# World Cup started - no sign of 100-400L Mk2



## Plainsman (Jun 14, 2014)

Never had much credence in the views held by some that this mythical lens might appear in Rio - but still early days etc. Miracles could happen.

Ultra secretive Canon treat their loyal expectant customers with contempt.

The least that the Canon hermit kingdom people could say is no replacement planned at all or replacement planned for 2015, 2016....2020 or whatever.


----------



## whothafunk (Jun 14, 2014)

how the HELL would YOU even NOTICE a freaking specific lens from 400 photographers stacked up around the field on a TV? do you have a special program on your TV where a camera swoops across every photographer there and showing their gear?

stop whining about I HAVENT SEEN a 7D2 or insert random lens here.

for f*** sake people.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2014)

I've seen a few 100-400 II prototypes in use. You have to look really hard, though. If you want to see one, check out the north side stands during the replay of the final overtime goal that Croatia scored to beat Brazil. I also noticed one being used at the corner of the field by Mexico's goalie during a couple of the goals scored by Cameroon.


----------



## LSV (Jun 14, 2014)

I used my just released 7D2 with the pre-production 100-400 II at the World Cup championship game in Russia as the US team bested Brazil 3-0. Then, I traveled back in time to post this.


----------



## SoullessPolack (Jun 14, 2014)

Even if there was a 2nd version of the 100-400, which there isn't, you wouldn't see it, because the lens is variable aperture and slow. 

-The same reason you never see a 400 5.6 there (which is what the 100-400 turns into at 400)
-The same reason you don't see that many 200-400 f4s there
-The same reason you see tons of 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8s there

Not to mention, there's still no way to tell through the television because they never show full screen shots of the photographers. On top of that, most updates look pretty much identical to their predecessors, so unless the lens takes on a whole different new look, you still won't notice.

How are all of you so gullible?


----------



## Viggo (Jun 14, 2014)

I've seen a white tele that I haven't seen before ever. And it was where you described it Neuro, so it is a new lens. It looks to be a little bigger than the current version.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2014)

Don't know, or care, about 100-400 MkII's, but there are not many Nikon's in there.


----------



## zim (Jun 14, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> how the HELL would YOU even NOTICE a freaking specific lens from 400 photographers stacked up around the field on a TV? do you have a special program on your TV where a camera swoops across every photographer there and showing their gear?
> 
> stop whining about I HAVENT SEEN a 7D2 or insert random lens here.
> 
> for f*** sake people.



;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Lmfho


----------



## sanj (Jun 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I've seen a few 100-400 II prototypes in use. You have to look really hard, though. If you want to see one, check out the north side stands during the replay of the final overtime goal that Croatia scored to beat Brazil. I also noticed one being used at the corner of the field by Mexico's goalie during a couple of the goals scored by Cameroon.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 14, 2014)

Best thing to do is record every game in HD and then go through all the bits with close shots of the photographers. You may be surprised by what you discover, and best of all you will have photographic proof! Shouldn't take too long..... 

Good luck. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2014)

sanj said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen a few 100-400 II prototypes in use. You have to look really hard, though. If you want to see one, check out the north side stands during the replay of the final overtime goal that Croatia scored to beat Brazil. I also noticed one being used at the corner of the field by Mexico's goalie during a couple of the goals scored by Cameroon.



_Somebody_ gets me.  Sorry, Alan...'deadpan' doesn't come across well on the Internet. From your reply (before you deleted it), I infer that you haven't been following the World Cup.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


WHAT!!!!!
Neuro, I'm disappointed! I thought that with your encyclopedic knowledge of all things photographic you could extrapolate those 20 pixels on the screen and pick out the differences between a mark 1 and a mark 2 product...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Shhhhh...did you hear that? Admittedly, it was kinda faint. But that little 'wooosh' was the sound of the punch line sailing over your head, Don.


