AJSJones wrote:


Looks like the 300/4 and 100-400 are long in the tooth

Regardless of how long in the tooth both of those lenses may be, I'm not sure what Canon's motivation for updating them is. Nikon does not have worthy competitors and neither do any of the third party manufacturers. Plus, these lenses (and the 400/5.6) are the entry level telephoto lenses that can be purchased at a (relatively) affordable price. While spending $1000-1500 on a lens is certainly not inexpensive, compared to spending what it costs to buy a 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, or 600/4, the 300/4, 100-400, and 400/5.6 bring to Canon a whole expanded market that would not be there without them. And considering the typical price jumps when Canon has revised other lenses, including the super teles, my guess would be that Canon would lose a significant share of that market by boosting the price range of these "affordable" lenses to the $2000-3000 range. Thus, I don't expect to see a 100-400 II or a 400/5.6 IS at any time soon. And, even if Canon has taken out a patent for a 300/4 IS II, I'm not sure we whether we will actually see one at any time soon.

Les

Indeed Les!
But they are holding up well.
The 28-135 was a pretty darn good lens for is price and convenience. The 1st 75-300IS, not so much.
The 300/4 is excellent and the 100-400 is no slouch either - they are all in the same list only due to the older IS system they have in common!. I agree Canon has to leave some "affordable" lenses in the stable

AJSJones wrote:
Indeed Les!
But they are holding up well.
The 28-135 was a pretty darn good lens for is price and convenience. The 1st 75-300IS, not so much.
The 300/4 is excellent and the 100-400 is no slouch either - they are all in the same list only due to the older IS system they have in common!. I agree Canon has to leave some "affordable" lenses in the stable

Andy,

I completely agree that, in spite of continuous calls for updates on internet forums, these lenses have held up well.

Even many who can afford and who own one or more of the super telephoto lenses still maintain ownership of one or more of the 300/4, 100-400, or 400/5.6 for use in situations where they need a more mobile and portable set up.

Judging from what I read on internet boards, there are a good number of owners of the super telephoto lenses who have decided that, regardless of how attractive the version II lenses might be, their original versions more than meet their needs, and they have no interest in adding big dollars and trading them off for version II lenses. I suspect that, with significant price increases for new versions of the 300/4, 100-400, and/or 400/5.6, many owners of the original versions of those lenses would be likely to similarly decide that their original versions meet their needs well enough and would, therefore, choose not to upgrade.

Les

It makes me glad I have the current version. I'd never be able to afford the new version.

uz2work wrote:
AJSJones wrote:


Looks like the 300/4 and 100-400 are long in the tooth

Regardless of how long in the tooth both of those lenses may be, I'm not sure what Canon's motivation for updating them is.

Les


A recent Lens Rental Article indicated that some of the newer lenses performed significantly better on the newer bodies. Maybe Canon are simply applying their new engineering to allow the lenses to work "even better" with the increased capabilites of the newer bodies.

(I have a 300 F4 IS and it produces great images)

uz2work wrote:
AJSJones wrote:


Looks like the 300/4 and 100-400 are long in the tooth

Regardless of how long in the tooth both of those lenses may be, I'm not sure what Canon's motivation for updating them is. Nikon does not have worthy competitors and neither do any of the third party manufacturers. Plus, these lenses (and the 400/5.6) are the entry level telephoto lenses that can be purchased at a (relatively) affordable price. While spending $1000-1500 on a lens is certainly not inexpensive, compared to spending what it costs to buy a 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, or 600/4, the 300/4, 100-400, and 400/5.6 bring to Canon a whole expanded market that would not be there without them. And considering the typical price jumps when Canon has revised other lenses, including the super teles, my guess would be that Canon would lose a significant share of that market by boosting the price range of these "affordable" lenses to the $2000-3000 range. Thus, I don't expect to see a 100-400 II or a 400/5.6 IS at any time soon. And, even if Canon has taken out a patent for a 300/4 IS II, I'm not sure we whether we will actually see one at any time soon.

Les


I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'd hazard a guess these upgrades, new designs/patents, are much more about the future and in particular the move towards movie mode (image and sound) with stills photography somewhat in the background; stills not eliminated, but part of a more movie based/oriented camera/system...

