# Why Does the 100-400L Sell So Well Still ?



## CanonMan (Jun 5, 2013)

Hi. Well I just posted a 70-200L / IS / 70-300L question and got some great comments. Food for thought. 
I was not sure if to keep that post going or create a new one. As you can see I decided on the latter 

I read recently that the 100-400L out sells the 70-300L by 4 to 1. If this is true how can that be ? It really confuses me more when I read that the 70-300L has better IQ, AF and IS. Build quality is amazing and no push pull.

Do people need the extra 100mm that much?
Do people compare the two lenses or just buy the 100-400L because so many other photographers use it?
Are people buying now because yes they would love the version II but are scared that it will be to expensive?

I had all the advice and helpful tips I needed to get my new camera sorted but the lens side for me is still driving me crazy 
I really would still prefer a zoom over a prime.

As usual thanks in advance for your feedback.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2013)

It continues to sell well because it's a very good lens, and the only 'affordable' way to get 400mm with IS.


----------



## Skulker (Jun 5, 2013)

It's an underrated lens. Better than you might think reading some posts.

One of the good things is "it's a push/pull" ;D not everyone's favorite option at all, but it makes for a compact walk around with lots of reach. I've taken tens of thousands of shots with mine and have no trouble selling shots taken with it.


----------



## clostridium (Jun 5, 2013)

As Skulker noted the 100-400 tends to not fare well in internet discussions. That's probably because you can find better lenses at each of the focal lengths but can't (currently) find a lens that covers such a range and does it so competently. It is very convenient to use and provides a good range of focal lengths for both APS-C and FF cameras. It is a great zoo and safari lens and a decent general nature lens. It is also a great airshow lens. It is pretty compact and reasonably lightweight and is no issue to handhold.

Perhaps the Sigma 50-500 is competitive with it but I'm not familiar with that lens so can't comment. 

People gripe about the push-pull but it is actually pretty handy once you get used to it. 

I'd rent or borrow one and try it out and see what you think. Ignore the naysayers on the net and figure out if it works for you.


----------



## lol (Jun 6, 2013)

I have both the 100-400L and 70-300L and they are quite different. In practical terms, there is no significant difference in image quality between them. The stronger IS of the 70-300L may sound helpful at times, but as a major application of these lenses are wildlife, you tend to need to keep the shutter speed up anyway so it isn't so essential.

The push-pull I do find much better than any twist zoom as it is simply a LOT faster and more accurate to re-frame. Also the 100-400L seems to be near enough parfocal within its zoom range, whereas the 70-300L focus goes all over the shop on zooming.

The 70-300L seems to be better sealed, and is obviously smaller and lighter. My 100-400L has survived being used in the rain unprotected on many occasions, up to the point the internals mist up. Dry it out and it's good to go again.

Overall, you couldn't say one is unquestionably better than the other. Get the one that suits you and your application best. Or both.

If you said I could only ever have one of them, it would be the 100-400L without hesitation.


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> It continues to sell well because it's a very good lens, and the only 'affordable' way to get 400mm with IS.



+1 I wouldn't buy the 400mm f/5.6 prime because of 2 reasons
a) it doesn't have IS and
b) isn't a zoom

Most of my telephone zoom photos - eg birds - are often up close, or where zooming helps in composing / capturing the subject (eg BIF - then zooming in)

So I can understand how for many the 100-400mm L meets their needs.

For me, I much prefer the design (ie size, shape, zoom mechanism) of the 70-300mm L. The 'big deal' is that I can transport my 70-300mm L in my Lowepro shoulder bag, with my 7D and 15-85mm lens (either lens attached) and shoot all day with it. This is my perfect 'travel zoom combination' - and I might throw in a prime (or my UWA) for certain situations. 

More often than not however, my 2 lens combo is the 70-300mm L and 15-85mm. The 100-400mm L is substantially longer and more difficult to transport & carry than the 70-300mm L. Still I can understand it's a great lens for many ppl who really want that 400mm reach. The 100-400mm L isn't quite as sharp as the 70-300mm L nor has the newer IS or quite the same AF speed / accuracy (just a bit slower / more hunting in my experience)- but the 100-400mm L is still a very decent lens!

Paul


----------



## unfocused (Jun 6, 2013)

I also own both lenses and agree they are two very different lenses. The 70-300 L is half of my two-lens go anywhere, shoot anything kit. The other half being my 15-85. 

If I'm traveling, or just out for a day shooting, these two lenses are always in my bag. I wouldn't want to be carrying the 100-400 around all day. But, if I'm trying to shoot birds or wildlife, it's the 100-400 all the way. 

One reason the 70-300 L doesn't sell as well is because it's in a very crowded field and it is much more expensive than other offerings either from Canon or third-party manufacturers. (Except of course for the 70-300 DO lens, which I totally do not get). 

Both are great lenses. They are about the same price. Pick one now and then buy the other one later.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 6, 2013)

Seems to me it sounds like the APS-C shooters prefer the 70-300 for size & needed reach while the FF shooters that want a bit more reach will go for the 100-400, and sometimes for the 70-300 if that seems to suit their needs better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2013)

lol said:


> I have both the 100-400L and 70-300L and they are quite different.





pj1974 said:


> The 'big deal' is that I can transport my 70-300mm L in my Lowepro shoulder bag, with my 7D and 15-85mm lens (either lens attached) and shoot all day with it. This is my perfect 'travel zoom combination'



This is the main reason I'm considering the 70-300L - smaller and lighter than the 70-200 II. The 100-400 will continue to be used for bird/wildlife outings when the 600 II isn't feasible.


