a big factor. Not that I'm typical, but a fine quality 100-400 might make me consider that paired with a 600/4.
Yeah, the AF is so glacial, that you can't ever get shots like this with the 100-400: 
That's almost as bad as Mike Tanglefoot. 