Sigma 120-400 looks rather impressive, certainly not in the class of their cheaper 135-400 version. So is the 150-500, an upgrade of the 50-500. Production of the lenses are already in progress. Expected release for both is late April or earlier May of this year.
In case you missed it.
Will Canon release an upgrade version of their 100-400? Some folks say that the latest Canon 100-400 already had a quiet upgrade. (?)
don't hold your breath - it's already ten years old and long overdue for a new IS and digital-friendly lens design features. The only upgrade that I'm aware of is a reported change to the switch panel. Other than that they might just have improved the quality control to what it should have been all along. No new optical design.
Venus wrote:
Will Canon release an upgrade version of their 100-400?
I doubt it. I am not a Nikon shooter but as I understand it, the 100-400 already outclasses the Nikon 80-400 so I don't think there is much benefit to Canon to update this lens. I think they are more likely to introduce a lens to compete with Nikon's 200-400 F4 before they upgrade the 100-400. But this is all speculation obviously.
The 100-400 and the 400 f/5.6 are two of the lenses that everyone has expected to see an upgrade on for the last three years however it seems that Canon has no desire to do anything with them at the moment. Honestly, short of adding IS to the 400 f/5.6 or upgrading the existing IS in the 100-400 I don't think there is much else to be improved upon since both are excellent lenses. I really enjoyed my 100-400 and can't believe I actually sold it. It was a great walk around lens for air shows, the zoo, and messing around shooting birds in my yard.
Have to agree with Gene why should they? They are still selling like hotcakes. I am interested in the new Sigma and hope they have improved the OS. I had hte 80-400 OS a couple years ago and didn't like it at all. Slow, jerky OS in VF
The 100-400 suffers a ghosting problem with specular highlights (most evident in night shots of city skylines, etc.) and that is because it has an old fashioned design that does not use the recognosed techniques for reducing ghosting and flare. I've had photos in which the neon signs atop city buildings are ghosted in the clear night sky above the buildings. During daylight the ghost images are swamped by the ambient light and are not readily apparent.
Going to f/4 would add an inch to the diameter of the lens and greatly increase cost and weight. It would be a very different lens rather than a subtle upgrade of an old workhorse. f/4 at 400mm needs a 100mm diameter front element whereas f/5.6 needs only about 71mm. The difference is similar to that between the 300 f/2.8 and the 300 f/4. The catch then is whether or not the zoom optics produce an image quality commensurate with the increased cost.
Alan321 wrote:
The 100-400 suffers a ghosting problem with specular highlights (most evident in night shots of city skylines, etc.) and that is because it has an old fashioned design that does not use the recognosed techniques for reducing ghosting and flare. I've had photos in which the neon signs atop city buildings are ghosted in the clear night sky above the buildings. During daylight the ghost images are swamped by the ambient light and are not readily apparent.
Interesting. I've only shot the Boston night skyline with this lens once, but since all the images were blurry, I thought there was simply too much car traffic passing me and the tripod was shaking. I'd like to try it again soon to confirm this....
Going to f/4 would add an inch to the diameter of the lens and greatly increase cost and weight. It would be a very different lens rather than a subtle upgrade of an old workhorse. f/4 at 400mm needs a 100mm diameter front element whereas f/5.6 needs only about 71mm. The difference is similar to that between the 300 f/2.8 and the 300 f/4. The catch then is whether or not the zoom optics produce an image quality commensurate with the increased cost.
- Alan
I actually love this lens. I only regret one thing regarding the 100-400 and that's that I didn't buy it sooner. I waited a while thinking that Canon might update it. Big mistake; it just works the way it is now (possible exception above). If you can tie your shoes, you can use the push-pull design; yes, I know I just ruled out at least 20% of the forum members
To anyone even thinking about, if you pass the test above, buy it. Great lens but most importantly, it's a fun lens and photography should have some fun included sometimes.... Maybe... a little?
Alan321 wrote:
The 100-400 suffers a ghosting problem with specular highlights (most evident in night shots of city skylines, etc.) and that is because it has an old fashioned design that does not use the recognosed techniques for reducing ghosting and flare. I've had photos in which the neon signs atop city buildings are ghosted in the clear night sky above the buildings. During daylight the ghost images are swamped by the ambient light and are not readily apparent.
Going to f/4 would add an inch to the diameter of the lens and greatly increase cost and weight. It would be a very different lens rather than a subtle upgrade of an old workhorse. f/4 at 400mm needs a 100mm diameter front element whereas f/5.6 needs only about 71mm. The difference is similar to that between the 300 f/2.8 and the 300 f/4. The catch then is whether or not the zoom optics produce an image quality commensurate with the increased cost.
You aren't using a UV flter with it are you? This will defintely cause ghosting under those conditions due to the image being reflected off the sensor and projected onto the flat surface of the filter.
Why fix what ain't broke. Great lens just like it is. Take away user error and score a
UV04xx or newer date code and your chances of getting a good copy are very good.
QC seems to have tightened up recently. Improving one's long lens technique won't hurt
either, I'm enjoying sharp images 100 thru 400mm and gorgeous IQ...and I'm not alone.