----------



## CHROME77 (Jun 6, 2013)

Not to derail the post, but I've read comments that seem to suggest not all 100-400mmL are sharp? Is this true? how would I know if I were to buy one if i got a sharp copy or not?


----------



## Vivid Color (Jun 6, 2013)

Try them both out before you buy, if you can. I wanted a lens to take photos of wildlife on an upcoming safari and I thought the 100-400 would be perfect. But, I have short arms and could only get about 50 percent of the shots in focus. I bought the 70-300L because I have no difficulty getting hand-held shots with it. I'll also note that the push pull did not bother me at all. Sometimes it just comes down to ergonomics and what works for the individual. In my own case, I'm going to match the 70-300L with a crop body to get some extra reach. (And, there's also the Kenko 1.4x teleconverter for even more reach.) And, it also comes down to whether you need the extra reach or whether you'd prefer to trade that off for a lighter, shorter lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 6, 2013)

I had a 600mm L as well as the 100-400mmL. I sold the 600 because the 100-400mmL was more usable and practical, even if it was not quite as sharp. I've never regretted that decision.
I've also owned the 400mm f/5.6L. The IQ is about the same as the 100-400L, the AF might be a bit faster, but... without IS, its limited to high shutter speeds or a tripod. It does not focus closely, and its a pain to carry in a ordinary camera bag. It also takes TC's, so I can get 560mm and AF with my 5D MK III.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 6, 2013)

I have a 100-400mm L and have used it a lot. It's a handy lens for travel because it packs up small. But, it is only an OK lens, and my enthusiasm for it has waned. For animal life and safaris it is very useful. But, the IQ isn't very good and it's too soft for serious bird photography unless you get close as it can't resolve fine details of plumage at a distance. In practice, a 300mm prime, f/4 or f/2.8, is so much better that it beats the 100-400mm despite the shorter length (the 400mm prime is no better than the zoom). I wish people would stop buying it and force Canon to produce a more modern lens with better IQ and IS.


----------



## tron (Jun 6, 2013)

AlanF said:


> the 400mm prime is no better than the zoom



1. According to TDP the prime lens is better at mid-frame and MUCH better at the edges

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

2. You can also check:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 6, 2013)

tron said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > the 400mm prime is no better than the zoom
> ...


I had a borrowed 100-400 and a borrowed 400F5.6 to do some side by side tests about a year ago. The 400F5.6 was obviously the sharper lens so my recommendation was to buy it.... but they went with the 100-400 zoom instead because it zooms.... despite the fact that it gets used almost exclusively at the 400 end... SIGH!

I'm hoping for a version II of the 400F5.6....


----------



## dslrdummy (Jun 6, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I had a 600mm L as well as the 100-400mmL. I sold the 600 because the 100-400mmL was more usable and practical, even if it was not quite as sharp. I've never regretted that decision.
> I've also owned the 400mm f/5.6L. The IQ is about the same as the 100-400L, the AF might be a bit faster, but... without IS, its limited to high shutter speeds or a tripod. It does not focus closely, and its a pain to carry in a ordinary camera bag. *It also takes TC's, so I can get 560mm and AF with my 5D MK III*.


I'm about to take the 5D III, 5DC, 400mm 5.6, 70-200mm 2.8II and 1.4x & 2X III extenders on safari. Hoping it will cover most situations. My first try on the weekend with the 400 and 1.4III suggests the IQ is reasonable and with a monopod (in the mail) I'm hoping to be able to get some reasonable shots at 560mm. Fingers crossed.


----------



## steven kessel (Jun 6, 2013)

My 100-400 is my principal lens. I do mainly wildlife photography and all of my photographs are handheld, shot while walking around. I don't shoot from fixed positions or blinds and I don't even own a state of the art tripod. For me, the 100-400 is the best solution. It's relatively light, relatively compact, and delivers (most of the time) very sharp images. 

It's certainly not perfect. I find it to be unacceptably soft at apertures that are bigger than F7.1 and, honestly, it doesn't autofocus with a teleconverter. I'd love an extra 100mm. The predecessor to my 100-400 was a Sigma 150-500 which is, basically, a piece of junk, and I'd be the first in line if Canon came out with a 150-500 for less than $3000. But, as an all-round workhorse telephoto, it really can't be beat.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 6, 2013)

steven kessel said:


> The predecessor to my 100-400 was a Sigma 150-500 which is, basically, a piece of junk



I did a side-by-side test of the Sigma 120-400 and the 150-500. The 120-400 was visibly sharper than the 150-500.... no pixel peeping needed to see the difference... The 120-400 at 400mm outresolved the 150-500 at 500mm.... I quickly decided to not buy the lens....


----------



## RGF (Jun 6, 2013)

Several reasons

Me too for lots of amateurs

Desire of many people to go long as possible - great whites are too expensive for the average user, so the choice is either 400 F5.6, no IS, fixed vs 100-400 IS and zoom.

And lastly, many people don't critically look at their images (100%, large prints).


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 6, 2013)

AlanF said:


> I wish people would stop buying [the 100-400] and force Canon to produce a more modern lens with better IQ and IS.



+1 I don't mind if people keep buying it, but I would like to see Canon refresh this 15-year-old design. I know that a v II would carry a price premium, but I'd be open to that. I would like a "collapsible" zoom with more reach than my 70-200, but I'm put off by the old tech and push-pull of the 100-400, as well as the "reversed" zoom and focus rings of the 70-300.