As for the 300 f4L IS, it has just recently joined my tool kit, it's often used with extension tubes and having a newer IS that could be active even when on a support would be quite helpful, it's just another bit of kit to help with camera shake, not unlike MLU or a remote release.

IS isn't necessary but I do like it

Jerry

uz2work wrote:
Regardless of how long in the tooth both of those lenses may be, I'm not sure what Canon's motivation for updating them is. Nikon does not have worthy competitors and neither do any of the third party manufacturers. Plus, these lenses (and the 400/5.6) are the entry level telephoto lenses that can be purchased at a (relatively) affordable price. While spending $1000-1500 on a lens is certainly not inexpensive, compared to spending what it costs to buy a 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, or 600/4, the 300/4, 100-400, and 400/5.6 bring to Canon a whole expanded market that would not be there without them. And considering the typical price jumps when Canon has revised other lenses, including the super teles, my guess would be that Canon would lose a significant share of that market by boosting the price range of these "affordable" lenses to the $2000-3000 range. Thus, I don't expect to see a 100-400 II or a 400/5.6 IS at any time soon. And, even if Canon has taken out a patent for a 300/4 IS II, I'm not sure we whether we will actually see one at any time soon.
Les


While I would love to see an updated 100-400, what you say is very true especially in this economy. Part of the problem is that those lenses are already quite good and to eek out even more performance out of them is simply going to be expensive. It's a shame that Fluorite doesn't grow on trees.

I agree, it would be nice to see canon upgrade the 300 F4, 400 5.6 and 100-400 but not if they more than double the price :-(. I think these 3 lens will always have a place in the canon lineup as they offer great value for money and they are also small enough that you can walk around all day with them. As much as i would love to own one of canons super telephotos such as the 300 2.8, 500 F4 etc i love the portability/flexibility of the 100-400. The 300 F4 is a very nice and handles really well so even an IS upgrade would be great.

gowhow wrote:
uz2work wrote:
AJSJones wrote:


Looks like the 300/4 and 100-400 are long in the tooth

Regardless of how long in the tooth both of those lenses may be, I'm not sure what Canon's motivation for updating them is.

Les


A recent Lens Rental Article indicated that some of the newer lenses performed significantly better on the newer bodies. Maybe Canon are simply applying their new engineering to allow the lenses to work "even better" with the increased capabilites of the newer bodies.

(I have a 300 F4 IS and it produces great images)

I read that article several weeks ago. While I have no question that the technology improvements allow for more consistently accurate AF (and I would be surprised if it was otherwise), I have to wonder, considering how well other recent cameras and lenses still perform, about whether the magnitude of those improvements is such as to make any meaningful differences in real world shooting.

The Canon marketing folks have to really love internet forums because, when people spend thousands of dollars on new gear, they are inclined to post on internet forums with over-the-top praise for that new equipment. When they make comparisons between the new equipment and the equipment that it replaced with terms like "blows away", it makes others feel like they absolutely have no choice except to upgrade to the new version.

After having spent most of decade buying every new camera body shortly after it was introduced, I finally came to the conclusion a couple of years ago that upgrading every piece of my equipment every time the opportunity presents itself is akin to selling off a 2011 vehicle and replacing it with the 2012 model because the manufacturer added an extra mp3 jack to the otherwise unchanged 2011 model. I began to realize that my 3 year old 7D, my almost 3 year old 1D Mark IV, and the lenses I have are doing everything I could possibly ask them to do, and that, if my photography was going to improve, the main thing that needed to be done is that I needed to grow and improve my skills as a photographer.

Finally, I'm quite confident that I could post some photos taken with the 1D Mark II that owned 7 years ago and my ancient (by today's standards) original version 500/4 and, if I lied and said that they were taken with a brand new 1DX and 500/4 II, the post would generate many replies in which people were ooh-ing and aah-ing over how great the 1DX and 500/4 II combination had performed and how that combination blows away, in terms of performance, all previously made equipment.

Les

ggreene wrote: Part of the problem is that those lenses are already quite good [...]

If that's a problem, it's the kind of problem we should all have.

Finally, I'm quite confident that I could post some photos taken with the 1D Mark II that owned 7 years ago and my ancient (by today's standards) original version 500/4 and, if I lied and said that they were taken with a brand new 1DX and 500/4 II, the post would generate many replies in which people were ooh-ing and aah-ing over how great the 1DX and 500/4 II combination had performed and how that combination blows away, in terms of performance, all previously made equipment.