----------



## the blackfox (Jun 14, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don't know, or care, about 100-400 MkII's, but there are not many Nikon's in there.



yep i can see it in there on a 7dmk2 as well ,fred golightly is using it ,know him anywhere 8) 8)


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


So that's what it was.... I thought it was those voices in my head saying "dynamic range... dynamic range... buy Nikon... buy Sony" so I turned up "Stompin Tom" to drown them out


----------



## Viggo (Jun 15, 2014)

Anyone know which lens this is? Is it just the 200-400? Think I see
The extender bulk there.


----------



## Click (Jun 15, 2014)

It looks like the 200-400mm F/4L 1.4


----------



## Viggo (Jun 15, 2014)

Click said:


> It looks like the 200-400mm F/4L 1.4


It looks like it, I just thought it was bigger from other pictures I've seen, now
I want one, lol.


----------



## Click (Jun 15, 2014)

I want one too


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 15, 2014)

The front element and hood don't appear as large as similar angle shots of the 200-400, the hood particularly looks smaller when compared to the camera body.

Trouble with thinking of a 100-400 MkII being a 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 with TC makes it an f6-f8 lens half the time. Not too sure that would make many happy, plus the additional cost of the built in TC would be prohibitive for the current 100-400 price point, even with a "Canon MkII surcharge".

It would give the much acclaimed and expensive Nikon 80-400 an interesting competitor though, and the 400 f5.6 is still there for people who want a "cheap" tele.


----------



## Click (Jun 15, 2014)

I agree with you, I don't think that the TC 1.4 is a good idea on this lens.


----------



## canonrumorstony (Jun 15, 2014)

You are both wrong. A new 100-400 with a built-in TC would be an excellent upgrade. The present 100-400 works well with a TC and a newer model with a built-in one would work even better. A built-in TC gives better results, is faster to implement, and does not require exposing inside the camera to as much dust.

Myself and many others would not mind paying the extra cost for such a feature.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 15, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> You are both wrong. A new 100-400 with a built-in TC would be an excellent upgrade. The present 100-400 works well with a TC and a newer model with a built-in one would work even better. A built-in TC gives better results, is faster to implement, and does not require exposing inside the camera to as much dust.
> 
> Myself and many others would not mind paying the extra cost for such a feature.



How could I be wrong when I offered pros and cons for both sides of the suggestion?

As for not minding paying the extra, what if it was $3,999?


----------



## eml58 (Jun 15, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> You are both wrong.



Cant wait to see your 12th Post ???


----------



## canonrumorstony (Jun 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> How could I be wrong when I offered pros and cons for both sides of the suggestion?
> 
> As for not minding paying the extra, what if it was $3,999?



I guess I missed the pros. What if the extra was $399?


----------



## canonrumorstony (Jun 15, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Cant wait to see your 12th Post ???



Oh, dear me, I guess you have posting seniority. 

If you are worried about my number of postings:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1300265/0#12403599

:


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 15, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> What if the extra was $399?



What if we could all come to your house and smoke what you are smoking? A regular 1.4 TC is $499, the benchmark the 200-400 set for a built in one is for a substantial premium over that, for instance the Nikon 200-400 f4 costs $6,599, the Canon version with built in TC costs $11,799.

So bearing in mind the current 100-400 costs $1,699, and all MkII's have added at least a $1,000 to MkI prices, now put in a TC and you could easily be looking at $3,500-$4,500. The Nikon 80-400 sells for $2,695 with no TC.

I strongly suspect the only thing people will have to moan about any MkII 100-400 will be the price, oh, and that is is still a push pull design, or that it isn't a push pull design anymore!


----------



## sanj (Jun 15, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> You are both wrong. A new 100-400 with a built-in TC would be an excellent upgrade. The present 100-400 works well with a TC and a newer model with a built-in one would work even better. A built-in TC gives better results, is faster to implement, and does not require exposing inside the camera to as much dust.
> 
> Myself and many others would not mind paying the extra cost for such a feature.



yes it would be an excellent upgrade but I really doubt if it will happen. 100-400 is supposed to be an 'affordable' (unlike 200-400) lens so Canon would try to keep the costs down.


----------



## Menace (Jun 15, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Ultra secretive Canon treat their loyal expectant customers with contempt.



Really?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> The present 100-400 works well with a TC...