I plan to stay on the fence a while longer, holding out for a 100-400 II. If one doesn't materialize by the time I'm ready to pull the trigger, I'll probably go for the 70-300.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 6, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I wish people would stop buying [the 100-400] and force Canon to produce a more modern lens with better IQ and IS.
> ...



While Push-Pull might be 'old', it's not that it's bad. It's just a design that most of us aren't used to (me included, I don't have a push-pull). However, I agree. The optics & IS and such are quite old compared to most of the other current lenses, and from everything I've seen it does need an update to stay relevant compared to a lot of the other Canon L glass. Unfortunately, it will indeed carry a price that's a good bit more than the current price.


----------



## bycostello (Jun 6, 2013)

i'd imagine because people want 100-400 that buy it....


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 6, 2013)

1. Price, price, price!
2. 400mm
3. IS
4. Zoom

The 70-300L is a good lens, but just way too expensive. 
And 300mm is too short for "real tele use" - e.g. wildlife, outdoor sports, airshows etc. ... especially on FF sensors.


----------



## RGF (Jun 6, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> 1. Price, price, price!
> 2. 400mm
> 3. IS
> 4. Zoom
> ...



Add hopefully fixed F4.5 Except price to close to $3000


Will make 70-300L seem cheap


----------



## Hannes (Jun 6, 2013)

The 400mm prime doesn't seem to be sufficiently better than the 100-400 and it isn't particularly cheap either. If canon made a 400mm f4 prime that isn't DO I imagine it would sell quite well, at least as long as it wasn't much more than the 100-400. Maybe even a sharper 400 5.6 would sell if it had modern IS


----------



## AlanF (Jun 6, 2013)

Focal reports accuracy and reproducibility of focus of different lenses and bodies. On the 7D, the 100-400mm is very poor, which I can confirm.
http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/online-tools/lenscamera-information/

On the 5DIII, the focu is excellent, which again I can confirm. The 100-400mm is in general much better on the new FF.

Adding a 1.4xTC III is no better than increasing the pixels by 1.33x in PS so it is not worth using it with an extender.

My 70-200mm L IS with a 2xTC III on the 5DIII has about the same IQ etc at 400mm as does the 100-400mm.
Trouble is, once you have used the 300mm f/2.8 II with 1.4 and 2xTCs (hand held), you are spoiled for lesser IQ.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2013)

Hannes said:


> If canon made a 400mm f4 prime that isn't DO I imagine it would sell quite well, *at least as long as it wasn't much more than the 100-400.*



And that is only slightly less likely than seeing pigs flying over snowbanks in hell. You do realize that a 400/4, DO or not, needs to have at least a 100 mm diameter front element, right? A lens like that would certainly not be cheaper than the 200/2, i.e., $6K at a minimum and likely much more if built to the standard of the other MkII supertele lenses.


----------



## Plainsman (Jun 6, 2013)

It sells well because it is a sharp robust design.

Robust because the front optics slide along single rigid tube.

If the new one is like the latest offerings from Sony (70-400) and Nikon (80-400) with the flimsy extending tube - prone to damaged alignment from the slightest knock - I will not be buying it.

One more reason for keeping this lens is that you actually get 400mm at the top end for distant objects - not 375/380mm or whatever from the new Sony and Nikon breathers. I have checked this myself with the 100-400 against the 400/5.6 side by side with the same body - both exactly the same image size at "infinity".

I wish Canon would keep the current design layout, upgrade the optics with IS 2 - that's all that is necessary.


----------



## lol (Jun 6, 2013)

The 70-300DO does have a rather niche reason for existence, which is its really tiny size when retracted. I used to have one of those as well, but wide open it was highly prone to flare and low contrast. To get half decent output you really needed f/8.

The 70-300L size advantage is in part why I have it in addition to the 100-400L, but it is still far bigger than the DO for example.

If you think the 100-400L is heavy, you can try what I did. I got the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 too. Use that for a bit, and the 100-400L seems weightless in comparison!

I can't comment on the relative sharpness of the 100-400L too much, or if there is much sample variation. I only know that mine, and another sample a friend has, both are more than good enough.


----------



## Deva (Jun 6, 2013)

When I had the choice, I chose the 70-300L over the 100-400L for a few key reasons:

1. I'd had the chance to try out the 100-400L for a couple of evenings, photographing the dress rehearsals of a couple of school plays - and by the end of each evening, after 1,000 or so pictures, I was really feeling the weight of the 100-400L, it was a serious workout!

2. Portability - the 100-400L was just too large to carry around on a day-to-day basis - it wouldn't fit in my camera bag (not to mention the weight again).

3. IS - the modern IS of the 70-300L is a joy to use. It's allowed me to take usable pictures off the back of a fast ferry at 1/6th of a second.

Yes, I do miss the extra reach of the 400mm at times - but I don't take enough pictures of distant critters to want to have to carry around a 100-400L all the time.


----------



## distant.star (Jun 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> And that is only slightly less likely than seeing pigs flying over snowbanks in hell.



Mmmmmmmmm, barbecue!!!!


----------



## jthomson (Jun 6, 2013)

The 100-400mm L sells well because it and the 400 mm f5.L are the only semi-affordable 400mm lenses with decent image quality. The 100-400mm L sells better than the 400mm f5.6L because the zoom is more versatile than the prime.

