The Canon 100-400 is not as fast as the prime 400 5.6. Will the new Sigma design, one touch zoom rather like the 70-200 series, be as fast as the prime? If so, the push-pull design of the old fashion Canon is on the way out. So how? Canon gets pushed to the corner?

Edited by Venus on Apr 05, 2008 at 04:27 AM GMT

Venus wrote:
Will Canon release an upgrade version of their 100-400? Some folks say that the latest Canon 100-400 already had a quiet upgrade. (?)

Those who post don't know; those who know can't post

Other than incorporating the newer 4X IS I can't think of another enhancement that might possibly get me to consider replacing my 100-400; IMO this lens is as good as it gets. I know a few folks are not in favor of the push-pull design but AFAIC this approach works well for me in the field and very importantly, allows the lens to shrink to the length of a 200mm lens (which makes for convenient transportation).

Personally I'd like to see an f/5.6 version of either the 500 mm f/4 or 600 mm f/4; for my use f/5.6 is fast enough and the weight savings would be much appreciated.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

keithreeder wrote:
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.

So it's the 100-400mm for me.


Keith,

Like you, I have probably read every post on every forum (and my God there are a lot!) about these two lenses. It was your opinions and photos on BF (I got lobbed off there by the way for making what were perceived as racist comments about that bit of video showing some Japanese having a jolly good time slaughtering Dolphins) plus those of Romy that swayed me towards the zoom. It does have its uses (I have used it for landscapes and other "non-birdy" subjects) and it does get some very good shots, and some experienced photographers have commented on my bird photos in my PBase gallery that I am getting the best out of this lens, but having used the 400 5.6 I think it does a better job, especially for BIF. I do normally have excellent light down here and I am using a 1D body which retains AF with a 1.4TC, so they may be very significant factors compared to your situation. Having done a load of testing I found that wide open at more than 350mm the zoom produced less sharp shots than the 400 prime. Also, in good light at shutter speeds of 1/2000s or faster (which is quite normal for me) I cannot satisfy myself that the IS makes a jot of difference, and the fact that I can hear the gyros taking four or more seconds to settle down suggests that the IS technology on the zoom lens is not up to speed with the AF technology of the 1D MkIII.

And I meant what I said about that lens hood - absolute rubbish!!!

Regards,

Colin

trenchmonkey wrote:
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.


Interesting comment on the date code. I purchased a 100-400 last year and I've been quite impressed by the image quality. Checking the date code reveals UV09xx, so your claim is certainly supported in my case .

--tom

where does one find the date code of the 100-400?

Take a look here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx

Colin

how was the "UVxx" code decided upon? Mine's a UU..............

my UW0217 (2008 Feb) is razor sharp wide open and very contrasy. I love this lens, check out my brief review here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/627973/0#5555932

mark maulden wrote:
how was the "UVxx" code decided upon? Mine's a UU..............

Don't really understand your question, but a lens code beginning with "UUxxxxx" was manufactured in 2006.

Colin

Trench Monkey wrote that a date code of UV04 and after have good chances of being good copies. How did he arrivve at that particular date code as a "line in the sand"?

My List improvements for 100-400:

1) Digital Coating
2) Not flimsy hood
3) IQ at 5.6 like 400 5.6L has
4) Better IS?....

I agree with some orator here about 500/5.6 or 600/5.6 even without IS, that will be simply awesome!

mark maulden wrote:
Trench Monkey wrote that a date code of UV04 and after have good chances of being good copies. How did he arrivve at that particular date code as a "line in the sand"?

Frenchmonkey must have had a reason for saying that.
On the other hand, I did find two soft lens copies which were made in the 2nd 1/2 of 2007. However, the third copy which I kept, made in the same period, was (is) great.

Mihail wrote:
My List improvements for 100-400:

1) Digital Coating
2) Not flimsy hood
3) IQ at 5.6 like 400 5.6L has
4) Better IS?....

I agree with some orator here about 500/5.6 or 600/5.6 even without IS, that will be simply awesome!


What I would like to see being improve on mine is:

1)faster AF motor
2)circular blades
3)Newest gen IS with 4 stops
4)Weather sealed


I would gladly pay extra for those features

PetKal wrote:
mark maulden wrote:
Trench Monkey wrote that a date code of UV04 and after have good chances of being good copies. How did he arrivve at that particular date code as a "line in the sand"?

Frenchmonkey must have had a reason for saying that.
On the other hand, I did find two soft lens copies which were made in the 2nd 1/2 of 2007. However, the third copy which I kept, made in the same period, was (is) great.

Frenchmonkey, Trenchmonkey, Wrenchmonkey must all be brothers.

He's normally spot on, so I am waiting impatiently to learn of his source info. The 100-400 is next on my list, although the Sigmas look pretty good.

Oh please. I bought 3 of the 100-400s over the years and still have two of them. Although newer lenses my be on average a bit better, IQ does not necessarily depend on the phase of the moon when the lens was manufactured.

EB

there is a distinct possibility that the AF on that sigma 120-400 is gonna faster than that of the canon 100-400 l, snapping on instantly rather like that of that prime canon 400 f5.6. now this is gonna to be interesting next is the IQ... what will it be?

My USxxxx dated 100-400L is very sharp and so I'd not really consider replacing it with the Sigma 120-400, but if the Sigma 150-500 is optically excellent ie sharp wide open, great colour and contrast, has AF at least as fast as the 100-400L, then it might become my ultimate lightweight birding lens for the 40D when I don't want to haul the 500 f/4 around.

I think the 100-400L could still be improved and I'd like to see it evolve into a 125-500 f/4-5.6L IS, with sealing, spectra coatings, 4 stop IS and much faster AF and a MFD similar to the Sigma's 2.2m for excellent close-up ability. Price at $1999 and make sure weight is under 2kg and it'd be a stellar seller.

mark maulden wrote:
Trench Monkey wrote that a date code of UV04 and after have good chances of being good copies. How did he arrivve at that particular date code as a "line in the sand"?

Oh, I see - sorry, I'd missed that. I can only imagine that it is "feeling" gained from lots (and there are LOTS) of reports on various forums about this lens. Given Canon's recent example of playing cards close to their chest they are hardly likely to say "right lads, post UV04 lenses are fine, earlier ones could be a bit iffy".

On the other hand, Petkal's experience seems to disprove this "line in the sand" (two out of three post UV04 copies not good.

Colin

trenchmonkey wrote:
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.
Line in the sand Well, no...not exactly. Having had 1/2 a dozen copies myself
and friends with several in recent years my post was an observation and not a guarantee
Canon's cranking out consistent winners. (we know better) Older ones I've had were
great to say 380mm wide open then stopping down some were ok at 400. When I knew
I was gonna be at 400 the 400 f5.6 came along instead. When I sold off the 100-400,
300 f4 IS, and the 400 f5.6 to buy a 300 f2.8 IS (3 for one...crazy) something happened.
Picked up another 100-400. It was sharp all the way to 400. Now were talkin'. UV04xx.
Then a buddy got one, yup sharp at 400 UV06xx. I bought another for a 1D package
for a friend. UV 04xx again sharp all the way through the range. Maybe Canon did some
tweakin' or QC is better this last year or so. There are sharp copies with earlier date
codes. I'm sure there are less than stellar one's being released now, it's merely an
observation...don't shoot the 'monkey, and play in the sand at your own risk.