If by 'works well' you mean it's physically compatible, then I agree. But if you mean 'delivers good optical performance,' then we obviously have different standards. 

It's almost certainly moot, anyway. Unless Canon puts f/8 AF into all of their subsequent dSLRs, they've not going to release a lens where the AF stops working when you flip in the TC.


----------



## canonrumorstony (Jun 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> canonrumorstony said:
> 
> 
> > What if the extra was $399?
> ...



You seem to make pretty inane assumptions without smoking anything. You are pretty good at exaggerating and comparing apples to oranges also. The 1.4x III is $449, and the 100-400 is $1500 right now at B&H. So there you are exaggerating by $250. You have no idea what the Canon 200-400 would have listed for without the built-in TC. Comparing to the Nikon is hardly relevant. More assumptions by you.


----------



## canonrumorstony (Jun 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> If by 'works well' you mean it's physically compatible, then I agree. But if you mean 'delivers good optical performance,' then we obviously have different standards.



Could be:

with 1.4x TC: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/90/979990.jpg

with 2x TC: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1276029/0?keyword=x#12158635


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If by 'works well' you mean it's physically compatible, then I agree. But if you mean 'delivers good optical performance,' then we obviously have different standards.
> ...



Yes, if web-sized images are your goal, it's ok. Not sure how much you've used the combo personally, but I don't find it better than cropping an image from the bare lens. I have tried it on several occasions, and never been happy with the results. Granted, comparing it to my 600/4 may be a factor there...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 15, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If by 'works well' you mean it's physically compatible, then I agree. But if you mean 'delivers good optical performance,' then we obviously have different standards.
> ...



I still think it's the AF at f/8 thing. Most people who purchase such a lens probably won't own a 5D3 or 1Dx. Personally I'd love to see an upgraded 100-400, but also the current version is still selling really well.


----------



## Steve (Jun 15, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> You are both wrong. A new 100-400 with a built-in TC would be an excellent upgrade. The present 100-400 works well with a TC and a newer model with a built-in one would work even better. A built-in TC gives better results, is faster to implement, and does not require exposing inside the camera to as much dust.
> 
> Myself and many others would not mind paying the extra cost for such a feature.



Haha yes, Canon will design and manufacture a lens that will not function on 90% of their bodies. They will do this because ~*reasons*~

This is why I keep coming back to this site: baseless, nonsensical, ludicrous speculation. Very entertaining!


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 15, 2014)

Steve said:


> canonrumorstony said:
> 
> 
> > You are both wrong. A new 100-400 with a built-in TC would be an excellent upgrade. The present 100-400 works well with a TC and a newer model with a built-in one would work even better. A built-in TC gives better results, is faster to implement, and does not require exposing inside the camera to as much dust.
> ...


90% ?
Just the rebels alone count for more than that.... more like 99+%


----------



## canonrumorstony (Jun 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, if web-sized images are your goal, it's ok. Not sure how much you've used the combo personally, but I don't find it better than cropping an image from the bare lens. I have tried it on several occasions, and never been happy with the results. Granted, comparing it to my 600/4 may be a factor there...



Then you obviously have something wrong with your TC/lens combo. It has been shown many times that the lens + TC will produce better results than cropping, even with your 600mm.


----------



## canonrumorstony (Jun 16, 2014)

Steve said:


> Haha yes, Canon will design and manufacture a lens that will not function on 90% of their bodies. They will do this because ~*reasons*~
> 
> This is why I keep coming back to this site: baseless, nonsensical, ludicrous speculation. Very entertaining!



Yeah, and you just happen to miss the point that such a lens would function on 100% of their bodies when the TC is not engaged. Just like the present 100-400 will work with 100% of their bodies when using a non-reporting TC.

You also happen to miss that the 5D3 would not AF with f8 lenses until Canon brought out newer firmware. Do you not think that Canon can't do that with other bodies?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, if web-sized images are your goal, it's ok. Not sure how much you've used the combo personally, but I don't find it better than cropping an image from the bare lens. I have tried it on several occasions, and never been happy with the results. Granted, comparing it to my 600/4 may be a factor there...
> ...