The 70-300mm L doesn't sell as well because it is overpriced. You don't need to spend $1400 to get a 70-300mm lens. Canon makes a non-L 70-300mm that many people get as their first long telephoto and Tamron makes a 70-300mm that is both less expensive and better than the Canon Non-L. If you have either of these lenses and you want to upgrade, then you will most probably pick one of the 400mm's to get the better image quality and the extra 100mm than for the 70-300mm L that has only a small improvement in image quality.


This will probably change when Canon finally upgades the 100-400mm. I would expect that the price will go up to around $3500 and then the 70-300mm L will look more attractive.


----------



## viggen61 (Jun 6, 2013)

CanonMan said:


> Do people need the extra 100mm that much?



One word: Birds... 400mm is "entry level", even with a crop camera like my 7D, for birding. 300 doesn't really cut it for wild birds. I have a Tamron SP 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di VC USD, and it's a nice, compact lens for travel, but when I'm out birding, it stays home. 100mm isn't a lot of difference, but it helps. There are times I can barely get close enough to a small songbird with the 100-400 @ 400. With the 300, I'd never get close enough.



> Do people compare the two lenses or just buy the 100-400L because so many other photographers use it?



I'm sure many do make comparisons, and there are some serious points to consider that could make one choose one lens over the other.

When I was looking, the 70-300L was recently out, and priced similarly to the 100-400 (actually, slightly higher), but it "officially" does not support Canon Extenders. Since I already had a 70-300, and I knew I needed more reach, I opted for the 100-400. Plus, even if it did support the extenders, with a 1.4x, it gets me 420mm @ f/8, where my 7D cannot Autofocus!

Yes, the weight of this lens is an issue for some, but if you want to get good shots of birds, you're gonna be carrying the weight one way or another. Three pounds is pretty lightweight for what this lens does. You're looking at 8 pounds and up for other serious birding options though, with the "big whites". A 400 f/5.6 IS would (well, should...) be lighter, but it's not available. 

As for the push-pull design, I don't find that an issue, but I DO wish there was a better mechanism for friction locking the lens in place. The double-ring thing is imprecise at best, and I tend to have it locked someplace, somewhat limiting the versatility. Back in the 80s, when "zoom" was a dirty word (well, more of a dirty word than it is today!) many, many zooms were push-pull. If you want really weird, there were even some where the "tele" end was pulled back, and the "wide" end was pushed forward! My point is, that, while push-pull may be unusual in Canon's lineup (only the 100-400 & 28-300 have it currently), it is not that unusual in the history of zoom lenses. As far as I am concerned, if Canon thinks a new design for the 100-400 is best as a push-pull, that would be fine by me, though (hopefully!) with a better zoom friction system. 

Really, what I would most like to see in a new 100-400 is a modern IS and AF (the 100-400 is a FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD design!) with somewhat improved IQ that might make a II with a 1.4 have similar IQ to the original. 

(Heck, if they just dropped modern IS (4 stops, please!) & AF into the current lens, I'd pay them $500 more than what it is now!)



> Are people buying now because yes they would love the version II but are scared that it will be to expensive?



Some may be, but I'm not sure that would be the best idea just yet. It's not like the current lens will diasppear. When/If a new 100-400 arrives, the current one will likely be cheaper to buy used, well, at least still cheaper than the new one certainly will be! There will be lots of us who will be looking for ways to fund the version II by selling their version I!


----------



## Solar B (Jun 6, 2013)

No mention of the Sigma 120-400? What do people think of this lens?


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 6, 2013)

viggen61 said:


> Really, what I would most like to see in a new 100-400 is a modern IS and AF (the 100-400 is a FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD design!) with somewhat improved IQ that might make a II with a 1.4 have similar IQ to the original.
> 
> (Heck, if they just dropped modern IS (4 stops, please!) & AF into the current lens, I'd pay them $500 more than what it is now!)



YES, this is what so MANY of us would like to get! Actually all of us, except those individuals who absolutely do not want a push-pull zoom or who are able & willing to purchase the 200-400/1.4x. 

I for one would be interested in either of the following lenses: 

A 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS L Mk. II - push-pull design, same amount of weather-sealing, but *4 stop IS* and *slightly better IQ at the long end*, at a price similar to the current lens - meaning: way below 2000 USD/€ 

OR

B. 100-400/*4.0*-5.6 IS L Mk. II, *turning zoom, better weather-/dustsealing (!), clearly better IQ across the entire focal range and frame - especially at the long end - and significantly better Bokeh (9-aperture blades), and included detachable tripod ring with integrated Arca-Swiss compatible grooves on its foot which also serves as nice carrying handle ... for around USD/Euro 2.500* 

However, based on my longstanding observations of Canon product development and pricing decisions I predict, they will eventually offer a 100-400/4.5-5.6 turning zoom with all other specs as in option A above ... "in order not to cannibalize the 200-400/1.4x" : ... AND a price tag north of 3000 USD/Euro 



viggen61 said:


> Some may be, but I'm not sure that would be the best idea just yet. It's not like the current lens will diasppear. When/If a new 100-400 arrives, the current one will likely be cheaper to buy used, well, at least still cheaper than the new one certainly will be! There will be lots of us who will be looking for ways to fund the version II by selling their version I!



If Canon comes up with what I predict [only very slightly improved Mk. II costing 3k+ USD/Euro], prices for well maintained, used 100-400's will go up and remain high for a long time.


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 6, 2013)

I think this is why it keeps selling...

Sure some may rip it apart for it's lack of sharpness but it works for me!

EF 100-400mm
f/5.6
ISO 200
1/2000 sec

Why wouldn't one want that?