Have to agree with Monkey man I have owned many copies of this lens but recently have owned a couple that were of the UV dates and they are soooooooooo good
When I recently used a 100-400 that I burrowed, I was blown away by how much I liked it. For whatever reason, I thought it was going to be worse than it was. I was wrong. I wish the person I burrowed it from never asked for it back. I only used it for a brief time, but for what it is, I'm not sure how it could be improved. I liked it so much I convinced a friend to get one and he shoots it on his 1D3 and we've both been blown away by the IQ, color and sharpness he is getting. I guess I could have just said, "you are correct Tmonkey."
Seriously, I cannot figure out how people can think the 120-400 is an upgrade of the 80-400 and the 150-500 is an upgrade of the 50-500.
5x zoom (80-400) versus 3.3x zoom (120-400)
10x zoom (50-500) versus 3.3x zoom (150-500)
Seriously...............
I rather think that the 120-400 is an upgrade of the 135-400 and the 150-500 is an upgrade of the 175-500.
At least, the aperture numbers and focal lengths show much more similarities.
EDIT: well, actually, the 80-400 and 120-400 are quite similar in looks and with the same aperture, but still, 5x vs 3.3x
EDIT2: the 150-500 and 175-500 still have got more similar aperture numbers and focal lenghts
A good copy of the 100-400 is very good IQ-wise, about as good as the two 400 f/5.6 I've had. IS not good enough ? Hardly. One perhaps has to shoot 400 and 500mm non-IS lenses first in order to appreciate how effective the image stabilization on the 100-400 is or can be.
The other day I was taking available light shots of the interior of an old Ontario farm house, at 1/25 and 1/60 sec, and 100mm FL. Just before that, I shot some distant bufflehead ducks at 400mm. All with excellent IQ.
Now, what other lens can get you that kinda versatility and quality ?
If anything, Canon probably need to tighten the manufacturing IQ specs on the lens, and then leave good enough alone.
I love my 100-400, and as a compact, versatile, effective, high IQ package I can't see how it could be better even with "improved" IS and optics.
Mine's a 2006 model, and wild horses couldn't part me from it.
The Sigmas are interesting though, and having had some very positive experiences with their 80-400mm OS in my Nikon days, I expect the new lenses to be pretty good too.
I have seen a lot of Keith's photographs and most are very good, as are those of Omy ("Liquidstone"). I use the 100-400 (and I believe I have a good copy) with a 1D Mk III (often with a x1.4TCII) and have managed some very good shots (but way below the IQ of my 500 f/4 L IS). Having recently used a a 400 f/5.6 prime it "knocks the spots" off the zoom; AF is faster and more accurate, the lens is sharper than the zoom at 400mm, there is very little degradation using the 1.4TC, it is cheaper and lighter than the zoom and, as a bonus, it has a built-in lens hood instead of that useless piece of plastic cr@p which comes with the zoom.
I also feel that the IS is totally useless on the zoom (compared to the 500 f/4) and, since I have the luxury of excellent light most of the year and never press the button at less than than 1/1000s, and am often shooting at up to 1/5000s or even 1/8000s, I always have the IS turned off. The zoom is a good lens and I will keep it but I can see now why the 400 f/5.6 prime is the choice lens for BIF photography and I have one on order.
I know you are going to argue Keith, but you are wrong, and I think that your excellent photos would be even better with a 400 prime on your 40D.
I love the 100-400L, mines not sharp but I still get the images I want. If they upgrade it, i hope/prey they dont cut the 100 to 200mm part. 200-400 would make it a bit more useless for me.
I watched the video clip linked on the original post and I am certainly intrigued. I would be interested in trying out the new 150-500, though I would also be interested in trying out the Bigma.
I have both the 100-400L and the 400/5.6 and I'm not eager to part with either. Each serves a different purpose. If the optics and OS in the new 120-400 and 150-500 are really excellent and the price is much lower than the Canon 100-400 then I imagine it could bite into Canon's revenue. Money is a powerful motivator. If Canon loses any significant market share to these lenses, I would bet they would consider making some changes to this lens (price would be a great place to start). As it is, I find it to be a very fine lens with great flexibility.
Colin Key wrote:
I know you are going to argue Keith, but you are wrong, and I think that your excellent photos would be even better with a 400 prime on your 40D.
Thanks for the kind words, Colin
Now I'll let you into a secret.
Last year, partly because I was getting generally frustrated with my shooting and partly in order to see what all the fuss was about, I borrowed and used a 400mm prime for a fortnight.
Bearing in mind that I was using non-IS 400mm zooms handheld long before I got my 100-400mm (and so have pretty passable handholding technique) I saw no demonstrable, repeatable improvement whatsoever using the prime compared to the zoom - absolutely nothing came off the camera (the 30D) that made me think "I couldn't do that with the 100-400..."
Now that may well be down to the fact that I'm often in crappy light, or because the vast majority of my efforts only see the light of day on a PC screen: but - hand to God - the prime I was using (a "good" one by all accounts) left me deeply underwhelmed and I missed shots because I couldn't zoom and missed shots because of the long MFD.