Nope, nothing 'wrong'. The 100-400L just doesn't take a TC well. My 600 II and 70-200 II do just fine with TCs, and the bare 100-400 is quite sharp. Those conclusions are based on both real-world shooting and ISO 12233-type chart testing. 

'Wrong' is thinking Canon will come out with a built-in TC in an update to a popular f/5.6 zoom. Sorry, that's incredibly unlikely. 



canonrumorstony said:


> Yeah, and you just happen to miss the point that such a lens would function on 100% of their bodies when the TC is not engaged. Just like the present 100-400 will work with 100% of their bodies when using a non-reporting TC.
> 
> You also happen to miss that the 5D3 would not AF with f8 lenses until Canon brought out newer firmware. Do you not think that Canon can't do that with other bodies?



Doesn't matter that it's f/5.6 without the TC - if the TC is built in, people will expect full functionality including AF. 

I'm sure Canon can implement f/8 AF on any body with the AF sensor in the 1D X and 5DIII. Oh, wait...they already have. The f/8 AF on my 1D X is reliable. I've tried taped pins and non-reporting TCs on non-f/8 bodies, and if I'd paid what Canon would charge for a 100-400+1.4x to get that level performance, I'd be downright pissed.


----------



## Steve (Jun 16, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> Yeah, and you just happen to miss the point that such a lens would function on 100% of their bodies when the TC is not engaged. Just like the present 100-400 will work with 100% of their bodies when using a non-reporting TC.



Right yes good point. The lens will not work with the TC engaged on almost every body Canon makes. Therefore, they should spend time and money developing it...because...



> You also happen to miss that the 5D3 would not AF with f8 lenses until Canon brought out newer firmware. Do you not think that Canon can't do that with other bodies?



Do you think that canon engineers are literally wizards that just need to invoke the correct incantations to allow the tiny daemons that live in the mirror box to focus at f/8? You do understand that AF systems are hardware, right? And that the limitations are physical? Neuroanatomist wrote a pretty good breakdown of how AF systems actually work which I'm sure he'd be happy to link you to.


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 16, 2014)

I browsed to this thread with the naïve notion that reading it might yield some informative updates on the rumored 100-400 II, which I am potentially interested in buying. Silly me ...

So much flaming, sarcasm and back-biting here that my eyeballs hurt! I did enjoy Neuro's humor in Reply #2, however ...


----------



## canonrumorstony (Jun 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nope, nothing 'wrong'. The 100-400L just doesn't take a TC well. My 600 II and 70-200 II do just fine with TCs, and the bare 100-400 is quite sharp. Those conclusions are based on both real-world shooting and ISO 12233-type chart testing.



What can I say? My real-world experience shows the 100-400 with 1.4 TC gives better results than cropping.



> 'Wrong' is thinking Canon will come out with a built-in TC in an update to a popular f/5.6 zoom. Sorry, that's incredibly unlikely.



And I never said it was likely.


----------



## canonrumorstony (Jun 16, 2014)

Steve said:


> Do you think that canon engineers are literally wizards that just need to invoke the correct incantations to allow the tiny daemons that live in the mirror box to focus at f/8? You do understand that AF systems are hardware, right? And that the limitations are physical? Neuroanatomist wrote a pretty good breakdown of how AF systems actually work which I'm sure he'd be happy to link you to.



And are you assuming that newer Canon bodies will not have newer hardware that will allow focusing at f8 that is on par with the 5D3?


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 16, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think that canon engineers are literally wizards that just need to invoke the correct incantations to allow the tiny daemons that live in the mirror box to focus at f/8? You do understand that AF systems are hardware, right? And that the limitations are physical? Neuroanatomist wrote a pretty good breakdown of how AF systems actually work which I'm sure he'd be happy to link you to.
> ...


One of the lessons time should be teaching us is that AF has been steadily improving over time. Note the DPAF of the 70D which we can expect in a 7D2.... and it is a very safe bet that the regular AF of the 7D2 will be more than the 7D's 19 points, both in number and capability, so f8 AF is a very real possibility.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> What can I say? My real-world experience shows the 100-400 with 1.4 TC gives better results than cropping.