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 6, 2013)

Re: AvTvM's post:

I tend to agree, and I'd be fine with either of those alternatives. (Like you, I'd prefer option B, and would be willing to pay for it.)

I'd even be fine with them limiting the zoom range to 150- or 200-400mm.


----------



## tron (Jun 6, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> Re: AvTvM's post:
> 
> I tend to agree, and I'd be fine with either of those alternatives. (Like you, I'd prefer option B, and would be willing to pay for it.)
> 
> I'd even be fine with them limiting the zoom range to 150- or 200-400mm.


200-400mm f/5.6L ?   

This is impossible for Canon! It would compete with the 200-400 f/4L !!!

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with your idea. Canon will!

Imagine a very good EF500mm f/5.6L IS or EF600mm f/5.6L IS. 
They would sell like hot cakes (well almost!) and Canon would almost kiss goodby their f/4L IS II ones. OK there would still be professional buyers for these big telephoto lenses but not as many as there are to day.

(Unfortunately for amateurs...)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2013)

tron said:


> 200-400mm f/5.6L ?
> 
> This is impossible for Canon! It would compete with the 200-400 f/4L !!!
> 
> ...



Sure, because the 300/4L IS means that Canon would never produce a 300/2.8L IS lens, much less multiple versions of one, right? And an 85/1.2 would be a non-starter, because of competition from the 85/1.8. A 400/4 lens? Never happen, there's a 400/5.6. Ummmm.....no.


----------



## Jan van Holten (Jun 6, 2013)

For a lens of this size ( 100 - 400 mm ) push / pull works great. It is really easy to use.
Please bring out a new one according to modern standards. it is a great lens for traveling by plane, but reduce the weight a little bit more.


----------



## serendipidy (Jun 6, 2013)

distant.star said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > And that is only slightly less likely than seeing pigs flying over snowbanks in hell.
> ...



And ice cold drinks, too ;D


----------



## keithfullermusic (Jun 6, 2013)

because its an awesome lens. sure, compared to some other lenses out there it doesn't compare. however, for the price - its hard to beat.

Here are a few shots i got of an osprey less than two weeks ago.


----------



## CanonMan (Jun 6, 2013)

Some very interesting comments and observations. However I am still undecided on what to purchase but to be fair I am not the quickest in decision making.

But ...... it seems that the IQ is not really that much different between the two lenses. It also seems that most people, although admitting that the AF and IS is better on the 70-300L, still opt for the 100-400L. This can only be in my eyes mainly for the extra reach and being able to use teleconverters.

So here is my thinking. The 100-400 has been around a long time. The 70-300 is very new and is an L lens which means in Canon terms the best. 

Are we saying that in all the years since the 100-400 came out that lens design has hardly progressed ?

Are we saying that the only way to get more IQ is going to cost mega bucks ? In this case I refer to the new 200-400.

Is this the reason why there is still no replacement for the 100-400 because Canon are unable to produce a much better product for only $1000 to $1500 more and if they do produce one then it will be at such a cost that it will just not sell. In other words why spend so much money of R&D and then take a risk that the new lens will not sell.

Do people therefore accept that the 100-400 in a MKII version will only get very slightly better IQ but will upgrade because it will have better IS and AF ?


----------



## lap.texas (Jun 6, 2013)

I have used the 100-400 on Canon Rebels for 5 years obtaining some excellent photos and know many others who own this lens, but they are birders who want a good picture not a magazine quality photo. When I am on the trail I see dozens of these lenses.

Since I snap many small birds, I am looking for something longer for less than $5000 and have looked at the Nikon D7100, 80-400mm G VR, and 1.4x Tele giving more than 1000mm reach. I have seen many excellent comments on this configuration and hope it will push Canon to bring out a new 100-400mm f4.5-f5.6L and a new version of the 7D with f8 AF to compete with the above configuration.


----------



## serendipidy (Jun 6, 2013)

keithfullermusic said:


> because its an awesome lens. sure, compared to some other lenses out there it doesn't compare. however, for the price - its hard to beat.
> 
> Here are a few shots i got of an osprey less than two weeks ago.



Really nice. I like #2 the most


----------



## ewg963 (Jun 6, 2013)

CanonMan said:


> Hi. Well I just posted a 70-200L / IS / 70-300L question and got some great comments. Food for thought.
> I was not sure if to keep that post going or create a new one. As you can see I decided on the latter
> 
> I read recently that the 100-400L out sells the 70-300L by 4 to 1. If this is true how can that be ? It really confuses me more when I read that the 70-300L has better IQ, AF and IS. Build quality is amazing and no push pull.
> ...


I enjoy shooting with it. You 400mm of reach for an ecomonical value.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 6, 2013)

For trying to shoot wildlife with it as a main lens, the extra 100mm does help. Even 400m is very short and 300mm is practically wide angle.

The other 400mm options are $$$$$$$$$$$$ super-tele and 200-400 or a slow prime 400 f/5.6 with no IS.
(well you can use a 1.4x TC on a 300 f/4 non-IS or IS, the non-IS at least has fairly slow AF with the TC on, although some say the 100-400L doesn't have the world's fastest AF)

100-400 could use updated IS, faster AF and I'm sure they could make it crazy sharp these days


----------



## tron (Jun 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > 200-400mm f/5.6L ?
> ...


As I said, I would love to. I am just not optimistic!
A modern 500mm f/5.6L IS for example would get a lot of happy buyers (me included) 8)


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 6, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...




Seriously, it’s ridiculous that the current version doesn’t have IS! Brace yerselves and crank yer ISO’s mateys!