I agree -- I wish you would do that, let the gear-snobs ooh/aah for a few days, and then drop the news about the source of the images. Would enjoy seeing the looks on their (virtual) faces.

John

BluesWest wrote:
Finally, I'm quite confident that I could post some photos taken with the 1D Mark II that owned 7 years ago and my ancient (by today's standards) original version 500/4 and, if I lied and said that they were taken with a brand new 1DX and 500/4 II, the post would generate many replies in which people were ooh-ing and aah-ing over how great the 1DX and 500/4 II combination had performed and how that combination blows away, in terms of performance, all previously made equipment.

I agree -- I wish you would do that, let the gear-snobs ooh/aah for a few days, and then drop the news about the source of the images. Would enjoy seeing the looks on their (virtual) faces.

John

Of all of the camera improvements that I've seen with the body upgrades that I've made, the closest that one has come to being a "blows away the previous generation" improvement was the AF improvement that I saw when I bought the 7D to replace the 50D as my 1.6 crop camera, but, even with the rather rudimentary 9 point AF system on the 50D, I found that using solid technique was a more important factor in consistently getting shots that were in focus than was the focus system of the camera I was using, and the difference in my in-focus rate between the 50D and the 1-series bodies that I've used was not nearly as great as some might imagine from what we read on internet forums. Just in the last few days, I got a request from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to use a photo that I took several years ago. When I looked at the image information, I noticed that the shot was taken with the 50D, and I couldn't help but think that, in terms of basic image quality, noise, etc., I'm not sure that I could have told the difference between that shot and one that I might have taken with a newer and more expensive camera, and even the AF of the 50D didn't let me down on that shot or any of the others that I took in the same burst.

ggreene wrote:

While I would love to see an updated 100-400, what you say is very true especially in this economy. Part of the problem is that those lenses are already quite good and to eek out even more performance out of them is simply going to be expensive. It's a shame that Fluorite doesn't grow on trees.


Well the 100-400L and 300 f/4L IS are in much greater need of updates than the superteles ever were in this economy. Yeah they are very good lenses, but they can be improved in several areas.

The nice thing is, no one is ever forced to upgrade.

+1

EBH

PetKal wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
So, shall we begin speculating on price? I submit $1999 US.

No way. $2,399
____

I second this amount.

uz2work wrote:
...
Finally, I'm quite confident that I could post some photos taken with the 1D Mark II that owned 7 years ago and my ancient (by today's standards) original version 500/4 and, if I lied and said that they were taken with a brand new 1DX and 500/4 II, the post would generate many replies in which people were ooh-ing and aah-ing over how great the 1DX and 500/4 II combination had performed and how that combination blows away, in terms of performance, all previously made equipment.


So true. And I still remember Les' BIF shots from the ancient equipment. Simply Breath-taking.

It depends on the subject. Wildlife photos generally do not require the best IQ from center to corner as the edges and corners are often OOF or do not contain important details. The current 300/4 IS is fine in that the center is sharp/contrasty enough (very good by f/5 for my eyes) and the IQ does not deteriorate too quickly off center. It is somewhat lacking closer to the edges, so I still prefer the old 300/4 for landscapes. A new 300/4 IS (II) should have better peripheral performance and higher center IQ would make better use of a 1.4x TC. I'd rather have an improved 100-400 at $3000 though than spend $2500 for a limited-purpose, fixed 300/4.

EBH

I'm hoping that Canon releases a new 300 f4 soon. I have the 300 IS and the non-IS. The IS system is clunky, whirrs, buzzes and the AF takes too long. If it didn't focus so close and take such great photos, I'd have dumped it a while back. The IS system failed and was replaced. CPS membership was worthwhile on that lens. My IS lens is as sharp as the non-IS lens but the non-IS focuses much faster, much like the 400 5.6.
If Canon develops a 300 f4 IS that has a modern IS system, I'll sell both 300's and my 400. Just make sure the close focus is less than 5 feet...

Of all the lenses in Canon's 300mm+ range the 100-400mm L IS and the 400/5.6 are the oldest. It's about time newer models come out to replacel these. C'mon Canon, are you listening?