Fair enough. Still...when I need >400mm, I'll stick with my 600 II.


----------



## Steve (Jun 16, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> And are you assuming that newer Canon bodies will not have newer hardware that will allow focusing at f8 that is on par with the 5D3?



No. But canon will never make a 5.6 lens with a built in tc because thats a really bad idea. They don't even make f/6.3 lenses why would you think they would ever make an f/8 lens?


----------



## KarstenReis (Jun 16, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think that canon engineers are literally wizards that just need to invoke the correct incantations to allow the tiny daemons that live in the mirror box to focus at f/8? You do understand that AF systems are hardware, right? And that the limitations are physical? Neuroanatomist wrote a pretty good breakdown of how AF systems actually work which I'm sure he'd be happy to link you to.
> ...



I need to find the article somewhere explaining why Canon limits most of their bodies to autofocusing with a max aperture of f/5.6. But if I can remember correctly, I think it comes down to the physics of the light gathering ability of the sensor. If we are talking about a 7D mkII (which will be APS-C) then it's very likely that the pixels are going to be physically smaller than on a full frame camera like the 5D mkIII or 1DX. While it would be cool to have a built in TC, I just don't think making one with a max aperture of f/8 is going to happen.


----------



## KarstenReis (Jun 16, 2014)

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2009/01/teleconverters-101

That's the article. It's from Roger at Lensrentals.com and links to anther post about the difference between f/5.6 and f/8 autofocus for cameras


----------



## eml58 (Jun 16, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Cant wait to see your 12th Post ???
> ...



Not at all, your arrogant statement regards the 2 previous posters views being "wrong" was the point of my own remark, how many Posts you've made wasn't the relevant point, but clearly my own Post didn't include enough small words to make myself clear.

And your subsequent comments on this thread tend to reinforce my original view.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 16, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > canonrumorstony said:
> ...


I like to argue with PDB as much as anybody 

But I'm afraid you hold the title for the highest number of inane posts in this thread and probably the forum at the moment.

To me PBD's analysis of likely price is spot on and how can you say that comparing the nikon is hardly relevent? Seriously WTF? its the most relevant comparison for this lens there is.

Seriously man you need to calm down a bit not come in here acting like a troll.


----------



## canonrumorstony (Jun 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> One of the lessons time should be teaching us is that AF has been steadily improving over time. Note the DPAF of the 70D which we can expect in a 7D2.... and it is a very safe bet that the regular AF of the 7D2 will be more than the 7D's 19 points, both in number and capability, so f8 AF is a very real possibility.



Glad someone else grasps that concept.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 16, 2014)

I would say we can drop this, because deep down, we all know the mark 2 lens is NOT going to have any TC. Sorry.


----------



## canonrumorstony (Jun 16, 2014)

Steve said:


> No. But canon will never make a 5.6 lens with a built in tc because thats a really bad idea. They don't even make f/6.3 lenses why would you think they would ever make an f/8 lens?



How about because it wouldn't be an f/8 lens. It would be an f/5.6 lens that would have the option of being an f/8 lens, without having to remove the lens to put on a TC. Perhaps you underestimate how many people are already using 1.4x TC's on the 100-400 & 400 f/5.6.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> I would say we can drop this, because deep down, we all know the mark 2 lens is NOT going to have any TC. Sorry.



+1 (except I'm not really sorry...it would be foolish to produce such a lens, and Canon isn't foolish)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2014)

Bit of trivia...Canon has produced an f/5.6 lens with a built-in TC, so the lens was f/8 with the TC engaged. That was the FD 1200/5.6+1.4x, and when Canon converted them to manual focus to the EF mount, they removed the TCs.


----------



## canonrumorstony (Jun 16, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Not at all, your arrogant statement regards the 2 previous posters views being "wrong" was the point of my own remark, how many Posts you've made wasn't the relevant point, but clearly my own Post didn't include enough small words to make myself clear.