----------



## marinien (Jun 6, 2013)

tron said:


> 200-400mm f/5.6L ?
> 
> This is impossible for Canon! It would compete with the 200-400 f/4L !!!



If a 200-400mm f/5.6L is impossible for Canon because it'd compete with the 200-400mm f/4L, a 100-400mm f/5.6L would kill the 200-400 f/4L, and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L should never exist! Oh wait ... :


----------



## AlanF (Jun 6, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Here are the actual quantitative comparisons of the 100-400mm L vs the 400mm f/5.6L from MTFs measured by Photozone, presented by Canon, and the blur tests from SLRGear. You can see from all three that the zoom is at least as sharp at the centre. I have had both lenses and can vouch for it first hand as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2013)

serendipidy said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



C'mon people, it's hell. You're making it sound fun and all, but realize that as you're ferried across the Styx, you'll be issued a Nikon D3200...with an AF kit lens (not AF-S), the DR crippled so it's worse than any Canon sensor, and locked in Small JPG mode. 



CanonMan said:


> So here is my thinking. The 100-400 has been around a long time. The 70-300 is very new and is an L lens which means in Canon terms the best.
> 
> Are we saying that in all the years since the 100-400 came out that lens design has hardly progressed ?
> 
> ...



Lens design has progressed a lot since the late 1990s. The 70-300L has better IQ than the 100-400L. But in all those years, they haven't managed to break the laws of physics that say a 400mm lens is 100mm longer than a 300mm lens. 

The new 100-400 will have better coatings (SWC), better optical design, and noticeably better IQ, along with the latest IS...and the new 'white' paint.


----------



## serendipidy (Jun 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> serendipidy said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...



What?! No Canon...I'm not going!


----------



## clostridium (Jun 7, 2013)

@dslrdummy - I'd strongly suggest renting a 100-400 or 70-300. The quality of the 100-400 at 400 is better than the 70-200 with a 2x TC, this has been shown in multiple online comparisons. The 400/5.6 is a good lens but you will lose flexibility in dealing with things near and far which is a reality on safari.

I think that 400 prime will be reasonable for long distance items (with or without the TC) but you will be hampered at closer distances. You don't want to be swapping lenses and/or TC's much in the environment on safari if you can avoid it. 

This is a setting where a wider range zoom will shine.

Craig




dslrdummy said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I had a 600mm L as well as the 100-400mmL. I sold the 600 because the 100-400mmL was more usable and practical, even if it was not quite as sharp. I've never regretted that decision.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2013)

@clostridium - not to be difficile  , but while the 100-400 is slightly better in terms of IQ than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, it's not better enough to be significant in real-world shooting. (Note this applies to the MkII version of the 70-200 only.) I have them both, and the difference isn't great enough to warrant taking both white zooms, IMO. 



clostridium said:


> @dslrdummy - I'd strongly suggest renting a 100-400 or 70-300. The quality of the 100-400 at 400 is better than the 70-200 with a 2x TC, this has been shown in multiple online comparisons.


----------



## dslrdummy (Jun 7, 2013)

clostridium said:


> @dslrdummy - I'd strongly suggest renting a 100-400 or 70-300. The quality of the 100-400 at 400 is better than the 70-200 with a 2x TC, this has been shown in multiple online comparisons. The 400/5.6 is a good lens but you will lose flexibility in dealing with things near and far which is a reality on safari.
> 
> I think that 400 prime will be reasonable for long distance items (with or without the TC) but you will be hampered at closer distances. You don't want to be swapping lenses and/or TC's much in the environment on safari if you can avoid it.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the suggestion Craig. I agree that not changing lenses or extenders in the wild is preferable, if not always practical. I think as Neuro said, one zoom will have to do. I actually had in mind putting the 1.4 extender on the 70-200 and that way I would have a 98-280 equivalent to go with the 400. anyways, time will tell me which is the best combination. Thanks anyway.
Phillip


----------



## tron (Jun 7, 2013)

marinien said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > 200-400mm f/5.6L ?
> ...


You know what I mean! A new version with exceptional sharpness (just like 200-400's sharpness in comparison to 400 f/2.8's as Roger Cicala mentioned) will affect sales of 200-400. True some determined professionals will prefer the f/4 but many may choose the new 100-400 if portability is of paramount importance (we all grow older). On the other hand I guess the new 100-400 would sell extremely well!!! 

I would get one too 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2013)

tron said:


> You know what I mean! A new version with exceptional sharpness (just like 200-400's sharpness in comparison to 400 f/2.8's as Roger Cicala mentioned) will affect sales of 200-400. True some determined professionals will prefer the f/4 but many may choose the new 100-400 if portability is of paramount importance (we all grow older). On the other hand I guess the new 100-400 would sell extremely well!!!



So, the one that is twice as fast and heavier with a more tank-like build won't sell as well, except to dedicated professionals - so why should Canon make the cheaper one that would sell extremely well? Remind me...why is there a 5DIII? Because my initial statement could just as well describe the 1D X. 

There's a place for both...


----------



## clostridium (Jun 7, 2013)

@neuro - You bring up a good point since the newer 70-200/2.8 IS and the newer TC is definitely a better combo than the old ones were. If we are purely talking real world shooting than the same could be said for the difference in quality between the 400/5.6 prime and the 100-400L at 400. You probably aren't going to notice it unless you are pixel peeping. 

If he were planning a trip where it is incredibly convenient to use a tripod or even monopod the 400 prime would be an easy choice. Depending on the type of safari he is planning it is not particularly easy to maneuver that stuff in the vehicle. If it is a close sided vehicle with a roof hatch (like is common in Tanzania and Kenya) you can just use beanbags on the roof. If it is an open sided vehicle (like commonly found in South Africa and Botswana) it can be challenging depending on whether they have an awning with vertical supports that get in the way. IS becomes a handy thing to have in this situation, even the older IS of the 100-400.

It was very tricky to use my 500/4 effectively with appropriate support with open vehicles and was logistically a pain in the tail. If you have a vehicle with more than a couple of people that aren't traveling with you (and therefore presumably will tolerate more!) in it you will find it even more tricky and annoying to fellow travelers.

I also don't know what the impact on focus speed the TC will have on the 70-200 - I've not used the 2x with that lens but I do know that the impact on my 500/4 of the 1.4 TC is definitely noticeable. 

It will ultimately come down to the details of his planned safari. A tele zoom with a wide range and IS is an incredibly nice thing to have on a safari because wider shots can come up with little warning and are sometimes the best shots. 

I'd suggest bringing along some of those waterproof bags you can get from places like REI to stash your lens and camera in to protect from dust and provide a nice place to swap lenses if on the move. Also carefully check what the weight limitations may be if you are taking any bush flights. In some parts of Africa they are exceptionally uptight about weight and in others they don't seem to care.

Enjoy your trip!



neuroanatomist said:


> @clostridium - not to be difficile  , but while the 100-400 is slightly better in terms of IQ than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, it's not better enough to be significant in real-world shooting. (Note this applies to the MkII version of the 70-200 only.) I have them both, and the difference isn't great enough to warrant taking both white zooms, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > You know what I mean! A new version with exceptional sharpness (just like 200-400's sharpness in comparison to 400 f/2.8's as Roger Cicala mentioned) will affect sales of 200-400. True some determined professionals will prefer the f/4 but many may choose the new 100-400 if portability is of paramount importance (we all grow older). On the other hand I guess the new 100-400 would sell extremely well!!!
> ...


I often hear the statement that cannon will not come out with a lower or mid range version of a product because it will cut into sales of the top of the line unit. I couldn't disagree more.... it's the millions of lower end units that keeps the lights on, not the hundreds of top-of-the-line units. If the logic were true, then Canon would only make 1Dx's and $10,000 primes.... get rid of the p/s cameras because they cut into 1DX sales....

Canon will sell hundreds of times more 100-400 zooms than the 200-400 lens. In the mass market, very few will pay $1500 for a lens and a miniscule percentage will pay $10,000. The 100-400 sells so well because it is affordable, works better than the kit lenses, and gives a longer reach. Plus, people love zooms.... zooms outsell primes....

Rework the 100-400 and the 400F5.6 to the latest technologies, give them both IS and the same level of build. The 400F5.6 will be sharper, will cost less, and be outsold ten to one by the 100-400 zoom because PEOPLE LIKE ZOOMS!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 7, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Here are the actual quantitative comparisons of the 100-400mm L vs the 400mm f/5.6L from MTFs measured by Photozone, presented by Canon, and the blur tests from SLRGear. You can see from all three that the zoom is at least as sharp at the centre. I have had both lenses and can vouch for it first hand as well.



Interesting that those match the Canon MTF, but the Lens Rental measurements do not at all (nor TDP).


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 7, 2013)

I have been twice to Tanzania on private safari. I would strongly advise you to speak with the safari organizer about what to expect. There are many different types of tours, tour vehicles, tour guides, parks etc. Some venues will get you up close and personal, and obviously, a 560mm will be too much. That said, your coverage should be fine. Depending on the vehicle type, and if you will be out of the vehicle, you may do better with a bean bag. I would also suggest considering a flash, better beamer, extra cards and batteries, and a back up strategy. You will be surprised how many pics you will take, and how many mb it will use, especially if shooting raw.

Have a great time.

sek



dslrdummy said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I had a 600mm L as well as the 100-400mmL. I sold the 600 because the 100-400mmL was more usable and practical, even if it was not quite as sharp. I've never regretted that decision.
> ...


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 7, 2013)

finally we get some real measurements, how the current 100-400 fares against the other 400mm lenses from Canon (except 400DO).

http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/lensrentals-com-tests-the-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x/






I would like a 100-400/4.0-5.6 L IS Mk. II, turning zoom (not push-pull), with 4 stop IS, full wheather-sealing, 9 aperture blades *and IQ matching the current 400/5.6* at 400mm, f/5.6 ... 

For the flexibility of a zoom lens and IS I would be prepared to pay *up to twice the price* of the current 400/5.6 for it, But not more.  

P.S. The EF 400/5.6 currently retails for Euro 1260,- including 20% VAT where I live ...


----------



## tron (Jun 7, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Rework the 100-400 and the 400F5.6 to the latest technologies, give them both IS and the same level of build. The 400F5.6 will be sharper, will cost less, and be outsold ten to one by the 100-400 zoom because PEOPLE LIKE ZOOMS!


I would get one too!


----------



## viggen61 (Jun 7, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Canon will sell hundreds of times more 100-400 zooms than the 200-400 lens. In the mass market, very few will pay $1500 for a lens and a miniscule percentage will pay $10,000. The 100-400 sells so well because it is affordable, works better than the kit lenses, and gives a longer reach. Plus, people love zooms.... zooms outsell primes....
> 
> Rework the 100-400 and the 400F5.6 to the latest technologies, give them both IS and the same level of build. The 400F5.6 will be sharper, will cost less, and be outsold ten to one by the 100-400 zoom because PEOPLE LIKE ZOOMS!