You mean like your rude and arrogant statement of, "Can't wait to see your 12th post."?

It seemed pretty clear to me regardless of how small your words were.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bit of trivia...Canon has produced an f/5.6 lens with a built-in TC, so the lens was f/8 with the TC engaged. That was the FD 1200/5.6+1.4x, and when Canon converted them to manual focus to the EF mount, they removed the TCs.



Do you know what the price was and how long it was on the market? That had to be absolutely super expensive!


----------



## canonrumorstony (Jun 16, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> I would say we can drop this, because deep down, we all know the mark 2 lens is NOT going to have any TC. Sorry.



And do you have a quote where someone said it would?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 16, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Bit of trivia...Canon has produced an f/5.6 lens with a built-in TC, so the lens was f/8 with the TC engaged. That was the FD 1200/5.6+1.4x, and when Canon converted them to manual focus to the EF mount, they removed the TCs.
> ...



The FD 1200 with built in 1.4 TC were never sold, all the ones made, and best estimates put it at 20-30, were owned by Canon, and that is why they were all converted to the EF 1200's, which was sold, they ranged from $80,000 to well over $100,000 and they grew the flourite elements to order.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 16, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I would say we can drop this, because deep down, we all know the mark 2 lens is NOT going to have any TC. Sorry.
> ...



I'm sorry, do I need one? On the other hand, there's MY quote saying it won't.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Wow. When Neuro posted that I went and found Bryan Carnathan's review of it. Recognizable faces up to a mile? Cool stuff.


----------



## Halfrack (Jun 16, 2014)

Yea, the 1200mm is a lens that I would love to play with for about 30 minutes, but I don't think I'd want to pack one any distance. The photo of the FD version with the TC over a guys shoulder on a beach pops to mind but I can't find it currently. B&H had fun with the one they flipped for some serious cash - you have to wonder who would walk into a used department with one, and what they offered for it.

There isn't going to be a built-in TC in a consumer level L lens - the costs and expectations don't allow for it. Would I like to see a TC in a new 800mm - sure, but then you're talking about a lens that would command any price they wanted. Canon sells too many 100-400 lenses currently that to add in a TC would push the price up too high. Add in the whole lack of f8 AF on the crop bodies, and you see where selling a lens that doesn't work on their entire lineup just doesn't make sense. Plus it gives Tamron a great niche to sell their 150-600mm lens.


----------



## Menace (Jun 17, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



1200mm Canon 5.6 L Super Telephoto Lens in Action!

Here is a B & H video I remember watching a little whilw ago:

1200mm Canon 5.6 L Super Telephoto Lens


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 17, 2014)

I have posted this picture here before, though it isn't mine, from the LA Olympics back in 1984. The FD 1200 with 1.4's were first loaned out here and this picture is very unusual in that there are two of them.

Before the FD 1200 there was also the FL 1200, but that was an f11, so not quite as useful. There were several photos in National Geographic of the FL 1200 being used for mountaineering. It was a very interesting design too, the super teles at the time came in two parts, the focusing unit that was the same for all the lenses and the front focal length section, this meant you took the front "lens" off the focusing unit not the body and changed that out.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Before the FD 1200 there was also the FL 1200, but that was an f11...
> the super teles at the time came in two parts, the focusing unit that was the same for all the lenses and the front focal length section, this meant you took the front "lens" off the focusing unit not the body and changed that out.


Very interesting. I didn't know that at all. 
Maybe because it was back in 1972 (now I could look it after).

Thank you for sharing.


----------



## KitsVancouver (Jul 12, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Never had much credence in the views held by some that this mythical lens might appear in Rio - but still early days etc. Miracles could happen.
> 
> Ultra secretive Canon treat their loyal expectant customers with contempt.
> 
> The least that the Canon hermit kingdom people could say is no replacement planned at all or replacement planned for 2015, 2016....2020 or whatever.



Going back on topic a bit. I don't think a 100-400 is a lens that would be in hand with top photographers as it's really a budget L lens. I'm not a professional, but I would imagine that world-class photographers will use the best. The 100-400L is a compromise for size and cost.


----------