+1


----------



## viggen61 (Jun 7, 2013)

CanonMan said:


> Some very interesting comments and observations. However I am still undecided on what to purchase but to be fair I am not the quickest in decision making.
> 
> But ...... it seems that the IQ is not really that much different between the two lenses. It also seems that most people, although admitting that the AF and IS is better on the 70-300L, still opt for the 100-400L. This can only be in my eyes mainly for the extra reach and being able to use teleconverters.



Well, yes, definitely on the first part. YOU must ask yourself if YOU will need or want to carry around that extra 301-400mm and the additional 9 ounces.

The 100-400 certainly has it's uses, and many of us have bought one, but the penalty is a heavier lens, with 15-year old electronics. I will gladly pay that penalty, because I use the lens at 400mm, and simply cannot afford to spend well over $5,000 on a lens!



> So here is my thinking. The 100-400 has been around a long time. The 70-300 is very new and is an L lens which means in Canon terms the best.



Don't forget the 100-400 is also an "L" lens...



> Are we saying that in all the years since the 100-400 came out that lens design has hardly progressed ?


Hardly! Electronics has, of course, advanced very far. New IS modules are up to 4 stops of IS, whereas the 100-400 does "up to" 2 stops. AF algoritms have improved, as well as accuracy and repeatability. One of the other sites compared new lenses vs old lenses on several EOS bodies, and came to the conclusion that the best bang for your buck would be a newer camera (as in 5DII/7D and newer) with a lens from 2005/2006 or later. Older lenses, like the 100-400, 400 f/5.6, 300 f/4, etc. aren't quite as "repeatble" in terms of AF accuracy.

But better glass doesn't get cheaper at the same rate that newer electronics gets cheaper. The types of elements that make the Great Whites so good, and so costly, simply don't get all that much cheaper when scaled down to a more "mainstream" lens like a 100-400.



> Are we saying that the only way to get more IQ is going to cost mega bucks ? In this case I refer to the new 200-400.



Well, first, the 100-400 is pretty darned good IQ to begin with. That's not to say there aren't lenses with better IQ, but Canon also produces a lot of lenses with not nearly as good IQ, a fact that often gets missed in conversations like these.

IQ is largely determined by factors, exclusive of AF and IS. The glass costs money, and to achieve the spectacular results of the 400 f/2.8, 300 f/2.8, 200-400 f/4 1.4x takes much more expensive glass, and that, apparently, doesn't scale well to a lower-cost lens. I'm confident that a new 100-400 will have better IQ than the current one, but likely not up to the standard of a lens like the 200-400...



> Is this the reason why there is still no replacement for the 100-400 because Canon are unable to produce a much better product for only $1000 to $1500 more and if they do produce one then it will be at such a cost that it will just not sell. In other words why spend so much money of R&D and then take a risk that the new lens will not sell.


I think the 100-400, along with the 400 f/5.6 and 300 f/4 are long overdue for an upgrade. But it isn't like Canon has been twiddling their thumbs, doing nothing! Since 2006, basically all of the White "L" lenses have been updated, along with introducing the the 800 f/5.6, the 200 f/2.0, the 70-300, the 70-200 f/4 IS, and others. The original 300, 400, 500 & 600 IS lenses were introduced in 1999, so it took twleve years for new versions of those to see the light of day. I'd expect, in the next year or two (or three, or...) to see the 100-400, 400 f/5.6 & 300 f/4 updated to newer IS & AF at the least.

Also, Canon, Nikon, et. al. have us "prepared" for expensive lenses. When I got into Canon a couple years ago, I was shocked at the lens prices. But at this point, almost anything is acceptable for price, if it ups the "keeper rate". I don't think I'd expect the price to double, but it wouldn't shock me if they added $1,000 to the price tag on a 100-400 MkII...



> Do people therefore accept that the 100-400 in a MKII version will only get very slightly better IQ but will upgrade because it will have better IS and AF ?


Don't underestimate the value of better IS & AF! Skulking about the woods, looking for birds can be a challenge for both, particularly when you are wanting to keep the ISO low! An extra stop or two of IS might mean I don't have to go to ISO 1600 to get a shot. 

If I could send my 100-400 in to Canon and have them install the same quality AF & IS from the 70-300, I'd be a happy camper!

I think you're trying to find some magic feature of the 100-400 lens (aside from, well, 400!) that just isn't there. Comparing these two lenses is a lot like comparing a sports car (think Miata, not Porsche) to a hatchback. They can do a lot of the same things, but there are some things they do differently, or one can do that the other can not. You need to decide which features are the more important to you.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> @clostridium - not to be difficile  , but while the 100-400 is slightly better in terms of IQ than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, it's not better enough to be significant in real-world shooting. (Note this applies to the MkII version of the 70-200 only.) I have them both, and the difference isn't great enough to warrant taking both white zooms, IMO.



I second that.... having both and tested them. The difference is very minor. The 100-400 had more contrast, but the 70-200mk.ii has newer coatings allowing more shadow detail retrieval. After good PP'ing, it will be hard to choose one over the other.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 7, 2013)

It works and canon still makes it.


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 10, 2013)

I use them both, regularly... I like having both and can't see any reason for me not to own both... I would only consider selling the 100-400mm if I had a Canon 2x III converter or a 500mm or 600mm lens... So for now, I'll keep both and like it! ;D


----------

